I made no mistake. I saw no terrorists in that video.
If you want to prove your assertion, provide details of 1 of the men (other than the American) and prove the man is a terrorist.
Please put your money where your mouth is.
Upvote
0
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
No, the mistake was yours.
3.5 tons of 5% uranium can be converted to 20% in a few weeks.
Christians don't gamble.I made no mistake. I saw no terrorists in that video.
If you want to prove your assertion, provide details of 1 of the men (other than the American) and prove the man is a terrorist.
Please put your money where your mouth is.
Christians don't gamble.
God be with you.
When a deserter swap allows five of the most dangerous terrorists on earth according to Donald Rumsfeld, who called them: "most dangerous, best-trained, vicious killers on the face of the earth." Yes!
Not to devalue the crime, even one terrorist is not a good exchange. It's just that one nuke will do much more damage than all of them put together. Iran is an axis of evil as is N. Korea. Btw, Putin is chumming up with N. Korea ... where will that lead?
I was right there in DC. Clearly you were in a coma during that time.
If you're referring to Iran-Contra, if Reagan did know about it and we still had active agents in the field; he would have arguably been committing treason if he divulged what he knew about it...
To try to compare Iran-contra (which Reagan may or may not have known about, since this was during the Cold War and there were a lot of intelligence gathering ops that the President may not have been informed of), to what Obama did in handing over 5 core leaders of terrorist groups is extremely disingenious.
Turning over prisoners of war compared to giving an axis of evil country missiles in return for hostages.
You're right there is no comparison. Iran/Contra was much worse.
You clearly have no idea what a POW is, I'm not giving an opinion, I'm stating a fact.
A POW is a soldier that has been captured while in uniform, these 5 whom were captured, were not in uniform they were "unlawful combatants" (actually they could have been classified as spies and shot on sight).
These were the worst of the worst being returned for a deserter (whom was also possibly a traitor).
I wasn't aware that we were at war with Iran, I thought the Cold War was between the Soviet Union and its' proxies and the United States and its allies and proxies.
Reagan did approve, and he is safe because his minions took the brunt of the blame.I really don't think Reagan would have approved Iran/Contra, and the during the Cold War, the CIA was well known for doing things behind the back of the President. The CIA didn't have the oversight back in that time period, that it ended up having under Clinton and Bush Jr.
They never controlled 100% of it, but they were still the country's government.
Key word:were, turn the page.
Darn, my mistake. Bergdahl was being held for over five years by Taliban associated pacifist tree huggers. *throws peace sign*
Mincing words and playing semantics will not convince anybody that these people captured were not soldiers.
semantics.These people captured were not soldiers. Everybody knows that. You have no means of convincing anyone otherwise.
Not semantics at all, but the crux of the case. That's why Armoured's false claim about the Taliban being the recognized legal Gov't of AF when we went in is relevant to the thread. If we were fighting a Nation, these would be soldiers, and afforded all the rights of the Geneva conventions.
Taliban - Wikipedia, the free encyclopediaTaleban,[7] is an Islamic fundamentalist political movement in Afghanistan. It spread throughout Afghanistan and formed a government, ruling as the Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan from September 1996 until December 2001,
It's hilarious to see how rapidly Republicans are flipping on this and changing their tunes. Not long ago they were supporting petitions for Obama to work (through "ANY" means necessary) to bring this fellow back home, etc.. And not They're trying to smear him as a deserter and attack the exchange.
I've heard the "Obama broke the notification law" and "we don't negotiate with terrorists" lines a number of times on this topic. I guess they missed the founding father of their current iteration of GOP-hood, Ronald Reagan, who broke numerous laws to secretly exchange over 1500 missiles for 3 hostages in Iran (Iran went and captured more to replace them), until his Iran-Contra operation was exposed to the public.
Here's just a few examples of the flip-flopping that has occurred now that suddenly the Republican demands have been met (can't have Obama be said to have anything good, can we?):
Flashback! 1/2014: PJ Media Encourages Readers to Sign Petition to Free Bergdahl "By Any Means Necessary" - Little Green Footballs
(Continued in the link)
Another showing McCain and Ayotte and their flipflopping:
McCain's reversals on Bowe Bergdahl | MSNBC
Oh and then we have John Bellinger (Legal Adviser for the U.S. Department of State and the National Security Council under Bush):
People who broke the law were charged, tried and convicted and our liberal friends fully supported doing so. Will they be consistent and support charging those who broke the law in this case?
semantics.
Again, I ask, if my claim was "false" then who do you think was the government of Afghanistan between '96 and '01?Not semantics at all, but the crux of the case. That's why Armoured's false claim about the Taliban being the recognized legal Gov't of AF when we went in is relevant to the thread. If we were fighting a Nation, these would be soldiers, and afforded all the rights of the Geneva conventions.
Such is NOT the case, and it makes a world of difference. It would be nice if you were up to speed on at least some of the basics before opining, but I guess we can't expect rationale from every poster in an open online forum.
The 5 Talibs under discussion here were criminals when they were captured. They were busily oppressing the good people of AF who just wanted to live in peace. We weren't so much drawn into their Civil War, as we were disrupting their training bases designed to cause us more harm on domestic soil. It WORKED.
Upon their capture, goons like these caused us a great dilemma: even though we had every legal right to just execute them, that would instantly make them martyrs and fuel their cause. We couldn't very well turn them loose. Even in captivity they could be highly dangerous, so what to do? Let them figure out how to swim from Cuba back to AF. Make their comrades back home fear that if they're captured, they will fare about as well as our boys at their mercy would; level the playing field. We did a lot to create that image, and unfortunately many of our own soldiers went too far, actually abusing combatants, and then civilians too.
And so we have a mess. This was new ground at every turn, and therefore controversial by definition. Are you filled in yet?
First it was Birth certificate, then Bengahzi, now Bergdahl.
Bad things come in 3s.
And in Bs!
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?