Political ThreadsThis section is for Political Threads - Enter at your own risk. If you say you don't want to see what someone posts - don't read it :hihi:
--"I am ashamed to be an american."
-- "The US army is the biggest joke ... It is the army of liars, backstabbers, fools and bullies."
-- "These people need help, yet what they get is the most conceited country in the world telling them that they are nothing and that they are stupid."
-- "The horror that is america is disgusting."
-quoted from emails sent by Bowe Bergdahl to his parents, three days before he walked away from his unit in search of the Taliban.
The true horror in this? This country that Bergdahl decribed as "ashamed" of, that he called a "joke", "conceited", and a "horror"...that terrible country sacrificed several young men in the search for Bergdahl. When his brother in arms voluntarily put themselves in harm's way trying to find him, was that conceited, horrible, a joke? Was it "disgusting"?
I hope we get to the facts here. I can certainly sympathize with a troubled person, inflicted with any of the typical human frailties, many of which are exacerbated in combat. But part of me is disgusted at the price we paid to get him back, especially the young American lives sacrificed to help what could be a disgrace of an American.
I wonder if Obama has learned any of this on the news yet.
The true horror in this? This country that Bergdahl decribed as "ashamed" of, that he called a "joke", "conceited", and a "horror"...that terrible country sacrificed several young men in the search for Bergdahl. When his brother in arms voluntarily put themselves in harm's way trying to find him, was that conceited, horrible, a joke? Was it "disgusting"?
I hope we get to the facts here. I can certainly sympathize with a troubled person, inflicted with any of the typical human frailties, many of which are exacerbated in combat. But part of me is disgusted at the price we paid to get him back, especially the young American lives sacrificed to help what could be a disgrace of an American.
He certainly wouldn't be the first person to be challenged with the reality of war. How many commit suicide or worse, lash out against others? I'd be curious to see what the internal investigation said about his direct leadership.
I'll let the Army make the call on this one.
To enlist to serve our country and then later walk unarmed into enemy territory isn't behavior you'd associate with a stable person. What I still can't calculate is how an active duty soldier help captive for 5 years could be so pilloried before the full story is even known. Wait, I can calculate it...
He certainly wouldn't be the first person to be challenged with the reality of war.
All of his comrades in arms were challenged by that reality. They did not desert their oath or duty.
How many commit suicide or worse, lash out against others?
So few compared to those that don't as to become an insignificant number. Yet their individual actions, which are so few, can have greater consequence than most of the individual actions of those who do their duty. The renegades can disrupt the cohesion of their units and of the entire mission. Even more so if they turn over to the enemy.
I'd be curious to see what the internal investigation said about his direct leadership.
What leadership? Wasn't he a private when he abandoned his post. Wasn't he promoted while in "captivity"? Perhaps he displayed "direct leadership" while with the Taliban.
I'll let the Army make the call on this one.
The Army isn't waiting for your permission. It might, however, be influenced by the desires of the Commander in chief. That's why, at this politically loaded point, the "call" may be highly suspect.
To enlist to serve our country and then later walk unarmed into enemy territory isn't behavior you'd associate with a stable person. What I still can't calculate is how an active duty soldier help captive for 5 years could be so pilloried before the full story is even known. Wait, I can calculate it...
-spence
You imply that all such action would be associated with an unstable person. Are most traitors unstable? Or do they rationally choose to change sides. If you don't discount what he has said about this country, the military, Afghanistan and its people, it rings more of a rational decision to do what he did than an unstable one.
Your dot . . . dot . . . dot implication seems to leave what you call pillorying out of the "full story". He was "pilloried" by his fellow soldiers, then and now, more than by anybody else.
The Devil's Advocate persisting beyond reason becomes . . . how do you put it . . . vapid.
The Devil's Advocate persisting beyond reason becomes . . . how do you put it . . . vapid.
"Devil's Advocate"....that's just perfect isn't it?...
'it's not the bad guys(terrorists, deserters, lawless president), in fact they aren't even really that bad(hardcore), it's those horrible people who "appear" to have it in for the bad guys, they are the ones that are really "disturbing" '....
now he states that he was beaten and tortured....what did he expect to be welcomed with open arms even though he was not carrying any weapons....I believe that he was...history shows that in every war american prisoners were beaten, tortured and some were shot.... he is a lucky boy.
now he states that he was beaten and tortured....what did he expect to be welcomed with open arms even though he was not carrying any weapons....I believe that he was...history shows that in every war american prisoners were beaten, tortured and some were shot.... he is a lucky boy.
According to FOX he was a turncoat who swore an oath to Allah to destroy America. His father, a suspected Muslim (i.e. the beard) is likely running a sleeper cell...
To be fair and balanced I can't say it's all of FOX. Shep!
According to FOX he was a turncoat who swore an oath to Allah to destroy America. His father, a suspected Muslim (i.e. the beard) is likely running a sleeper cell...
To be fair and balanced I can't say it's all of FOX. Shep!
-spence
Is that where U get most of your information?...LOL
You imply that all such action would be associated with an unstable person. Are most traitors unstable? Or do they rationally choose to change sides. If you don't discount what he has said about this country, the military, Afghanistan and its people, it rings more of a rational decision to do what he did than an unstable one.
Or it simply bolsters the position that he had lost it.
Quote:
Your dot . . . dot . . . dot implication seems to leave what you call pillorying out of the "full story". He was "pilloried" by his fellow soldiers, then and now, more than by anybody else.
I'm sure his peers felt betrayed. I don't fault them for that.
Quote:
The Devil's Advocate persisting beyond reason becomes . . . how do you put it . . . vapid.
I still haven't reconciled the justification for the outright venom directed at an active duty service member on limited information. Is that reasonable?
Or it simply bolsters the position that he had lost it.
How so? I don't see any bolstering of such a position by his actions or words. Please clarify.
I'm sure his peers felt betrayed. I don't fault them for that.
What was the "limited information" which caused those peers to "feel" betrayed?
I still haven't reconciled the justification for the outright venom directed at an active duty service member on limited information. Is that reasonable?
-spence
So, on the one hand you don't fault his peers for "outright venom", but if someone else responds as they do, then the "outright venom" is not justified. And, what was the "limited information" which informed Susan Rice to say that Bergdahl served with "distinction"? How have you "reconciled the justification" for all that?
Can the truth be considered "outright venom"? And if the truth is relative to "context" and "perception," then who are you to pronounce someone else's perception "outright venom"?
How so? I don't see any bolstering of such a position by his actions or words. Please clarify.
It could be interpreted as a sign of his mental state.
Quote:
What was the "limited information" which caused those peers to "feel" betrayed? So, on the one hand you don't fault his peers for "outright venom", but if someone else responds as they do, then the "outright venom" is not justified. And, what was the "limited information" which informed Susan Rice to say that Bergdahl served with "distinction"? How have you "reconciled the justification" for all that?
I never said his peers were showing outright venom, that was a broader remark.
As for Rice's words. I think she was just trying to state that signing up to serve your country is certainly an honorable thing that deserves merit. She could have followed with...and then something went wrong, but we're not really sure what happened. Perhaps this was implied.
Quote:
Can the truth be considered "outright venom"? And if the truth is relative to "context" and "perception," then who are you to pronounce someone else's perception "outright venom"?
And is "outright" an absolute?
Truth can certainly be venomous depending on how it's used. A bit of truth is often used to mask a bigger lie.
As for Rice's words. I think she was just trying to state that signing up to serve your country is certainly an honorable thing that deserves merit.
-spence
If she was trying to state that, she would have stated that, correct? I mean, I presume she's not a moron, right?
No limits to how far you'll bend over backwards when these people say stupid things, God forbid you just admit the truth. She said he "served" with honor and distinction. Simple words, with only one possible meaning. You "serve" after you enlist.
This is yet another fiasco resulting with egg on his clueless face. Raise the concept of "inept" to an art form...the whole administration, it's actually staggering.
It could be interpreted as a sign of his mental state.
His words clearly express his mental state. If they were incoherent, that might be "a sign" which might be interpreted as a confused mental state. But that would have to be "bolstered," as you put it, by a pattern of incoherence. As well as a pattern of strange behaviors. His statements were coherent, and his actions coincided with his words. Where is the "sign" of an irrational or mentally disturbed state?
I never said his peers were showing outright venom, that was a broader remark.
Yes, the "broader context" of "outright venom" supposedly spewed by others, were mostly reiterations of remarks by his peers. So the "broader context" of "outright venom" was quite homogenous amongst his peers and non-peers. I would assume, then, that his peers were showing "outright venom."
As for Rice's words. I think she was just trying to state that signing up to serve your country is certainly an honorable thing that deserves merit. She could have followed with...and then something went wrong, but we're not really sure what happened. Perhaps this was implied.
Refer to what Jim in CT said.
Truth can certainly be venomous depending on how it's used.
Venomous, in the context of human discourse, means "malicious, malignant, spiteful, etc. Are you saying that those who believe they are telling the truth about Bergdahl, including his peers, are being malicious, malignant, spiteful? Could you please explain how that works?
A bit of truth is often used to mask a bigger lie.
....
Hybrid Mode
