Bowe Bergdahl freed by Taliban after five years of captivity

[gourimoko]

Oh, sorry bro. I assumed you read the entire thread. My bad. :chuckles:

Soldiers died while going out to search for him in the weeks after he fled. If he hadn't deserted, they'd likely still be alive. That's what i meant by having blood on his hands.

Well... if he deserted.. then, that's pretty fucked up...

 

[The Human Q-Tip]

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.

 

[The Oi]

I stopped reading the gouri/qtip argument a few pages ago because the posts were getting too goddamn long.

Does this recent bombshell that gouri wasn't aware of the guy's desertion change anything in the discussion? I have to assume it will bring the sides closer to together now that he's aware?

 

[The Human Q-Tip]

Why are veteran opinions, as if you knew them en masse, more important than anyone else's?

Because those who have served in the military and have a better understanding of its culture are much more likely to understand what historically has been meant by "leave no man behind." That ethos is intended to benefit the soldiers themselves -- the comfort that if they fight and fall, or are captured, that they will not be abandoned. I do not believe extending that to a willful deserter is consistent with how it generally has been understood.

In any case, quibbling over background doesn't alter the other reality, is that it has not been U.S. policy to routinely exchange prisoners while hostilities are ongoing. Which you didn't address.

Right.. well.. there's a few sitting in prison cells right now. If you go to the DPRK, against the wishes of the State Department, then whatever happens is on you.

I agree, because that's a different situation. This guy sitting in Pakistan was someone the U.S. government sent there. I think it's obscene we apparently aren't placing that high a priority on getting him out. And frankly, that doesn't seem consistent with how we've done things in the past. There are a lot of times we've negotiated for the release of American citizens taken prisoner, or effected rescues of them. I really can't fathom a military (or national) ethic that says "it's okay if they keep our civilians as long as the troops get out."

 

[gourimoko]

I stopped reading the gouri/qtip argument a few pages ago because the posts were getting too goddamn long.

Does this recent bombshell that gouri wasn't aware of the guy's desertion change anything in the discussion? I have to assume it will bring the sides closer to together now that he's aware?

I'm always honest in my beliefs..

If the Pentagon and CIA believed he was a deserter, then I have no idea why we would go get him. I would not be supportive of such a move, considering the men who were released.

 

[gourimoko]

Because those who have served in the military and have a better understanding of its culture are much more likely to understand what historically has been meant by "leave no man behind."

I actually find those who have served are less likely to put events into any objective historical context. Again, almost my entire family is in the service and I spent almost all of my time (as I've said in many threads) on the two largest military bases in Hawaii. I find the military culture you're referring to, to often be blinding to those who serve; sometimes preventing them from seeing the bigger picture.

Very recently we talked about the movie with Mark Wahlberg, and the interview he gave with the real life soldier to ABC, I think. The soldier simply went off for no reason when the reporter said something seemingly innocuous.

That ethos is intended to benefit the soldiers themselves -- the comfort that if they fight and fall, or are captured, that they will not be abandoned. I do not believe extending that to a willful deserter is consistent with how it generally has been understood.

And also to the families, as well as the citizens at large who sent those soldiers there. But generally, I'd agree on the point. If he is a deserter, I'd have a hard time feeling good about this exchange.

In any case, quibbling over background doesn't alter the other reality, is that it has not been U.S. policy to routinely exchange prisoners while hostilities are ongoing. Which you didn't address.

I did, three times.. Read my above quote. I have many more if you like, but the United States routinely exchanges prisoners on the ground in Afghanistan and Iraq.

I agree, because that's a different situation. This guy sitting in Pakistan was someone the U.S. government sent there. I think it's obscene we apparently aren't placing that high a priority on getting him out. And frankly, that doesn't seem consistent with how we've done things in the past. There are a lot of times we've negotiated for the release of American citizens taken prisoner, or effected rescues of them. I really can't fathom a military (or national) ethic that says "it's okay if they keep our civilians as long as the troops get out."

I don't know enough about his situation to comment. Giving him the benefit of the doubt, I do think the Administration should be trying it's best to retrieve him; however, again, I don't know the extent of their efforts nor do I think most people do, so it's a difficult thing to comment on.

 

[Tornicade]

time to merica this thread up.

also my comments were clearly directed at the paki government

 

[The Human Q-Tip]

I would not be supportive of such a move, considering the men who were released.

Okay, and that's why I said initially that if you really understood "leave no man behind" , you wouldn't be arguing that it applied here. But if you didn't know about the deserter stuff, then your position makes a lot more sense.

 

[gourimoko]

Okay, and that's why I said initially that if you really understood "leave no man behind" , you wouldn't be arguing that it applied here. But if you didn't know about the deserter stuff, then your position makes a lot more sense.

Yeah, I had no idea he was a known deserter... That kinda boggles the mind.

 

[MRMsix6]

Good. It's settled. The deal sucks.

Let's all go grab a beer, shall we?

 

[BMAN]

I like beer.

 

[AZ_]

Bud heavys all around.

Let freedom ring bitches.

'Merica

 

[Huber.]

Bud heavys all around.

Let freedom ring bitches.

'Merica

Look at Mr. Money Bags over here.

 

[The Oi]

b00bie doesn't feel comfortable defending his whacked out position in here anymore, you can tell. With gouri understanding what actually happened now, b00b is left defending a terrorist deserter by himself.

#mustbenice #blessed #yolo

 

[Sumac13]

I admit I haven't followed the story all that closely, quickly tuning out much of it after politically charged rhetoric took hold. I've only read or heard bits and pieces. Anyway, the last bit of this thread seemingly has determined that he was deserter. I am wondering how this jives with the post made by Los216.

He willingly left his post and got in a Tata(Toyota Truck) with 3 members of the Afghan army. They were supposed to be going to get drinks at a spot off base in Afghanistan. He told the soldiers he was on post with that he was going there. This was a 24 hour duty that he was on. He wasn't forced to go or being held at will at the time he left.

When he left post, was it Bergdahl's intention only to be AWOL? Or when he left did he plan never to return, thus deserting? Has irrefutable evidence been found to substantiate the claim it was indeed desertion and not a case of being AWOL?