What's new
USCHO Fan Forum

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

  • The USCHO Fan Forum has migrated to a new plaform, xenForo. Most of the function of the forum should work in familiar ways. Please note that you can switch between light and dark modes by clicking on the gear icon in the upper right of the main menu bar. We are hoping that this new platform will prove to be faster and more reliable. Please feel free to explore its features.

The Global War on Terror 5.0: Putin on the Risk

Status
Not open for further replies.
Re: The Global War on Terror 5.0: Putin on the Risk

The exchange.

We've done prisoner exchanges in the past, but those were for officially recognized POWs. They've been rare, involving high-level officers. This is the first I know of that involves 1) an NCO, and 2) a non-POW, let alone six (five and one).
 
Re: The Global War on Terror 5.0: Putin on the Risk

Oh, I thought you meant invading a country based on fake intelligence. I think we've been working out prisoner exchanges since the Revolution, but I could be wrong.
You're being willfully obtuse. I know that you see the difference between prisoner exchanges with the Soviet Union and negotiating with non-governmental terrorist organizations like the Taliban, but a Democrat did it so heaven forbid you should admit that in public - and while you're at it, why not take a shot at a Republican, too?
 
You're being willfully obtuse. I know that you see the difference between prisoner exchanges with the Soviet Union and negotiating with non-governmental terrorist organizations like the Taliban, but a Democrat did it so heaven forbid you should admit that in public - and while you're at it, why not take a shot at a Republican, too?
We fought the Soviet Union in the Revolution?? Do you work for the History channel?

Criticism of Obama is purely political. If a Tory president had done this, his party would be celebrating it and Democrats would be lamenting it - if they said anything at all.
 
We fought the Soviet Union in the Revolution?? Do you work for the History channel?
Your point seemed to be that prisoner exchanges "since the Revolution" have all been roughly the same, so nothing to see here with this one. I just picked a random country that we've had exchanges with during the time span you mentioned (1775 to present).

Do you, or do you not see why people might think this one is different than an exchange with the Soviet Union was?
 
Oh, I thought you meant invading a country based on fake intelligence. I think we've been working out prisoner exchanges since the Revolution, but I could be wrong.

Not only was I wholly against the 2nd invasion of Iraq, but your response is a dodge of the point.

Oh and Obama has sucked ballz and that's not political.
 
Your point seemed to be that prisoner exchanges "since the Revolution" have all been roughly the same, so nothing to see here with this one. I just picked a random country that we've had exchanges with during the time span you mentioned (1775 to present).

Do you, or do you not see why people might think this one is different than an exchange with the Soviet Union was?

No, I don't see why it would be different. We gave the Iranians a bunch of weapons for a few civilians and there wasn't a rash of kidnapping of Americans overseas as a result.
 
Re: The Global War on Terror 5.0: Putin on the Risk

May I point out that back in the day, kidnapping civilians for ransom was big business in Lebanon. Good business too, until they kidnapped a Soviet. Then business got bad.
 
No, I don't see why it would be different. We gave the Iranians a bunch of weapons for a few civilians and there wasn't a rash of kidnapping of Americans overseas as a result.
Since when are the Iranians a non-governmental terrorist organization?
 
I didn't know, but I just did some research online and see the maximum penalty for desertion since 9/11 is two years in prison with most defendants receiving less than 12 months. It seems unlikely this guy is going to be tried for desertion since most public opinion of him is that he was a POW.

So because public opinion is based upon a naive lie about this gentleman and despite the overt evidence that this guy is at minimum a deserter, this means he shouldn't be tried?

You do realize we tried and convicted a man not too long ago for desertion to North Korea after his release some 40 years later.

----

Your spin on this is cute. 5 top Taliban commanders, of which 2 are wanted for trial at The Hague for one guy for which all evidence suggests he deserted to join the afghan Boy Scouts after he realized he wasn't in the peace corps.

All of this done without even consulting congress in a secure manner as has been done almost always since World War II.

And all this is ok because at the heart we're all meanie head haterz who supposedly looked the other way if it were Bush.

"Tough decisions" are no excuse for bad decisions and you don't get credit for them. This wasn't threading a needle... This was foot shooting 101.
 
Re: The Global War on Terror 5.0: Putin on the Risk

You do realize the same people howling about him being a deserter now would seriously !@#$% if it were discovered we had a chance to bring him home and chose not too.

Step one get him home. Now if anyone in the military wants to put him on trial, feel free to do so.
 
You do realize the same people howling about him being a deserter now would seriously !@#$% if it were discovered we had a chance to bring him home and chose not too.

Step one get him home. Now if anyone in the military wants to put him on trial, feel free to do so.

5 Taliban commanders, i don't even think a POW has that value
 
So because public opinion is based upon a naive lie about this gentleman and despite the overt evidence that this guy is at minimum a deserter, this means he shouldn't be tried?

I didn't say he shouldn't be tried, I said it was unlikely that he would be tried. Popular opinion cloud an issue on prosecution? In America? No!

You do realize we tried and convicted a man not too long ago for desertion to North Korea after his release some 40 years later.
No. You know why I didn't know that? Because no one mentioned it. It wasn't a story.

Your spin on this is cute. 5 top Taliban commanders, of which 2 are wanted for trial at The Hague for one guy for which all evidence suggests he deserted to join the afghan Boy Scouts after he realized he wasn't in the peace corps.
Speaking of spin....

But Sarah Palin has declared the guy guilty in a Facebook post, so I guess that settles it!
 
Re: The Global War on Terror 5.0: Putin on the Risk

Obama's judgement seems to get more clouded by the day. I used to think he was a smart guy, but just not as smart as he thinks he is. I'm having to reconsider my opinion.
 
Re: The Global War on Terror 5.0: Putin on the Risk

Huh. It turns out that Congress was notified. Even John McCain approved. What a shock.

http://www.salon.com/2014/06/03/the...l_hypocrisy_the_ultimate_way_to_savage_obama/

And plenty of partisan demagoguery: in 2012 the late Michael Hastings reported that the White House was warned by Congressional Republicans that a possible deal for the five Taliban fighters would be political suicide in an election year – a “Willie Horton moment,” in the words of an official responsible for working with Congress on the deal. In the end, though, Hastings reported that even Sen. John McCain ultimately approved the deal; it fell apart when the Taliban balked.

Two years later, the right’s official talking points are mixed: Some critics focus on rumors (buttressed by Hastings’ own sympathetic reporting on Bergdahl) that he was a soldier disillusioned by the Afghan war who deserted his post. Wrong-way Bill Kristol has dismissed him as a deserter not worth rescuing, while Kristol’s most prominent contribution to politics, Sarah Palin, has been screeching on her Facebook wall about Bergdahl’s “horrid anti-American beliefs.”

But missing and captured soldiers have never had to undergo a character check before being rescued by their government. Should they now face trial by Bill Kristol before we decide whether to rescue them? Is Sarah Palin going to preside over a military death panel for captured soldiers suspected of inadequate dedication to the war effort?

Other Republicans accuse the president of breaking the long-standing rule against “negotiating with terrorists” to free hostages. They’re wrong on two counts: The U.S. has frequently negotiated with “terrorists,” to free hostages and for other reasons. President Carter negotiated with the Iranians who held Americans in the Tehran embassy in 1979, unsuccessfully. President Reagan famously traded arms to Iran for hostages. The entire surge in Iraq was predicated on negotiating with Sunni “terrorists” who had killed American soldiers to bring them into the government and stop sectarian violence.

Besides, this isn’t a terrorist-hostage situation, it’s a prisoner of war swap, and those are even more common: President Nixon freed some North Vietnamese prisoners at the same time former POW Sen. John McCain came home from Hanoi. Even hawkish Israeli president Benjamin Netanyahu traded more than 1,000 Palestinian prisoners for captured Israeli soldier Gilad Shalit last year.
 
Last edited:
Re: The Global War on Terror 5.0: Putin on the Risk

Susan Rice claims he served with "honor and distinction." Guess I better get a new "modern" dictionary to find out the new definition of those terms.
 
Re: The Global War on Terror 5.0: Putin on the Risk

I know that 0bama wants to close Guantanamo Bay prison, but encouraging more hostage-taking in order to trade out more of the prisoners there for them is definitely not the way to go about it. :(

That anyone is defending him over this mistake is just sad. You can still defend the man and his domestic policies while also acknowledging that in this instance to release five who have been described "the worst of the worst" in exchange for a known deserter is just wrong.
 
Re: The Global War on Terror 5.0: Putin on the Risk

Huh. It turns out that Congress was notified. Even John McCain approved. What a shock.

http://www.salon.com/2014/06/03/the...l_hypocrisy_the_ultimate_way_to_savage_obama/
Except a swap wasn't done. Using the logic cited, I would guess that talking to Congress in June 2014 about invading Syria makes it ok to do it in August 2016 under the War Powers Act?

And if Sgt. Bergdahl went willingly, how can it be a hostage for prisoner swap?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top