Was He or Not

[spence]

Originally Posted by buckman

If he is found guilty of desertion and he should be held accountable for the lives of the men that were lost looking for him. There are children growing up without fathers and wives growing up without husbands because of his actions. There was no need to parade the parents out in the Rosegarden other than for Obamas grandstanding.

Today he's an active member of the US Army. To not recognize his return because he "could" have been a deserter would be finding him guilty before a trial. We don't do that. Every single military official I've seen has said get him home then we'll sort it out.

The five that were released will guarantee loss of future lives of women and children in Afghanistan.

1) You have no way of knowing this. 2) Considering the 10+ years of war in the area do you really think that 5 people, even if they were mid to high level Taliban, are going to make any difference?

-spence

[buckman]

Originally Posted by spence

Today he's an active member of the US Army. To not recognize his return because he "could" have been a deserter would be finding him guilty before a trial. We don't do that. Every single military official I've seen has said get him home then we'll sort it out.


1) You have no way of knowing this. 2) Considering the 10+ years of war in the area do you really think that 5 people, even if they were mid to high level Taliban, are going to make any difference?



-spence

" Recognize "??? I'm surprised the President didn't dress up as Rambo and claim he went in there and single-handedly save this poor dying soldiers life who was only trying to help the children ( pure speculation on your part )

You are one naïve person if you think these guys are not going to go back to the Taliban .
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[spence]

Originally Posted by buckman

" Recognize "??? I'm surprised the President didn't dress up as Rambo and claim he went in there and single-handedly save this poor dying soldiers life who was only trying to help the children ( pure speculation on your part )

Considering your view of the POTUS i'm not surprised at your surprise.

You are one naïve person if you think these guys are not going to go back to the Taliban .
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Eventually I'm sure they will, that's not the point. The issue is should we detain them if it's likely they're not a significant threat to the USA. It brings up the larger question of what the Taliban is, was and what could be.

-spence

[buckman]

[QUOTE=spence;

Eventually I'm sure they will, that's not the point. The issue is should we detain them if it's likely they're not a significant threat to the USA. It brings up the larger question of what the Taliban is, was and what could be.

-spence[/QUOTE]

I'm going to have to ask you to quote the source that says that these guys are not a threat to the United States.
The Taliban are bad guys Spence hate to break the news to ya . I'm sure they're right behind the Republicans on the "war on women"
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[spence]

Originally Posted by buckman

I'm going to have to ask you to quote the source that says that these guys are not a threat to the United States.
The Taliban are bad guys Spence hate to break the news to ya . I'm sure they're right behind the Republicans on the "war on women"
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Not a threat is an absolute, nobody here including Obama is dealing in absolutes.

-spence

[buckman]

Originally Posted by spence

Not a threat is an absolute, nobody here including Obama is dealing in absolutes.

-spence

Well could you give us an educated guess as to whether you think they will become a threat to the United States in the future?
I'm sorry I just read back in your posts where you said it is not likely they will become a significant threat to the United States
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Fishpart]

Trial by Court Martial. If found guilty of conspiring with the enemy and desertion I would say Firing Squad, especially since others died trying to "rescue" him.

On the matter of releasing now 6 terrorists. IMPEACHMENT

[spence]

Originally Posted by buckman

Well could you give us an educated guess as to whether you think they will become a threat to the United States in the future?
I'm sorry I just read back in your posts where you said it is not likely they will become a significant threat to the United States
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Become a significant threat to the US? No, I don't think the odds of that are very high. Yes, they were Taliban leaders, but their followers are long since dead or onto other things.

I think once we're out of Afghanistan the government will likely cut a deal with the Taliban anyway.

-spence

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by spence

To not recognize his return because he "could" have been a deserter would be finding him guilty before a trial. We don't do that.

True, we don't do that. Or at least we should't.

But it's equally speculative of you to assume that these guys aren't a threat, or to assume that the soldier wandered off to feed hungry kids.

[spence]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

True, we don't do that. Or at least we should't.

But it's equally speculative of you to assume that these guys aren't a threat, or to assume that the soldier wandered off to feed hungry kids.

The evidence available certainly indicates he became disillusioned by the wars impact on the Afghan civilians and particularly the children.

-spence

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by spence

The evidence available certainly indicates he became disillusioned by the wars impact on the Afghan civilians and particularly the children.

-spence

And to a person not blinded by love of the sitting president, there is equally strong evidence that by virtue of being a "Taliban leader", these guys represent a serious threat.

I'm sure all the Afghan children, especially the little girls, will face better future prospects under the Taliban.

[spence]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

And to a person not blinded by love of the sitting president, there is equally strong evidence that by virtue of being a "Taliban leader", these guys represent a serious threat.

I'll bet they all have book deals by the end of the month

-spence

[RIROCKHOUND]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

And to a person not blinded by love of the sitting president, there is equally strong evidence that by virtue of being a "Taliban leader", these guys represent a serious threat.

I'm sure all the Afghan children, especially the little girls, will face better future prospects under the Taliban.

So how would you have handled it differently? left him over there? Doesn't seem your MO, whatever his status was....

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by RIROCKHOUND

So how would you have handled it differently? left him over there? Doesn't seem your MO, whatever his status was....

A fair question.

The answer is, you try as hard as you can to get him back on your own, but you don't negotiate with terrorists to do it, even if it means you lose the ability to get him back. And that applies whether he is a suspected deserter, or if he's Audie Murphy. Because if all the terrorists around the world see that we now are willing to trade 5 for 1, who (except Spence) would deny that incentivizes more terrorists to do the same thing?

If we have to kill a lot of people to get him back, fine. But you don't negotiate with these people, or reward them, for their behavior. That encourages more similar behavior, and that's exactly why we came up with the phrase "we don't negotiate with terrorists".

It's not the same as a prisoner exchange, because subsequengt to a prisoner exchange, after th ewar is over, the released prisoners pose to further threat. A child knows that's not the case with the Taliban or Al Queda.

Rockhound, when you tell your children "no" and they throw a fit, do you cave in and give them what they want? No. Why? Because even a kid can connect those dots and realise he can now get what he wants by doing the same thing.

It's not that complicated. It's horrible for the people who would be lost by not negotiating with those people, but there's no other way.

Your question assumes (incorrectly) that the only 2 choices were to cave in, or accept that we can't ever get him back. There is a 3rd alternative, and that's what I'd choose, and that's you use your brains and your brawn to get him back on our own terms.

When that ship captain got kidnapped by pirates off Somalia, why didn't we give the pirates a dump truck full of money like they wanted? Had we done that, the probably would have let him go, right? But we didn't, we let the SEALs take him back by force, even though th ecaptain easily could have been hurt during the exchange of gunfire. And the reason is exactly the same, because that would encourage more piracy. That was one of the very few that this Bolshevik Klown got right.

[RIROCKHOUND]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

A fair question.


Rockhound, when you tell your children "no" and they throw a fit, do you cave in and give them what they want? No. Why? Because even a kid can connect those dots and realise he can now get what he wants by doing the same thing.

1. Sometimes, my kids win, yes.

2. If these guys were scheduled to be released; I've read mixed stuff on that, and they spend the next year in Quater, they don't seem to pose an immediate threat. My hunch is if they show up in intelligence at all, a drone will be over their shoulder pretty damn fast...

[spence]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

If we have to kill a lot of people to get him back, fine. But you don't negotiate with these people, or reward them, for their behavior. That encourages more similar behavior, and that's exactly why we came up with the phrase "we don't negotiate with terrorists".

It's good you recognize that it's only a phrase. Terrorists are negotiated with all the time. Hell, Israel once release over a thousand Palestinians (we'll assume they were all terrorists right?) for a single low-level military captive...and they're supposed to be tough right?

Your question assumes (incorrectly) that the only 2 choices were to cave in, or accept that we can't ever get him back. There is a 3rd alternative, and that's what I'd choose, and that's you use your brains and your brawn to get him back on our own terms.

I don't think they could determine exactly where he was. Looks like he was being moved around western Pakistan. That's not an easy rescue.

When that ship captain got kidnapped by pirates off Somalia, why didn't we give the pirates a dump truck full of money like they wanted? Had we done that, the probably would have let him go, right? But we didn't, we let the SEALs take him back by force, even though th ecaptain easily could have been hurt during the exchange of gunfire. And the reason is exactly the same, because that would encourage more piracy. That was one of the very few that this Bolshevik Klown got right.

Totally different situation. With the Somali pirates we knew exactly where the captive was. The order to shoot was given as they thought the Captain was about to be killed.

-spence