I don't think that anyone is suggesting that crappy deals haven't been made in the past.
I am putting two of my best friends on a bird to Afghanistan on the 13th of this month. They volunteered for a 6 month deployment. We have been spending a lot of time together ensuring that their affairs are taken care of before they leave. They are completely deflated, and feel completely betrayed.
I don't think that anyone is suggesting that crappy deals haven't been made in the past.
I am putting two of my best friends on a bird to Afghanistan on the 13th of this month. They volunteered for a 6 month deployment. We have been spending a lot of time together ensuring that their affairs are taken care of before they leave. They are completely deflated, and feel completely betrayed.
At the end of the day this is signaling the end of the war. That we are going to leave the Taliban in charge. That we are capitulating to them and they will ultimately claim victory over the United States.
I feel bad for the little girls that will have acid thrown in their face for going to school, and feel lied to that we had a mission and a responsibility to give them liberty, and some semblance of Democracy, but I guess that was all a pipe dream anyway.
This isn't all Obama's fault. We had a failed strategy and execution in this war, mission creep was going to either keep us there forever, or hand the country over to savages.
This is just the icing on the cake, and it doesn't feel good.
Just like my brothers who fought to liberate Fallujiah, we are going to see every inch of land that we fought and bled over in Afghanistan turned over to radical Islamist militants.
Betrayals aren't always cut and dry, black and white, good and evil. Even something as necessary as ending a war leaves a bad taste.
Maybe I am looking too deeply into this action, but complete surrender is the only justification for it I can figure.
At the end of the day this is signaling the end of the war. That we are going to leave the Taliban in charge. That we are capitulating to them and they will ultimately claim victory over the United States.
I feel bad for the little girls that will have acid thrown in their face for going to school, and feel lied to that we had a mission and a responsibility to give them liberty, and some semblance of Democracy, but I guess that was all a pipe dream anyway.
This isn't all Obama's fault. We had a failed strategy and execution in this war, mission creep was going to either keep us there forever, or hand the country over to savages.
This is just the icing on the cake, and it doesn't feel good.
Just like my brothers who fought to liberate Fallujiah, we are going to see every inch of land that we fought and bled over in Afghanistan turned over to radical Islamist militants.
Betrayals aren't always cut and dry, black and white, good and evil. Even something as necessary as ending a war leaves a bad taste.
Maybe I am looking too deeply into this action, but complete surrender is the only justification for it I can figure.
I feel bad for the little girls that will have acid thrown in their face for going to school, and feel lied to that we had a mission and a responsibility to give them liberty, and some semblance of Democracy, but I guess that was all a pipe dream anyway.
Democracies cannot exist in countries that are governed by religious theocracy.
I feel bad for the little girls that will have acid thrown in their face for going to school, and feel lied to that we had a mission and a responsibility to give them liberty, and some semblance of Democracy, but I guess that was all a pipe dream anyway.
Democracies cannot exist in countries that are governed by religious theocracy.
At the end of the day this is signaling the end of the war.
it is the end of the war. doesn't that mean we have to releases these guys at the end of the war? have any of them been formally charged? how long can we hold people that have not been charged or convicted of anything? do we think that might give these terrorists some ammunition to create new taliban, al qaeda, whatever?
if we have to releases them soon anyway, why not get something for them? that's the point the bush guy made and it makes sense to me which is a second argument to the one i made earlier.
At the end of the day this is signaling the end of the war.
it is the end of the war. doesn't that mean we have to releases these guys at the end of the war? have any of them been formally charged? how long can we hold people that have not been charged or convicted of anything? do we think that might give these terrorists some ammunition to create new taliban, al qaeda, whatever?
if we have to releases them soon anyway, why not get something for them? that's the point the bush guy made and it makes sense to me which is a second argument to the one i made earlier.
Democracies cannot exist in countries that are governed by religious theocracy.
Never have, never will.
Somehow, I do not think we will ever learn this lesson.
Somehow, I think that any Democracy anywhere is doomed to fail, and am thankful that we do not submit to mob rule in this country. Democracy is a Trojan Horse for the most popular bad idea. IE. Egypt.
Democracies cannot exist in countries that are governed by religious theocracy.
Never have, never will.
Somehow, I do not think we will ever learn this lesson.
Somehow, I think that any Democracy anywhere is doomed to fail, and am thankful that we do not submit to mob rule in this country. Democracy is a Trojan Horse for the most popular bad idea. IE. Egypt.
At the end of the day this is signaling the end of the war.
it is the end of the war. doesn't that mean we have to releases these guys at the end of the war? have any of them been formally charged? how long can we hold people that have not been charged or convicted of anything? do we think that might give these terrorists some ammunition to create new taliban, al qaeda, whatever?
if we have to releases them soon anyway, why not get something for them? that's the point the bush guy made and it makes sense to me which is a second argument to the one i made earlier.
At the end of the day this is signaling the end of the war.
it is the end of the war. doesn't that mean we have to releases these guys at the end of the war? have any of them been formally charged? how long can we hold people that have not been charged or convicted of anything? do we think that might give these terrorists some ammunition to create new taliban, al qaeda, whatever?
if we have to releases them soon anyway, why not get something for them? that's the point the bush guy made and it makes sense to me which is a second argument to the one i made earlier.
Somehow, I do not think we will ever learn this lesson.
Somehow, I think that any Democracy anywhere is doomed to fail, and am thankful that we do not submit to mob rule in this country. Democracy is a Trojan Horse for the most popular bad idea. IE. Egypt.
Egypt??? Try any of them.
The only middle eastern country that has a democracy is Israel and it is not governed by a religious theocracy, but rather political ones.
I don't agree that democracy is designed to fail, only where democracy governed by candidates who run under religious indoctrination.
But you are right about the trojan horse comment. It is why I agree what Powell said about Iraq. We did break it, we didn't have to own it. Remove SH and leave.
Somehow, I do not think we will ever learn this lesson.
Somehow, I think that any Democracy anywhere is doomed to fail, and am thankful that we do not submit to mob rule in this country. Democracy is a Trojan Horse for the most popular bad idea. IE. Egypt.
Egypt??? Try any of them.
The only middle eastern country that has a democracy is Israel and it is not governed by a religious theocracy, but rather political ones.
I don't agree that democracy is designed to fail, only where democracy governed by candidates who run under religious indoctrination.
But you are right about the trojan horse comment. It is why I agree what Powell said about Iraq. We did break it, we didn't have to own it. Remove SH and leave.
while no one has responded to this yet, clearly this is logic that anyone on this forum can appreciate. the obvious analogy is your favorite team's star player is nearing the end of his contract and has made it perfectly clear that he is leaving when his contract is up. you can trade him and get some value for him or you can let him walk and get nothing. which do you do?
while no one has responded to this yet, clearly this is logic that anyone on this forum can appreciate. the obvious analogy is your favorite team's star player is nearing the end of his contract and has made it perfectly clear that he is leaving when his contract is up. you can trade him and get some value for him or you can let him walk and get nothing. which do you do?
while no one has responded to this yet, clearly this is logic that anyone on this forum can appreciate. the obvious analogy is your favorite team's star player is nearing the end of his contract and has made it perfectly clear that he is leaving when his contract is up. you can trade him and get some value for him or you can let him walk and get nothing. which do you do?
Where does it say we HAVE to let them go?
CIA, NSA, and the Pentagon disagree. This deal has been on the table since 2011. The only thing that has changed is that the admin went ahead with it anyway. I'm not arguing for or against it. I'm just
challenging the idea that we had to do this.
I support bringing the guy home, regardless what he has done, or what any will do in the future. We have to have precedent that says we will not leave you behind. Period.
while no one has responded to this yet, clearly this is logic that anyone on this forum can appreciate. the obvious analogy is your favorite team's star player is nearing the end of his contract and has made it perfectly clear that he is leaving when his contract is up. you can trade him and get some value for him or you can let him walk and get nothing. which do you do?
Where does it say we HAVE to let them go?
CIA, NSA, and the Pentagon disagree. This deal has been on the table since 2011. The only thing that has changed is that the admin went ahead with it anyway. I'm not arguing for or against it. I'm just
challenging the idea that we had to do this.
I support bringing the guy home, regardless what he has done, or what any will do in the future. We have to have precedent that says we will not leave you behind. Period.
CIA, NSA, and the Pentagon disagree. This deal has been on the table since 2011. The only thing that has changed is that the admin went ahead with it anyway. I'm not arguing for or against it. I'm just
challenging the idea that we had to do this.
I support bringing the guy home, regardless what he has done, or what any will do in the future. We have to have precedent that says we will not leave you behind. Period.
i don't know. i thought that was what the bush guy said, that once the war is over, you have to let POW's go unless they have been charged and/or convicted of a crime. seems to make sense. maybe one of these international law experts can find the answer to this. it's probably a gray area like everything else though. people interpret it how they want.
CIA, NSA, and the Pentagon disagree. This deal has been on the table since 2011. The only thing that has changed is that the admin went ahead with it anyway. I'm not arguing for or against it. I'm just
challenging the idea that we had to do this.
I support bringing the guy home, regardless what he has done, or what any will do in the future. We have to have precedent that says we will not leave you behind. Period.
i don't know. i thought that was what the bush guy said, that once the war is over, you have to let POW's go unless they have been charged and/or convicted of a crime. seems to make sense. maybe one of these international law experts can find the answer to this. it's probably a gray area like everything else though. people interpret it how they want.
while no one has responded to this yet, clearly this is logic that anyone on this forum can appreciate. the obvious analogy is your favorite team's star player is nearing the end of his contract and has made it perfectly clear that he is leaving when his contract is up. you can trade him and get some value for him or you can let him walk and get nothing. which do you do?
The analogy is your favorite team hire's Tommy Lasorda. He trades to the Dodgers your starting five pitchers for a batboy. He tells you the reason is that the season is ending and we won't have to face them again.
while no one has responded to this yet, clearly this is logic that anyone on this forum can appreciate. the obvious analogy is your favorite team's star player is nearing the end of his contract and has made it perfectly clear that he is leaving when his contract is up. you can trade him and get some value for him or you can let him walk and get nothing. which do you do?
The analogy is your favorite team hire's Tommy Lasorda. He trades to the Dodgers your starting five pitchers for a batboy. He tells you the reason is that the season is ending and we won't have to face them again.
while no one has responded to this yet, clearly this is logic that anyone on this forum can appreciate. the obvious analogy is your favorite team's star player is nearing the end of his contract and has made it perfectly clear that he is leaving when his contract is up. you can trade him and get some value for him or you can let him walk and get nothing. which do you do?
I could not disagree more. " Star player " ??? Have you been following this ? His team is calling him a deserter and a traitor. And, your team is receiving NOTHING of value in return. The " team " has done nothing more than release free agents who now have the ability to go anywhere they want to do damage to your team and everyone else's.
while no one has responded to this yet, clearly this is logic that anyone on this forum can appreciate. the obvious analogy is your favorite team's star player is nearing the end of his contract and has made it perfectly clear that he is leaving when his contract is up. you can trade him and get some value for him or you can let him walk and get nothing. which do you do?
I could not disagree more. " Star player " ??? Have you been following this ? His team is calling him a deserter and a traitor. And, your team is receiving NOTHING of value in return. The " team " has done nothing more than release free agents who now have the ability to go anywhere they want to do damage to your team and everyone else's.
I could not disagree more. " Star player " ??? Have you been following this ? His team is calling him a deserter and a traitor. And, your team is receiving NOTHING of value in return. The " team " has done nothing more than release free agents who now have the ability to go anywhere they want to do damage to your team and everyone else's.
i don't think you're understanding the analogy. the star player would relate to the 5 taliban. their level of dangerousness equates to the quality of our star player. that's what we are giving up. the alleged deserter relates to "some value" we are getting in return by trading our star player rather than letting him walk at the end of the season and us getting nothing.
i'm not sure i understand what balph is talking about but it would be unusual if i did.
as to tilt's, i didn't spend much time on it but i googled and found this guy's article. he and the guy in bush's administration seem to think we would have to release these detainees once the afghanistan war ends but it doesn't sound like it's clearcut.
I could not disagree more. " Star player " ??? Have you been following this ? His team is calling him a deserter and a traitor. And, your team is receiving NOTHING of value in return. The " team " has done nothing more than release free agents who now have the ability to go anywhere they want to do damage to your team and everyone else's.
i don't think you're understanding the analogy. the star player would relate to the 5 taliban. their level of dangerousness equates to the quality of our star player. that's what we are giving up. the alleged deserter relates to "some value" we are getting in return by trading our star player rather than letting him walk at the end of the season and us getting nothing.
i'm not sure i understand what balph is talking about but it would be unusual if i did.
as to tilt's, i didn't spend much time on it but i googled and found this guy's article. he and the guy in bush's administration seem to think we would have to release these detainees once the afghanistan war ends but it doesn't sound like it's clearcut.
i don't think you're understanding the analogy. the star player would relate to the 5 taliban. their level of dangerousness equates to the quality of our star player. that's what we are giving up. the alleged deserter relates to "some value" we are getting in return by trading our star player rather than letting him walk at the end of the season and us getting nothing.
i'm not sure i understand what balph is talking about but it would be unusual if i did.
as to tilt's, i didn't spend much time on it but i googled and found this guy's article. he and the guy in bush's administration seem to think we would have to release these detainees once the afghanistan war ends but it doesn't sound like it's clearcut.
i don't think you're understanding the analogy. the star player would relate to the 5 taliban. their level of dangerousness equates to the quality of our star player. that's what we are giving up. the alleged deserter relates to "some value" we are getting in return by trading our star player rather than letting him walk at the end of the season and us getting nothing.
i'm not sure i understand what balph is talking about but it would be unusual if i did.
as to tilt's, i didn't spend much time on it but i googled and found this guy's article. he and the guy in bush's administration seem to think we would have to release these detainees once the afghanistan war ends but it doesn't sound like it's clearcut.
i don't think you're understanding the analogy. the star player would relate to the 5 taliban. their level of dangerousness equates to the quality of our star player. that's what we are giving up. the alleged deserter relates to "some value" we are getting in return by trading our star player rather than letting him walk at the end of the season and us getting nothing.
i'm not sure i understand what balph is talking about but it would be unusual if i did.
as to tilt's, i didn't spend much time on it but i googled and found this guy's article. he and the guy in bush's administration seem to think we would have to release these detainees once the afghanistan war ends but it doesn't sound like it's clearcut.
I admit I'm confused. So, in this analogy, "the 5 Taliban relate to the star player" . But you also say the" alleged deserter relates to some value we are getting". I honestly don't mean to be difficult, but I still am having trouble understanding the analogy. Help me out here.
i don't think you're understanding the analogy. the star player would relate to the 5 taliban. their level of dangerousness equates to the quality of our star player. that's what we are giving up. the alleged deserter relates to "some value" we are getting in return by trading our star player rather than letting him walk at the end of the season and us getting nothing.
i'm not sure i understand what balph is talking about but it would be unusual if i did.
as to tilt's, i didn't spend much time on it but i googled and found this guy's article. he and the guy in bush's administration seem to think we would have to release these detainees once the afghanistan war ends but it doesn't sound like it's clearcut.
I admit I'm confused. So, in this analogy, "the 5 Taliban relate to the star player" . But you also say the" alleged deserter relates to some value we are getting". I honestly don't mean to be difficult, but I still am having trouble understanding the analogy. Help me out here.
I admit I'm confused. So, in this analogy, "the 5 Taliban relate to the star player" . But you also say the" alleged deserter relates to some value we are getting". I honestly don't mean to be difficult, but I still am having trouble understanding the analogy. Help me out here.
yeah, just think about a situation where a team's star player is under contract until the end of the season and he is likely leaving thru free agency to go to another team once the contract is finished. the current team's asset is the star player that it will be losing at the end of the season. the current team should want to trade that player to another team before the end of the season to get something of value for that player. if the team doesn't make the trade, they lose the player/asset and get nothing in return.
the US is that team. our assets are these 5 taliban detainees we have in our custody. just like the better the star player is, the more value he has, arguably the more dangerous/connected/knowledgeable these taliban are, the more value they have. if you believe the links i posted, we will lose these assets soon when the afghanistan war ends according to international law. that law is like the player's contract. so, rather than just have to give them up for nothing when the afghanistan war ends in the near future, doesn't it make more sense to trade them and get some value in return. that value was bergdahl.
I admit I'm confused. So, in this analogy, "the 5 Taliban relate to the star player" . But you also say the" alleged deserter relates to some value we are getting". I honestly don't mean to be difficult, but I still am having trouble understanding the analogy. Help me out here.
yeah, just think about a situation where a team's star player is under contract until the end of the season and he is likely leaving thru free agency to go to another team once the contract is finished. the current team's asset is the star player that it will be losing at the end of the season. the current team should want to trade that player to another team before the end of the season to get something of value for that player. if the team doesn't make the trade, they lose the player/asset and get nothing in return.
the US is that team. our assets are these 5 taliban detainees we have in our custody. just like the better the star player is, the more value he has, arguably the more dangerous/connected/knowledgeable these taliban are, the more value they have. if you believe the links i posted, we will lose these assets soon when the afghanistan war ends according to international law. that law is like the player's contract. so, rather than just have to give them up for nothing when the afghanistan war ends in the near future, doesn't it make more sense to trade them and get some value in return. that value was bergdahl.
yeah, just think about a situation where a team's star player is under contract until the end of the season and he is likely leaving thru free agency to go to another team once the contract is finished. the current team's asset is the star player that it will be losing at the end of the season. the current team should want to trade that player to another team before the end of the season to get something of value for that player. if the team doesn't make the trade, they lose the player/asset and get nothing in return.
the US is that team. our assets are these 5 taliban detainees we have in our custody. just like the better the star player is, the more value he has, arguably the more dangerous/connected/knowledgeable these taliban are, the more value they have. if you believe the links i posted, we will lose these assets soon when the afghanistan war ends according to international law. that law is like the player's contract. so, rather than just have to give them up for nothing when the afghanistan war ends in the near future, doesn't it make more sense to trade them and get some value in return. that value was bergdahl.
I appreciate your willingness to take the time to explain your thinking. Thank you.
yeah, just think about a situation where a team's star player is under contract until the end of the season and he is likely leaving thru free agency to go to another team once the contract is finished. the current team's asset is the star player that it will be losing at the end of the season. the current team should want to trade that player to another team before the end of the season to get something of value for that player. if the team doesn't make the trade, they lose the player/asset and get nothing in return.
the US is that team. our assets are these 5 taliban detainees we have in our custody. just like the better the star player is, the more value he has, arguably the more dangerous/connected/knowledgeable these taliban are, the more value they have. if you believe the links i posted, we will lose these assets soon when the afghanistan war ends according to international law. that law is like the player's contract. so, rather than just have to give them up for nothing when the afghanistan war ends in the near future, doesn't it make more sense to trade them and get some value in return. that value was bergdahl.
I appreciate your willingness to take the time to explain your thinking. Thank you.
The only middle eastern country that has a democracy is Israel and it is not governed by a religious theocracy, but rather political ones.
I don't agree that democracy is designed to fail, only where democracy governed by candidates who run under religious indoctrination.
But you are right about the trojan horse comment. It is why I agree what Powell said about Iraq. We did break it, we didn't have to own it. Remove SH and leave.
The only middle eastern country that has a democracy is Israel and it is not governed by a religious theocracy, but rather political ones.
I don't agree that democracy is designed to fail, only where democracy governed by candidates who run under religious indoctrination.
But you are right about the trojan horse comment. It is why I agree what Powell said about Iraq. We did break it, we didn't have to own it. Remove SH and leave.
I admit I'm confused. So, in this analogy, "the 5 Taliban relate to the star player" . But you also say the" alleged deserter relates to some value we are getting". I honestly don't mean to be difficult, but I still am having trouble understanding the analogy. Help me out here.
Of course it is confusing. It is a poor analogy--You cannot compare anything in war to sports. Will always be confusing when you try to relate those two. Like guys before a game saying they are about to go to war, etc. Just doesn't compute.
I admit I'm confused. So, in this analogy, "the 5 Taliban relate to the star player" . But you also say the" alleged deserter relates to some value we are getting". I honestly don't mean to be difficult, but I still am having trouble understanding the analogy. Help me out here.
Of course it is confusing. It is a poor analogy--You cannot compare anything in war to sports. Will always be confusing when you try to relate those two. Like guys before a game saying they are about to go to war, etc. Just doesn't compute.
Of course it is confusing. It is a poor analogy--You cannot compare anything in war to sports. Will always be confusing when you try to relate those two. Like guys before a game saying they are about to go to war, etc. Just doesn't compute.
only it's not meant to be a comparison of sports and war. it's a comparison of negotiation and value. if you ask people who negotiate for a living, and maybe you know this, some aspects of the process are fairly universal.
Of course it is confusing. It is a poor analogy--You cannot compare anything in war to sports. Will always be confusing when you try to relate those two. Like guys before a game saying they are about to go to war, etc. Just doesn't compute.
only it's not meant to be a comparison of sports and war. it's a comparison of negotiation and value. if you ask people who negotiate for a living, and maybe you know this, some aspects of the process are fairly universal.
If you want to be amused amid all of this ugliness, watch Jay Carney trying to explain Susan Rice's latest trip to the Sunday morning talk shows. She declares Bergdahl's release as a " joyous occasion " and says Bergdahl served the United States with " honor and distinction. "
If you want to be amused amid all of this ugliness, watch Jay Carney trying to explain Susan Rice's latest trip to the Sunday morning talk shows. She declares Bergdahl's release as a " joyous occasion " and says Bergdahl served the United States with " honor and distinction. "
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.