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

[TLK Valentine]

Not to mention, where do you intend to get the soldiers from? IIRC, the US military is already having a hard time maintaining troop numbers.

And most of the ones we have are needed where they are

 

[Armoured]

And most of the ones we have are needed where they are

And beyond even that, if the horror stories about bottom of the barrel reservists forced to go on 3 or 4 combat rotations are accurate.

 

[theophilus777]

I don't care how many boots are on the ground, you are not going to change the culture of these people. This isn't Germany after world war 2, the culture is completely different.

The more you try to change these people, the more you tick them off.

Red herring. Chaniging their culture has no bearing.

 

[bhsmte]

Red herring. Chaniging their culture has no bearing.

Sending massive troops will have no bearing, except to reinforce the US as their number one enemy.

 

[theophilus777]

Bad choice of role models.

No. Perfect role model; the wolf hunting helicopter rider riding herd on the middle east. C'mon, just because you're a liberal Democrat means you can't have a sense of humor?

Which their governments will refuse.

Sheer pretense. First of all the Taliban wasn't the Gov't. Next, you have no idea what they would have said. Nobody asked them. They never considered it. I still want to know what Tzu says about it, but leave altruism out of it.

Ok, so, ignoring that the leaders of these nations don't trust you and would never allow your "humanitarians" in -- and by your admission, they have valid reasons not to -- that leads to the outright military conquest and complete subjugation of Iraq, Afghanistan, and.... where else, exactly?

How large would the American Empire in the Middle East be?

First off its amazing you pretend to know even the first thing about military strategy and yet you use nations in the plural in your first sentence here. IF the Talibs refuse the sensible offer, and that is still a big if, you are only bargaining with them over the land they currently control. Not a word can be said about anywhere else, and you have logistics like how many soldiers can be brought in and how many civilians can be hired, and how many are needed as the area is taken over. Any way you look at it making AF a success before looking elsewhere would've changed what was done.

And you can't really convince me Iraq wasn't invaded because we wanted two fronts on Iran. I don't think we liked them so well, so does it become more practical to skip over them, or go through them? If you continue westward there's an unbroken line of unrest almost to Morocco. Not all that was so unpeaceful then, and I doubt we could make it that far anyway.

Pakistan is our ally -- as long as we're in the neighborhood, shall we conquer India?

Pakistan didn't need conquering, or even killing. Just a little pest control. How safe do their nukes look right now?

Translation: plunder

I knew you'd understand sooner or later; colonization, plunder, tomato tomahto. How many references to Alexander the Great must you ignore? How far you go depends on the level of co-operation from the locals. He was loved for the same reasons I point out here. We could do it better.

Civil control by whom? The Afghanis, or us?

Surely you realize you don't make your subjects Princes and Dukes? Leave that stuff for the likes of Daniel and Joseph. Unless you're wanting to re-create those legends?!?

Oh, goody -- I was afraid there wouldn't be any infighting...

You don't have civilians taking up arms against the military, it would be suicide. And the military is glad their job is done and they can move on.

I see -- and who's going to pay them?

Oh, the conquered, of course.

Not willingly, so how do you propose to get them to cough up the cash?

You don't understand this ruling stuff at all, have you no European descent?

 

[theophilus777]

Not to mention, where do you intend to get the soldiers from? IIRC, the US military is already having a hard time maintaining troop numbers.

Good show! Full points for keeping up with the convo. We do indeed need personnel willing to fly drones, for some reason that cushy job is not so popular. That wasn't the case in '03.

 

[Armoured]

Good show! Full points for keeping up with the convo. We do indeed need personnel willing to fly drones, for some reason that cushy job is not so popular. That wasn't the case in '03.

So, what, you expect to hold the Middle East with drones? A page ago you wanted hundreds of thousands of ground troops, so which is it?

 

[DaisyDay]

You betcha! *intentional Palinism*

Appropriate, considering what followed.

Fix the unemployment situation! Lehman Bros might not have even collapsed. Even if they still had, the recovery would've been much quicker.

Wait, are you blaming the collapse of the Lehman Brothers on unemployment? That's a bit backwards.

 

[TLK Valentine]

No. Perfect role model; the wolf hunting helicopter rider riding herd on the middle east. C'mon, just because you're a liberal Democrat means you can't have a sense of humor?

There's a difference between humor and stupidity.

Sheer pretense. First of all the Taliban wasn't the Gov't. Next, you have no idea what they would have said. Nobody asked them. They never considered it. I still want to know what Tzu says about it, but leave altruism out of it.

Has the Afghani Government asked for our humanitarian aid? I want to know what they say about it.

First off its amazing you pretend to know even the first thing about military strategy and yet you use nations in the plural in your first sentence here.

Red herring -- you're the one who wants to conquer the Middle East.

That's more than one nation, in case you're not familiar with the map...

IF the Talibs refuse the sensible offer, and that is still a big if, you are only bargaining with them over the land they currently control.

Which is exactly why they're refuse it -- it's their land; they don't want us on it.

Not a word can be said about anywhere else, and you have logistics like how many soldiers can be brought in and how many civilians can be hired, and how many are needed as the area is taken over.

[

And I'm asking how big the "area" ultimately is -- is there any reason you've chosen to avoid this simple question?

Could it be that you haven't thought it through -- as expected?

Any way you look at it making AF a success before looking elsewhere would've changed what was done.

Now all you have to do is figure out how to make Afghanistan a "success..."

"success" at what, again?

And you can't really convince me Iraq wasn't invaded because we wanted two fronts on Iran.

I wasn't trying -- are you having conversations with invisible people? Because I never said that.

I don't think we liked them so well, so does it become more practical to skip over them, or go through them? If you continue westward there's an unbroken line of unrest almost to Morocco. Not all that was so unpeaceful then, and I doubt we could make it that far anyway.

So how far could your conquest make it? Why are you avoiding this simple but important question?

Pakistan didn't need conquering, or even killing. Just a little pest control. How safe do their nukes look right now?

Pest Control, you say? So where are the pests? In the government, or the citizenry?

I knew you'd understand sooner or later; colonization, plunder, tomato tomahto. How many references to Alexander the Great must you ignore? How far you go depends on the level of co-operation from the locals. He was loved for the same reasons I point out here. We could do it better.

So you're in favor of colonization, plunder, rape, pillaging, looting... the usual.

Surely you realize you don't make your subjects Princes and Dukes? Leave that stuff for the likes of Daniel and Joseph. Unless you're wanting to re-create those legends?!?

And the thought of your subjects not cooperating with your princes and dukes never once entered your mind... how sad.

You don't have civilians taking up arms against the military, it would be suicide. And the military is glad their job is done and they can move on.

You don't have people strapping bombs to themselves and blowing themselves up, it would be suicide... oh, wait, you do.

You're going to subjugate an entire nation and not expect them to fight back? Are you even trying to think this through? Or are you expected to be greeted as liberators?

You don't understand this ruling stuff at all, have you no European descent?

I have American descent -- remember what we did to our European rulers?

 

[imind]

Former Rep. Allen West (R-FL)
“Then there is Army SGT Bowe Bergdahl still held by the Islamic terrorist Haqqani network, probably in Pakistan, in the same place where Osama Bin Laden was hiding. This past POW/MIA national day of recognition, Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel reiterated a pledge to secure the young Army NCO being held captive, but have there been any actions? Any time, attention, or even mention from the Commander-in-Chief? Nah, no camera highlights in it for him.” December, 2013

Sen. Kelly Ayotte (R-NH)
“As part of ongoing efforts to urge the Department of Defense to do all it can to find Sergeant Bowe Bergdahl and bring him home safely, Senator Ayotte worked successfully to include a provision in the bill that presses Pakistan to fully cooperate in the search for SGT Bergdahl.” May, 2014


Sen. James Inhofe (R-OK)
“The mission to bring our missing soldiers home is one that will never end. It’s important that we make every effort to bring this captured soldier home to his family.” June, 2013

Rep. Rich Nugent (R-FL)
“Last year, on the fourth anniversary of Sgt. Bergdahl’s capture, on the floor of the House of Representatives, I introduced a resolution in the House calling on the United States to do everything possible not to leave any members of the armed forces behind during the drawdown of Iraq and Afghanistan. Believe it or not, I had members of Congress come up to me and say, ‘I didn’t know we had a living POW in Afghanistan.’ That was shocking to me.” February, 2014

Sen. John McCain (R-AZ)
told CNN’s Anderson Cooper in February that he “would be inclined to support” “an exchange of prisoners for our American fighting man,” like the one Taliban officials had offered in 2012.