How many times have you insinuated that I am critical of Obama because of his race, or that I support some person because they are white?
I don't think I am being too sensitive to your assertions, they are unrelenting and appear in almost every single discussion that you and I engage in.
It is not even that my feelings are hurt, or that I take offense as much as it is just a way to end debate, stop discussion and completely hijack the thread. I get more anoyed than anything else, and I think you know that, and I think that is why you persist.
Maybe others could weigh in. If I am being too sensitive then I will stop.
O'Reilly? You mean like my post #37 and your post #40?
My post was simply designed to elicit a reponse from the poster I responded to as to whether one would be critical of Obama yet not so of Reagan.
You chimed in for your fellow right wing extremists. Bully for you.
If you can't take insinuations, than don't make them. I don't call you names nor call you racist. You can't engage the same way so you revert to namecalling.
How many times have you insinuated that I am critical of Obama because of his race, or that I support some person because they are white?
I don't think I am being too sensitive to your assertions, they are unrelenting and appear in almost every single discussion that you and I engage in.
It is not even that my feelings are hurt, or that I take offense as much as it is just a way to end debate, stop discussion and completely hijack the thread. I get more anoyed than anything else, and I think you know that, and I think that is why you persist.
Maybe others could weigh in. If I am being too sensitive then I will stop.
O'Reilly? You mean like my post #37 and your post #40?
My post was simply designed to elicit a reponse from the poster I responded to as to whether one would be critical of Obama yet not so of Reagan.
You chimed in for your fellow right wing extremists. Bully for you.
If you can't take insinuations, than don't make them. I don't call you names nor call you racist. You can't engage the same way so you revert to namecalling.
Nope. Just used to real life discussions with intelligent people.
I was referencing a different poster to start. You interjected for one of your fellow right wing extremists because you are too fearful of disagreeing with them.
After you did, I responded. And I was right (as usual). You ignored Reagan's similar actions. And you were wrong (as usual) when you somehow equated my comments as having anything to do with Obama.
Nope. Just used to real life discussions with intelligent people.
I was referencing a different poster to start. You interjected for one of your fellow right wing extremists because you are too fearful of disagreeing with them.
After you did, I responded. And I was right (as usual). You ignored Reagan's similar actions. And you were wrong (as usual) when you somehow equated my comments as having anything to do with Obama.
Nope. Just used to real life discussions with intelligent people.
I was referencing a different poster to start. You interjected for one of your fellow right wing extremists because you are too fearful of disagreeing with them.
After you did, I responded. And I was right (as usual). You ignored Reagan's similar actions. And you were wrong (as usual) when you somehow equated my comments as having anything to do with Obama.
Have a nice day.
Perhaps being 4 years old had something to do with why I "Ignored" Reagan's actions.
Nope. Just used to real life discussions with intelligent people.
I was referencing a different poster to start. You interjected for one of your fellow right wing extremists because you are too fearful of disagreeing with them.
After you did, I responded. And I was right (as usual). You ignored Reagan's similar actions. And you were wrong (as usual) when you somehow equated my comments as having anything to do with Obama.
Have a nice day.
Perhaps being 4 years old had something to do with why I "Ignored" Reagan's actions.
Perhaps being 4 years old had something to do with why I "Ignored" Reagan's actions.
That's interesting because in another thread you are defending Goldwater (and it quite good and historical detail I might add) and you have never been afraid to criticize Lincoln (Abraham).
So I didn't realize that your age was a factor in your assessments of political figures.
Perhaps being 4 years old had something to do with why I "Ignored" Reagan's actions.
That's interesting because in another thread you are defending Goldwater (and it quite good and historical detail I might add) and you have never been afraid to criticize Lincoln (Abraham).
So I didn't realize that your age was a factor in your assessments of political figures.
Rick, you are not being too sensitive. I think djbrow is just getting work experience for his dream job as the new WH press secretary. If he can look you straight in the face and say he never called you a racist then he is well qualified to work for this WH. It's like them saying we never negotiated with terrorists.
Rick, you are not being too sensitive. I think djbrow is just getting work experience for his dream job as the new WH press secretary. If he can look you straight in the face and say he never called you a racist then he is well qualified to work for this WH. It's like them saying we never negotiated with terrorists.
That's interesting because in another thread you are defending Goldwater (and it quite good and historical detail I might add) and you have never been afraid to criticize Lincoln (Abraham).
So I didn't realize that your age was a factor in your assessments of political figures.
Maybe I am embarrassed because I have no idea what Reagen did that was even remotely on par with the fukkery that took place with Bergdahl.
That's interesting because in another thread you are defending Goldwater (and it quite good and historical detail I might add) and you have never been afraid to criticize Lincoln (Abraham).
So I didn't realize that your age was a factor in your assessments of political figures.
Maybe I am embarrassed because I have no idea what Reagen did that was even remotely on par with the fukkery that took place with Bergdahl.
Well I guess if we are comparing two completely different situations, and two completely different set of circumstances that aren't even remotely related...........Pfffffft
Well I guess if we are comparing two completely different situations, and two completely different set of circumstances that aren't even remotely related...........Pfffffft
Let's be real here, DJ.....is this one action...should we say "fleecing" of our POTUS by Taliban.....the VERY WORST of all his administration's "moves"
Giving up 5 of the most vicious terrorists on this Earth through QATAR (who currently is the MOST CORRUPT country in the world..ie All the bribes to secure 22' World Cup no less) for a deserter who cost at least 6 lives and probably many more because once he was captured he "possibly" provided intel of where and when patrols were, and thinking that would be "praised" and loved by Americans for this move
This one action alone, I feel, is rock bottom.....but what's worse, way worse, is when someone makes this bad of a decision, usually even worse decisions follow.....kinda like us degenerates trying to win our $$ back....
Let's be real here, DJ.....is this one action...should we say "fleecing" of our POTUS by Taliban.....the VERY WORST of all his administration's "moves"
Giving up 5 of the most vicious terrorists on this Earth through QATAR (who currently is the MOST CORRUPT country in the world..ie All the bribes to secure 22' World Cup no less) for a deserter who cost at least 6 lives and probably many more because once he was captured he "possibly" provided intel of where and when patrols were, and thinking that would be "praised" and loved by Americans for this move
This one action alone, I feel, is rock bottom.....but what's worse, way worse, is when someone makes this bad of a decision, usually even worse decisions follow.....kinda like us degenerates trying to win our $$ back....
How many times have you insinuated that I am critical of Obama because of his race, or that I support some person because they are white?
I don't think I am being too sensitive to your assertions, they are unrelenting and appear in almost every single discussion that you and I engage in.
It is not even that my feelings are hurt, or that I take offense as much as it is just a way to end debate, stop discussion and completely hijack the thread. I get more anoyed than anything else, and I think you know that, and I think that is why you persist.
Maybe others could weigh in. If I am being too sensitive then I will stop.
Rick----I'll weigh in, since I started the thread.
I do not think you're being too sensitive. I have said before that I don't think people who claim to be " moderators " should take sides and provoke members of Covers who don't subscribe to the " moderators " political views. Unfortunately, this happens all the time here. This thread is not about Ronald Reagan or what happened decades ago. If someone wants to talk about that episode, I'll be the first to say Reagan was terribly wrong in trading arms for hostages. However, that is not the point. And, those who refuse to hold current officials accountable because some president made a mistake a generation ago do a terrible disservice to the American people, who have a right to expect more from our elected officials TODAY. Excusing poorly performing politicians on the basis of such pretense suggests to me that there is no desire to engage in productive give and take.
How many times have you insinuated that I am critical of Obama because of his race, or that I support some person because they are white?
I don't think I am being too sensitive to your assertions, they are unrelenting and appear in almost every single discussion that you and I engage in.
It is not even that my feelings are hurt, or that I take offense as much as it is just a way to end debate, stop discussion and completely hijack the thread. I get more anoyed than anything else, and I think you know that, and I think that is why you persist.
Maybe others could weigh in. If I am being too sensitive then I will stop.
Rick----I'll weigh in, since I started the thread.
I do not think you're being too sensitive. I have said before that I don't think people who claim to be " moderators " should take sides and provoke members of Covers who don't subscribe to the " moderators " political views. Unfortunately, this happens all the time here. This thread is not about Ronald Reagan or what happened decades ago. If someone wants to talk about that episode, I'll be the first to say Reagan was terribly wrong in trading arms for hostages. However, that is not the point. And, those who refuse to hold current officials accountable because some president made a mistake a generation ago do a terrible disservice to the American people, who have a right to expect more from our elected officials TODAY. Excusing poorly performing politicians on the basis of such pretense suggests to me that there is no desire to engage in productive give and take.
Rick----I'll weigh in, since I started the thread.
I do not think you're being too sensitive. I have said before that I don't think people who claim to be " moderators " should take sides and provoke members of Covers who don't subscribe to the " moderators " political views. Unfortunately, this happens all the time here. This thread is not about Ronald Reagan or what happened decades ago. If someone wants to talk about that episode, I'll be the first to say Reagan was terribly wrong in trading arms for hostages. However, that is not the point. And, those who refuse to hold current officials accountable because some president made a mistake a generation ago do a terrible disservice to the American people, who have a right to expect more from our elected officials TODAY. Excusing poorly performing politicians on the basis of such pretense suggests to me that there is no desire to engage in productive give and take.
i think that's a good post but i disagree that we made a mistake here. here are the points i would make on this
1. If we believe in the Constitutional protection that we are innocent until proven guilty, isn't this guy innocent right now?
2. Should we have a policy of trying to bring back hostage soldiers from captivity?
3. Even if we assume he is guilty of walking away from his unit, should the be letting this young kid rot in a some Taliban hellhole forever?
4. If you think 5 Taliban is too high a price, what do you base that on? How many nasty Taliban are out there right now? How many new Taliban are created by virtue of all the other garbage we do on a regular basis around the world? By how much did the nasty Taliban population increase with these 5? What effect can you accurately say these 5 will have? How do you explain 5 Taliban is too big a price to pay to this kid's parents and also to curent soliders who might get captured?
i'm not the expert on this but if you are telling me we made a mistake here, i'd like to hear answers to those questions.
Rick----I'll weigh in, since I started the thread.
I do not think you're being too sensitive. I have said before that I don't think people who claim to be " moderators " should take sides and provoke members of Covers who don't subscribe to the " moderators " political views. Unfortunately, this happens all the time here. This thread is not about Ronald Reagan or what happened decades ago. If someone wants to talk about that episode, I'll be the first to say Reagan was terribly wrong in trading arms for hostages. However, that is not the point. And, those who refuse to hold current officials accountable because some president made a mistake a generation ago do a terrible disservice to the American people, who have a right to expect more from our elected officials TODAY. Excusing poorly performing politicians on the basis of such pretense suggests to me that there is no desire to engage in productive give and take.
i think that's a good post but i disagree that we made a mistake here. here are the points i would make on this
1. If we believe in the Constitutional protection that we are innocent until proven guilty, isn't this guy innocent right now?
2. Should we have a policy of trying to bring back hostage soldiers from captivity?
3. Even if we assume he is guilty of walking away from his unit, should the be letting this young kid rot in a some Taliban hellhole forever?
4. If you think 5 Taliban is too high a price, what do you base that on? How many nasty Taliban are out there right now? How many new Taliban are created by virtue of all the other garbage we do on a regular basis around the world? By how much did the nasty Taliban population increase with these 5? What effect can you accurately say these 5 will have? How do you explain 5 Taliban is too big a price to pay to this kid's parents and also to curent soliders who might get captured?
i'm not the expert on this but if you are telling me we made a mistake here, i'd like to hear answers to those questions.
3. Even if we assume he is guilty of walking away from his unit, should the
punishment be letting this young kid rot in a some Taliban hellhole forever?
3. Even if we assume he is guilty of walking away from his unit, should the
punishment be letting this young kid rot in a some Taliban hellhole forever?
i think that's a good post but i disagree that we made a mistake here. here are the points i would make on this
1. If we believe in the Constitutional protection that we are innocent until proven guilty, isn't this guy innocent right now?
2. Should we have a policy of trying to bring back hostage soldiers from captivity?
3. Even if we assume he is guilty of walking away from his unit, should the be letting this young kid rot in a some Taliban hellhole forever?
4. If you think 5 Taliban is too high a price, what do you base that on? How many nasty Taliban are out there right now? How many new Taliban are created by virtue of all the other garbage we do on a regular basis around the world? By how much did the nasty Taliban population increase with these 5? What effect can you accurately say these 5 will have? How do you explain 5 Taliban is too big a price to pay to this kid's parents and also to curent soliders who might get captured?
i'm not the expert on this but if you are telling me we made a mistake here, i'd like to hear answers to those questions.
Club---I don't pretend to be an expert either, but I appreciate the opportunity to respond to your points.
1. He is innocent until proven guilty. I'm not for a minute suggesting he has lost any constitutional protections. However, that does not mean that Bergdahl necessarily enjoys anything more than that. The Boston Marathon bomber is innocent until proven guilty. It does not follow from that that either of them should be treated better than the circumstances as we know them requires.
2. Yes, we should have a policy of trying to rescue our soldiers. But there is a legitimate issue when someone deserts. I do not believe that people who desert or go over to the other side are our "soldiers" in the same way that we should be protecting people risking their lives for our side.
3. I'm tempted to say " Yes, let him rot in prison if he deserted " , but I don't think that is right. At the same time, I would let him stay in Taliban custody before I would abandon a policy that we have
found important since the war on terror began---we don't negotiate with terrorists. Even if we conveniently find a way around this policy when circumstances dictate, I would most definitely not do it for a deserter.
4. I'm not sure there is any rule that you could establish to suggest a proper ratio. The fact remains that when we cut this deal we put some very bad terrorists back in play. Is 5 for 1 a trade that we'd want to make ? I can envision circumstances where I would say yes. Here, I don't think it is a close call. Unless I'm wrong, it seems clear that he was no longer a soldier working to protect America. In my view, that means he is entitled to something less than the soldier risking his life in battle. So, do we say he is worth nothing ? No. Do we abandon long standing policy designed to keep Americans from being grabbed as potential trade bait ? In my opinion, not for a guy who is a deserter.
i think that's a good post but i disagree that we made a mistake here. here are the points i would make on this
1. If we believe in the Constitutional protection that we are innocent until proven guilty, isn't this guy innocent right now?
2. Should we have a policy of trying to bring back hostage soldiers from captivity?
3. Even if we assume he is guilty of walking away from his unit, should the be letting this young kid rot in a some Taliban hellhole forever?
4. If you think 5 Taliban is too high a price, what do you base that on? How many nasty Taliban are out there right now? How many new Taliban are created by virtue of all the other garbage we do on a regular basis around the world? By how much did the nasty Taliban population increase with these 5? What effect can you accurately say these 5 will have? How do you explain 5 Taliban is too big a price to pay to this kid's parents and also to curent soliders who might get captured?
i'm not the expert on this but if you are telling me we made a mistake here, i'd like to hear answers to those questions.
Club---I don't pretend to be an expert either, but I appreciate the opportunity to respond to your points.
1. He is innocent until proven guilty. I'm not for a minute suggesting he has lost any constitutional protections. However, that does not mean that Bergdahl necessarily enjoys anything more than that. The Boston Marathon bomber is innocent until proven guilty. It does not follow from that that either of them should be treated better than the circumstances as we know them requires.
2. Yes, we should have a policy of trying to rescue our soldiers. But there is a legitimate issue when someone deserts. I do not believe that people who desert or go over to the other side are our "soldiers" in the same way that we should be protecting people risking their lives for our side.
3. I'm tempted to say " Yes, let him rot in prison if he deserted " , but I don't think that is right. At the same time, I would let him stay in Taliban custody before I would abandon a policy that we have
found important since the war on terror began---we don't negotiate with terrorists. Even if we conveniently find a way around this policy when circumstances dictate, I would most definitely not do it for a deserter.
4. I'm not sure there is any rule that you could establish to suggest a proper ratio. The fact remains that when we cut this deal we put some very bad terrorists back in play. Is 5 for 1 a trade that we'd want to make ? I can envision circumstances where I would say yes. Here, I don't think it is a close call. Unless I'm wrong, it seems clear that he was no longer a soldier working to protect America. In my view, that means he is entitled to something less than the soldier risking his life in battle. So, do we say he is worth nothing ? No. Do we abandon long standing policy designed to keep Americans from being grabbed as potential trade bait ? In my opinion, not for a guy who is a deserter.
1. He is innocent until proven guilty. I'm not for a minute suggesting
he has lost any constitutional protections. However, that does not mean
that Bergdahl necessarily enjoys anything more than that. The Boston
Marathon bomber is innocent until proven guilty. It does not follow from
that that either of them should be treated better than the
circumstances as we know them requires.
well, assuming he is innocent right now, then the question becomes, what should our policy be to bring back soldiers who have been captured. is he asking for any special treatment for the answer to that question to be, yes, by any reasonable means.
2. Yes, we should have a policy of trying to rescue our soldiers. But
there is a legitimate issue when someone deserts. I do not believe that
people who desert or go over to the other side are our "soldiers" in the
same way that we should be protecting people risking their lives for
our side.
i agree but that goes back to the initial question. he's only been accused. he's innocent right now. doesn't he deserve to be brought back like any soldier to have his day in court. and maybe he's guilty but he has some mitigating circumstances. is the alternative, to let him die in a taliban prison, the right message?
3. I'm tempted to say " Yes, let him rot in prison if he deserted "
, but I don't think that is right. At the same time, I would let him
stay in Taliban custody before I would abandon a policy that we have
found
important since the war on terror began---we don't negotiate with
terrorists. Even if we conveniently find a way around this policy when
circumstances dictate, I would most definitely not do it for a deserter.
that could be a fair answer, but again, going back to number one, which is why i started with that, under our Constitution, he's innocent. but even if he's guilty, i'd like to know what other soldiers have gotten as a punishment for walking away. i'm sure it's happened. i mean the guy has spent 5 years in some taliban shithole. my guess is that's a worse piunishment than the average convicted deserter gets, but i don't know. and i'm not sure about that police. it's been mentioned that reagan gave arms in exchange for hostages. i read that we've done prisoner swaps for just about every war we've had. in this age, we don't fight countries as much as ight terrorists so that's just semantics to me. the enemy is the enemy and we've always negotiated prisoners with them as far as i read.
1. He is innocent until proven guilty. I'm not for a minute suggesting
he has lost any constitutional protections. However, that does not mean
that Bergdahl necessarily enjoys anything more than that. The Boston
Marathon bomber is innocent until proven guilty. It does not follow from
that that either of them should be treated better than the
circumstances as we know them requires.
well, assuming he is innocent right now, then the question becomes, what should our policy be to bring back soldiers who have been captured. is he asking for any special treatment for the answer to that question to be, yes, by any reasonable means.
2. Yes, we should have a policy of trying to rescue our soldiers. But
there is a legitimate issue when someone deserts. I do not believe that
people who desert or go over to the other side are our "soldiers" in the
same way that we should be protecting people risking their lives for
our side.
i agree but that goes back to the initial question. he's only been accused. he's innocent right now. doesn't he deserve to be brought back like any soldier to have his day in court. and maybe he's guilty but he has some mitigating circumstances. is the alternative, to let him die in a taliban prison, the right message?
3. I'm tempted to say " Yes, let him rot in prison if he deserted "
, but I don't think that is right. At the same time, I would let him
stay in Taliban custody before I would abandon a policy that we have
found
important since the war on terror began---we don't negotiate with
terrorists. Even if we conveniently find a way around this policy when
circumstances dictate, I would most definitely not do it for a deserter.
that could be a fair answer, but again, going back to number one, which is why i started with that, under our Constitution, he's innocent. but even if he's guilty, i'd like to know what other soldiers have gotten as a punishment for walking away. i'm sure it's happened. i mean the guy has spent 5 years in some taliban shithole. my guess is that's a worse piunishment than the average convicted deserter gets, but i don't know. and i'm not sure about that police. it's been mentioned that reagan gave arms in exchange for hostages. i read that we've done prisoner swaps for just about every war we've had. in this age, we don't fight countries as much as ight terrorists so that's just semantics to me. the enemy is the enemy and we've always negotiated prisoners with them as far as i read.
4. I'm not sure there is any rule that you could establish to suggest a
proper ratio. The fact remains that when we cut this deal we put some
very bad terrorists back in play. Is 5 for 1 a trade that we'd want to
make ? I can envision circumstances where I would say yes. Here, I don't
think it is a close call. Unless I'm wrong, it seems clear that he was
no longer a soldier working to protect America. In my view, that means
he is entitled to something less than the soldier risking his life in
battle. So, do we say he is worth nothing ? No. Do we abandon long
standing policy designed to keep Americans from being grabbed as
potential trade bait ? In my opinion, not for a guy who is a deserter.
this one is hard to evaluate. obviously, none of have anything close to the kind of experience necessary to appreciate this kind of negotiation. but to me, it's just a cost/benefit analysis above all else. i think the benefit of bringing a captive soldier home is huge. if he has a trial and is convicted for being a deserter, fine, he can do whatever punishment our laws dictate for that. but to leave a guy over there who has only been accused of a crime is bad policy in my book. of course there has to be a limit to a prisoner exchange but evaluating the cost, given our constant policy of sticking our nose in everyone's business and giving these terrorist groups neverending material to recruit new taliban members, it's hard for me to give much credence to the people who get so fired up about letting 5 taliban go. if we really wanted to reduce the number of terrorists, how about reigning in our armies and foreign policy. but we don't want to do that because the defense firms depend on us creating new enemies all of the time to justify their billion dollar contracts.
4. I'm not sure there is any rule that you could establish to suggest a
proper ratio. The fact remains that when we cut this deal we put some
very bad terrorists back in play. Is 5 for 1 a trade that we'd want to
make ? I can envision circumstances where I would say yes. Here, I don't
think it is a close call. Unless I'm wrong, it seems clear that he was
no longer a soldier working to protect America. In my view, that means
he is entitled to something less than the soldier risking his life in
battle. So, do we say he is worth nothing ? No. Do we abandon long
standing policy designed to keep Americans from being grabbed as
potential trade bait ? In my opinion, not for a guy who is a deserter.
this one is hard to evaluate. obviously, none of have anything close to the kind of experience necessary to appreciate this kind of negotiation. but to me, it's just a cost/benefit analysis above all else. i think the benefit of bringing a captive soldier home is huge. if he has a trial and is convicted for being a deserter, fine, he can do whatever punishment our laws dictate for that. but to leave a guy over there who has only been accused of a crime is bad policy in my book. of course there has to be a limit to a prisoner exchange but evaluating the cost, given our constant policy of sticking our nose in everyone's business and giving these terrorist groups neverending material to recruit new taliban members, it's hard for me to give much credence to the people who get so fired up about letting 5 taliban go. if we really wanted to reduce the number of terrorists, how about reigning in our armies and foreign policy. but we don't want to do that because the defense firms depend on us creating new enemies all of the time to justify their billion dollar contracts.
Drone the 5 war criminals upon their release, and u give Bergdahl his day in court (at least 6 men died searching for him). meanwhile Gitmo gets closer to being shut down, and the bad guys can't blow up a mall or add to the death toll. Win Win right?
Drone the 5 war criminals upon their release, and u give Bergdahl his day in court (at least 6 men died searching for him). meanwhile Gitmo gets closer to being shut down, and the bad guys can't blow up a mall or add to the death toll. Win Win right?
Club---The one thing I strongly disagree with is that just because he is innocent until proven guilty, that we somehow owe him something extraordinary. That is, abandon policy and trade five Taliban desperadoes for him . That is not what the presumption of innocence means.
I don't think we're going to see this the same way. As Dylan said " we just saw it from a different point of view. "
Club---The one thing I strongly disagree with is that just because he is innocent until proven guilty, that we somehow owe him something extraordinary. That is, abandon policy and trade five Taliban desperadoes for him . That is not what the presumption of innocence means.
I don't think we're going to see this the same way. As Dylan said " we just saw it from a different point of view. "
Drone the 5 war criminals upon their release, and u give Bergdahl his day in court (at least 6 men died searching for him). meanwhile Gitmo gets closer to being shut down, and the bad guys can't blow up a mall or add to the death toll. Win Win right?
that would be the simple solution. we'd probably f*ck it up though.
1129ken, i don't wan to discount the fact that this guy is probably a deserter though. of course he's innocent until proven guilty but that doesn't mean we need to ignore the evidence. desertion probably isn't that hard to prove. but on the other hand, sometimes having your day in court doesn't mean proving you're innocent as much as establishing some mitigation obviously, not all desertion is the same., with the rates these guys commit suicide when they get back and have all sorts of mental issues, this guy may not be the devil some are making him out to be.
but if this was the guy who shot those soldiers on that base in texas, he'd still be innocent until proven guilty but i know my opinion about what we give up for him would change.
Drone the 5 war criminals upon their release, and u give Bergdahl his day in court (at least 6 men died searching for him). meanwhile Gitmo gets closer to being shut down, and the bad guys can't blow up a mall or add to the death toll. Win Win right?
that would be the simple solution. we'd probably f*ck it up though.
1129ken, i don't wan to discount the fact that this guy is probably a deserter though. of course he's innocent until proven guilty but that doesn't mean we need to ignore the evidence. desertion probably isn't that hard to prove. but on the other hand, sometimes having your day in court doesn't mean proving you're innocent as much as establishing some mitigation obviously, not all desertion is the same., with the rates these guys commit suicide when they get back and have all sorts of mental issues, this guy may not be the devil some are making him out to be.
but if this was the guy who shot those soldiers on that base in texas, he'd still be innocent until proven guilty but i know my opinion about what we give up for him would change.
Something "fishy" stemming from Holder's DOJ in all this and his attempting to close Club Gitmo
This scandal will be far worse than any other....and Club, this deserter mailed his computer and some belongings back to US within days of going...is it AWOL.....missing.... I hope he gets the firing squad
Something "fishy" stemming from Holder's DOJ in all this and his attempting to close Club Gitmo
This scandal will be far worse than any other....and Club, this deserter mailed his computer and some belongings back to US within days of going...is it AWOL.....missing.... I hope he gets the firing squad
crusher, that's fine, if he goes to military court and is found guilty and the court decides the penalty is the firing squad, then so be it. but i would say we owe it to our soldiers to have the US decide his ultimate punishment rather than the taliban.
crusher, that's fine, if he goes to military court and is found guilty and the court decides the penalty is the firing squad, then so be it. but i would say we owe it to our soldiers to have the US decide his ultimate punishment rather than the taliban.
Anybody who claims they know the full and complete story is full of shiit. You have NO IDEA what goes on behind closed doors at the highest level.
And another thing... I am SICK and TIRED of the J-e-w-i-s-h media in the USA pushing their State of Israel agenda. If Israel doesn't want to deal with terrorists, then that is THEIR prerogative. It doesn't mean that is OUR priority.
For all we know those five Gitmo Rats could have GPS chips planted up their sphincters just waiting for a drone to send them to meet Allah.
Goose, I wish the "sphincter" thing was correct Goose, but I really doubt it. Can you believe we traded 5 hardened Terrorist Taliban cavemen for a deserter? He wrote a note when he left. Can't wait to hear how this gets spun. Susan Rice should really take off Sunday mornings. She's our version of Bagdad Bob.
Anybody who claims they know the full and complete story is full of shiit. You have NO IDEA what goes on behind closed doors at the highest level.
And another thing... I am SICK and TIRED of the J-e-w-i-s-h media in the USA pushing their State of Israel agenda. If Israel doesn't want to deal with terrorists, then that is THEIR prerogative. It doesn't mean that is OUR priority.
For all we know those five Gitmo Rats could have GPS chips planted up their sphincters just waiting for a drone to send them to meet Allah.
Goose, I wish the "sphincter" thing was correct Goose, but I really doubt it. Can you believe we traded 5 hardened Terrorist Taliban cavemen for a deserter? He wrote a note when he left. Can't wait to hear how this gets spun. Susan Rice should really take off Sunday mornings. She's our version of Bagdad Bob.
a bush official speaking on foxnews and i agree with him.
some points he makes which i didn't know. 500 detainees were released under bush and he didn't say we got anything back for them. you have to figure maybe at least 5 of them were pretty bad right. before you blame bush for that, we can;'t keep them forever and once the afghanistan debacle ends, which i think we all agree it should, you can't hold prisoners of a war that isn't a war, right? shouldn't we at least try to get a soldier back before we have to release them?
a bush official speaking on foxnews and i agree with him.
some points he makes which i didn't know. 500 detainees were released under bush and he didn't say we got anything back for them. you have to figure maybe at least 5 of them were pretty bad right. before you blame bush for that, we can;'t keep them forever and once the afghanistan debacle ends, which i think we all agree it should, you can't hold prisoners of a war that isn't a war, right? shouldn't we at least try to get a soldier back before we have to release them?
If you choose to make use of any information on this website including online sports betting services from any websites that may be featured on this website, we strongly recommend that you carefully check your local laws before doing so. It is your sole responsibility to understand your local laws and observe them strictly. Covers does not provide any advice or guidance as to the legality of online sports betting or other online gambling activities within your jurisdiction and you are responsible for complying with laws that are applicable to you in your relevant locality. Covers disclaims all liability associated with your use of this website and use of any information contained on it. As a condition of using this website, you agree to hold the owner of this website harmless from any claims arising from your use of any services on any third party website that may be featured by Covers.