US swaps 5 Gitmo prisoners for US soldiers release, but many questions remain

[PreachersWife2004]

3 loaded weapons and 400 spare rounds of ammo is a bit excessive for one person under most circumstances -- barring, perhaps, the unthinkable.

This is a rare time when I am inclined to agree with your stance on guns. Stashed at home? We probably disagree. Loaded up in your good ol' pickup truck, out and about, accidentally finding yourself in Mexico? Not really the time or place.

Normally I'd agree as well, but this guy was a soldier. I don't think it's uncommon for soldiers to have that type of collection with them. Most of the men in my family were soldiers and most of them actually have more than that.

That being said, this was a guy who was seeking treatment for PTSD, exactly the kind of guy that shouldn't be allowed to be around guns until he was declared mentally fit again. (and yes, I know I will take flak from the pro-gun crowd on that point)

And it's true that you can only buy bullets in a box of 100. And most of them time, when we buy ours, you save by stocking up. Our smallest purchase was 5 boxes. Our largest was, if I recall correctly, 15. It was a great sale. Just because you have that many bullets doesn't mean you actually plan on using them all at once.

 

[PreachersWife2004]

Sorry, the information we have is that he crossed that exact border crossing at least three times before (and walked across the day before his arrest as well). So fail.

I'd love to have this confirmed, because it really changes the scenario of the game. I just don't know that I trust Mexican authorities. I'd need something like camera proof.

 

[theophilus777]

I'm not saying Obama planned this; I'm saying it's how AQ will react. They've not about to simply hand leadership back to people who got themselves captured and spilled their secrets so easily the first time around.

Why is Obama not smart enough to plan for how AQ will react? I hate Obama's guts but I think he is that smart. Plus there was nothing "easy" about how these 5 got themselves captured, nor about how they spilled any secrets - if they did. I don't know how AQ may react to this, but you seem to be saying they bargained for people they have no use for. You'll understand if I find that suspect?

Precisely -- so when you said "Wars aren't won by intel, they're won by killing people until they can no longer be replaced with anyone competent enough to be effective," clearly that's not the case.

No, you don't make that case at all. You don't even address the issue.

We had plenty of troops to continue to throw at the VC; we just realized it would be pointless.

You're leaving out the part about losing the political will. This is funny because it goes right back to your own first statement about how wars are won and lost, which applies perfectly to the US loss in Nam.

If you're talking about Vietnam, yes, once we realized it.

If you're talking about Afghanistan, yes, as soon as we realize it.

If you're talking about Iraq, seeing as how they did have democratic elections, it would appear that the goal was not so impossible there as you thought.

None of your statements here are correct. AF also held democratic elections, but both it and Iraq are falling apart. Explain to me again how these people are capable of maintaining their own democratic Gov't?

We lost about 58,000 soldiers in Vietnam -- estimates put the NVA/VC casualties at around 1.1 million. Tell me again how we lost Vietnam?

Um, because our last helicopter evacuation was under duress, and the plot of land the helipad was on occupied by our enemy as soon as we left? This is apparently news to you?

You are flip-flopping, and (incorrectly) taking up my argument rather than presenting anything logical.

Don't you see? you're still playing war like a video game. Put down the XBox controller

Son, I've never touched an Xbox. If this is the best you have you should just admit defeat, but you would be better off understanding what is being said instead of just blindly opposing it.

We have a standing volunteer army, meaning we have a moral responsibility to treat them right. If we renege on that any more than we already are, it's unlikely that any American will ever willingly put on a uniform again.

Again you are just offering blind opposition, w/o even noticing what is being said. Are you by any chance a career politician?

 

[GarfieldJL]

I'd love to have this confirmed, because it really changes the scenario of the game. I just don't know that I trust Mexican authorities. I'd need something like camera proof.

He crossed the border on foot and left his truck on the US side, so he wouldn't be violating any laws...

When he got in his car that evening, he wasn't trying to head to Mexico and he had no way to do a U-turn.

 

[theophilus777]

Right... Because leaving a rifle and 400 rounds in your car while you go in a restaurant is responsible.

Where does the "leaving it in your car while you go in a restuarant" part come from?

 

[GarfieldJL]

Where does the "leaving it in your car while you go in a restuarant" part come from?

I'm wondering where he came up with this too, cause he left his vehicle (and his guns) on the US side of the border when he entered Mexico on foot.

 

[theophilus777]

Sorry, the information we have is that he crossed that exact border crossing at least three times before (and walked across the day before his arrest as well). So fail.

This callous attitude (seen by all the detractors here) completely ignores any and all of the facts at hand.

1) Most places look different in daylight than they do at night. His most recent border crossing had been that DAY.

2) Every place looks different on foot than it does while driving.

3) We don't really know if his previous border crossings were at the same place or not. Nothing says, either way.

4) The guy is only in that region for treatment of PTSD. Incurred from military service. We owe him better than this. Would his condition cause him to make some stupid mistakes re: weapons use? Fortunately, it didn't come to that so we will never know. Let's get him back home and back on track, instead of leaving him to rot.

 

[JustOneWay]

Where does the "leaving it in your car while you go in a restuarant" part come from?

Pretty simple really when you follow the conversation. We have been told the Sgt. was on his way to dinner in San Ysidro, and most likely going to a restaurant.

 

[JustOneWay]

This callous attitude (seen by all the detractors here) completely ignores any and all of the facts at hand.

1) Most places look different in daylight than they do at night. His most recent border crossing had been that DAY.

2) Every place looks different on foot than it does while driving.

3) We don't really know if his previous border crossings were at the same place or not. Nothing says, either way.

4) The guy is only in that region for treatment of PTSD. Incurred from military service. We owe him better than this. Would his condition cause him to make some stupid mistakes re: weapons use? Fortunately, it didn't come to that so we will never know. Let's get him back home and back on track, instead of leaving him to rot.

He walked across the border, got a room and walked back across the border and got into his car and drove into Mexico.

On the Record EXCLUSIVE: Jailed Marine in Mexico Sgt. Andrew Tahmooressi Tells His Story to Greta - Fox Nation

 

[GondwanaLand]

I'd love to have this confirmed, because it really changes the scenario of the game. I just don't know that I trust Mexican authorities. I'd need something like camera proof.

We have confirmation of at least three times via Mexican border patrol: Mexican Officials: Marine Crossed Border 3 Previous Times | NBC 7 San Diego

We also have the man himself saying/admitting he'd been across 4 times (and walked across the day before his arrest) : U.S. Marine says he'd walked into Mexico before arrest on gun charges - CNN.com

Asked about Mexican media reports that he had crossed the border into Mexico several times before his March 31 arrest, Tahmooressi told CNN in a telephone interview from La Mesa penitentiary in Tijuana that he had previously traveled there four times "just to hang out."

 

[theophilus777]

Pretty simple really when you follow the conversation. We have been told the Sgt. was on his way to dinner in San Ysidro, and most likely going to a restaurant.

So if he had been planning on keeping his "arsenal" with him, he would have gone to Texas?

 

[Sistrin]

He walked across the border, got a room and walked back across the border and got into his car and drove into Mexico.

I find this line of reasoning amazing. Illegal aliens from Mexico pour across our border in violation of the law each and every day, and the reaction of the left in general is to defend them and label anyone who speaks out against this constant violation of US law a racist. But somehow in this case Mexican law is sacrosanct. A US Marine crossed the border by mistake, but by golly Mexican law is absolute and inviolate.

But wait, all those Mexican's crossing into the US illegally? Not even our own Justice Department can be bothered to enforce US immigration law. Give them access to the system, benefits, lawyers, all on the tax payer dime.

 

[JustOneWay]

I find this line of reasoning amazing..

You don't like hearing what the marine told us he did?

 

[TLK Valentine]

Normally I'd agree as well, but this guy was a soldier. I don't think it's uncommon for soldiers to have that type of collection with them. Most of the men in my family were soldiers and most of them actually have more than that.

Ex-soldier -- he was discharged. So these guns were part of his personal collection.

And if he was transporting them to be stored, as he claimed, there's the issue of why they were loaded -- doesn't the military have SOP on this sort of thing?

That being said, this was a guy who was seeking treatment for PTSD, exactly the kind of guy that shouldn't be allowed to be around guns until he was declared mentally fit again. (and yes, I know I will take flak from the pro-gun crowd on that point)

If you're going to take flak for suggesting that those who have undergone and are seeking treatment for severe emotional trauma probably shouldn't be cruising around heavily armed (and yes, I consider a rifle, a shotgun, and a pistol in the hands of one man to be "heavily" armed), then you're not the one with the problem.

And it's true that you can only buy bullets in a box of 100. And most of them time, when we buy ours, you save by stocking up. Our smallest purchase was 5 boxes. Our largest was, if I recall correctly, 15. It was a great sale. Just because you have that many bullets doesn't mean you actually plan on using them all at once.

Agreed -- but remember: the guns in his car were loaded.

 

[TLK Valentine]

Why is Obama not smart enough to plan for how AQ will react? I hate Obama's guts but I think he is that smart. Plus there was nothing "easy" about how these 5 got themselves captured, nor about how they spilled any secrets - if they did. I don't know how AQ may react to this, but you seem to be saying they bargained for people they have no use for. You'll understand if I find that suspect?

Except I'm not saying that... they need to get these 5 back to increase their morale, but the chances that they'll be put back in leadership positions, having already been compromised, is low.

No, you don't make that case at all. You don't even address the issue.

The issue is that you yourself said "wars aren't won by intel," which is false, and that " they're won by killing people until they can no longer be replaced with anyone competent enough to be effective," which is also demonstrably false.

You're leaving out the part about losing the political will. This is funny because it goes right back to your own first statement about how wars are won and lost, which applies perfectly to the US loss in Nam.

Right -- my statement which proves your statement to be false.

You're finally getting it! That's how we lost in Vietnam, that how we'll lose in the War on Terror IF we try to fight a war of attrition like you were suggesting.

How many men are you willing to throw into the meat grinder before you figure that out?

None of your statements here are correct. AF also held democratic elections, but both it and Iraq are falling apart. Explain to me again how these people are capable of maintaining their own democratic Gov't?

Explain to me why it's any business of ours? Or how military force is the solution?

If it's not, we may actually agree on something.

Um, because our last helicopter evacuation was under duress, and the plot of land the helipad was on occupied by our enemy as soon as we left? This is apparently news to you?

What are you babbling about? What does that have to do with casualties?

You are flip-flopping, and (incorrectly) taking up my argument rather than presenting anything logical.

While I agree that your argument isn't remotely logical, I'm hardly taking it up -- I'm saying what I've always been saying -- we cannot fight terrorists by attrition, no matter how much you would like to.

your argument was: "Wars aren't won by intel, they're won by killing people until they can no longer be replaced with anyone competent enough to be effective" -- which we learned in Vietnam is wrong on so many levels it's not even funny.

Son, I've never touched an Xbox. If this is the best you have you should just admit defeat, but you would be better off understanding what is being said instead of just blindly opposing it.

Well, you can understand my mistake, given your attitude towards war strategy -- "kill 'em all" isn't going to work here, I'm sorry to tell you -- again.

Again you are just offering blind opposition, w/o even noticing what is being said. Are you by any chance a career politician?

I'm just someone who knows better than "Wars aren't won by intel, they're won by killing people until they can no longer be replaced with anyone competent enough to be effective"

Perhaps someday you will be too.

 

[theophilus777]

The issue is that you yourself said "wars aren't won by intel," which is false, and that " they're won by killing people until they can no longer be replaced with anyone competent enough to be effective," which is also demonstrably false.

You have not demonstrated that. You have attempted to do so by referring to Nam - a war we lost. That is not even capable of addressing the topic, seeing as we didn't win.

You're finally getting it! That's how we lost in Vietnam, that how we'll lose in the War on Terror IF we try to fight a war of attrition like you were suggesting.

How many men are you willing to throw into the meat grinder before you figure that out?

Your entire line of thought here is woefully amiss. There is no "finally getting it," neither is there anything here I didn't know before the Viet Nam conflict was over.

Neither have I thrown a single person into any meat grinder; you would do better to withdraw that accusation.

You have referred to winning wars as being accomplished by things like "political goals," or political will. None of that pertains in the current conflict, because we aren't up against any organized Gov't. The terrorist organizations we are up against do not fit neatly into your text books.

If you wish to assert that said war is for "hearts and minds," well that won't be won by extolling the virtues of democratic capitalism. The folks in question have no such concepts, as those native to the area and who speak Arabic as their native tongue attest.

For you to assert that we cannot kill as many as convert to extremism, well that is false. It would actually be easier to kill them before they even bother to. The closest you could say to address that issue is its simply not appropriate - but you haven't said anything along those lines.

Explain to me why it's any business of ours? Or how military force is the solution?

If it's not, we may actually agree on something.

Military might has never been proposed as a solution to this. The problem here was entering armed conflict before any exit strategy was defined. Whatever your standard military training is that determines how wars are won, it has failed ALL of us. Which makes you still preaching that failed axiom really strange. I would think you might be open to seeing its faults.

What are you babbling about? What does that have to do with casualties?

It's not babbling, it has nothing to do with casualties, and it has everything to do with defining a military loss. (As opposed to the military victory our Gov't merely claimed, which was nothing more than blatantly false propaganda)

While I agree that your argument isn't remotely logical, I'm hardly taking it up -- I'm saying what I've always been saying -- we cannot fight terrorists by attrition, no matter how much you would like to.

Hey, it was never my idea to fight terrorists to begin with. Well, not with guns anyway. How do you propose the war be won? (It might also be amusing to see you explain how dead men win wars, but I digress)

your argument was: "Wars aren't won by intel, they're won by killing people until they can no longer be replaced with anyone competent enough to be effective" -- which we learned in Vietnam is wrong on so many levels it's not even funny.

This logic is flawed to the extreme. We never did that in Nam, nor did we win. How did we then "learn" anything along these lines (either way) from that experience?

 

[MachZer0]

It is All his fault. Nobody else was driving him.

I see he is responsible for his guns but not responsible for driving them into Mexico.

Cherry picking responsibility!

It isn't his fault that the signage was inadequte, but it is his fault that Washington Democrats need a whipping boy I suppose

 

[JustOneWay]

It isn't his fault that the signage was inadequte, but it is his fault that Washington Democrats need a whipping boy I suppose

Blame Signs, blame democrats.



Blame it on Rio.


Just don't blame the guy who illegally transported weapons into a foreign country.

 

[MachZer0]

Blame Signs, blame democrats.



Blame it on Rio.


Just don't blame the guy who illegally transported weapons into a foreign country.

Who unintentionally transported weapons into a foreign country

 

[JustOneWay]

Who unintentionally transported weapons into a foreign country

That is also what his mom says, but we don't know that for certain.