Let's just cut to the chase.
Go back and re-read your post.
I did. Please point me to the place where I said we
should have been in Iraq or Vietnam, that we shouldn't have left Iraq or Vietnam, or that we shouldn't leave Afghanistan. I said nothing about any of that because it wasn't relevant to the issue of this exchange.
So we should avoid all topics that might make America look bad? That's your definition of patriotism? Really?? Because mine is wanting to make our country the best country on Earth. That includes not invading other nations or spending more than half a trillion dollars on "defense."
No. If there is a discussion regarding Vietnam, or Iraq, and whatever happened in those countries, then we shouldn't shy away from the good or the bad.
This thread is about a prisoner exchange, and yet, you tried to turn it into "look at all these horrible things American has done geopolitically in all these other countries. That's simply
gratuitous American bashing.
You also assume that I don't know the major events of the Vietnam era, even though I've already told you that I do -- because for some reason, if I did, I'd certainly agree with you, right?
No, I actually assumed you knew the major events. What I
know you didn't know was the fighting ability of the ARVN during 72-75, and I know that because you characterized it wrongly. It's a rather commonly held myth that the ARVN wasn't worth shit, but that's simply not true. That myth is largely a product of their performance for most of the 60's, which often was shitty, and at the very end, when it had been abandoned by U.S. air power and knew it had no chance. When it was actually performing better in the early 70's, we had far fewer people witnessing it because most of the troops had gone home.
Because you say so? I don't want to get into a pissing contest over who is more knowledgeable than who; even though it seems to be a pretty popular thing to do on the internet. Suffice it to say, considering my education level, I don't know why you would make a comments like this. In academia, this is just something that isn't said. A professor doesn't say "because I'm your professor," he explains his position and argues it. With something so subjective as this, and you wanting to be deemed an irrefutable expert, it just seems odd.
I'm fairly educated myself, but don't have a lot of respect for academia in general. However, in terms of argumentation,
there are arguments that cannot possibly be made with the necessary detail on a message board. A two sentence assertion may require a whole shitload of response to be refuted fully. In those situations, whomever is willing to go furthest down the rabbit hole wins, and I don't think that's productive. For some things, the best thing you can do without writing dissertations is to disagree, raise a brief argument, and then suggest folks dig for themselves.
Again, you are confused. We did not "promise as part of that treaty to continue (air support) for the ARVN." That's wrong. Nixon pledged to Nguyen Van Thieu, secretly, that he would respond with American military support if the Peace Accords were violated.
I didn't say it was written into the treaty. But that promise was part of the background behind ratification of the treaty. The only reason it got signed in the first place was Linebacker II, and further, the NVA actually believed there was a good chance that we'd provide the ARVN with air support if attacked. We also didn't come through on some material we'd promised the South Vietnamese, but I don't think that was the key issue. The lack of air support was a moral killer for the ARVN, and that was the key think that led to their final collapse.
None of which has a damn thing to do with Bergdahl, and to keep this thread focused on a shitty prisoner exchange, I'm dropping this.
Yeah, that's not the Administration's justification for a prisoner exchange. Sorry.. I don't know why you think it is...
I said that it was part of the reason the Administration has advanced.
US Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel expressed hope Sunday the release of US Army Sergeant Bowe Bergdahl would lead to direct US talks with the Taliban.
“It could, it might and we hope it will present an opening,” Hagel said in an interview from Bagram Air Base in Afghanistan with NBC’s “Meet the Press.”
Hagel noted that the United States had engaged in talks with the Taliban before, until they were broken off in 2012, and that it strongly supported an Afghan-led effort to reach a peace agreement with the Taliban.
“So maybe this will be a new opening that can produce an agreement,” he said.
http://hotair.com/archives/2014/06/...-produce-peace-negotiations-with-the-taliban/
The funny thing is that I was just trying to give the Admin the benefit of the doubt that they had a reason for trading Bergdahl other than the basic desire to get him back. But because of Hagel's remarks, and other suggestions in the negotiation history that the Taliban would not discuss peace until their guys were released, I figured I'd address the argument that this would help the peace processs as well. But if your POV is that had nothing to do with this, fine. The
sole reason we did this was to get Bergdahl back, and nothing more.
And that's still is an incredibly shitty deal for the guys who are still over there, the families and friends of the guys that died trying to find him, and for the country as a whole.