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.
ETA: Tahmooressi had 3 guns and ammo in his truck. Not really an 'arsenal' in the real world application of the word.
If we were going to kill them, it should've been on the battlefield.
3 loaded weapons and 400 spare rounds of ammo is a bit excessive for one person under most circumstances -- barring, perhaps, the unthinkable.
Yes we can. Maybe we shouldn't, but your statement is factually in error.
By all means, if we've been holding people that were just set up by their enemies but never harmful, set them free. We owe none of them a trial.
3 loaded weapons and 400 spare rounds of ammo is a bit excessive for one person under most circumstances -- barring, perhaps, the unthinkable.
Yes, sure I have no problem with the US using diplomatic pressure, etc..He's a vet of the front in Afghanistan and seeking treatment for PTSD from that. We owe this man what help we can, even though its not really equivalent to a POW situation. I realize you think we should have left AF alone. You should realize I'd like to see us do a Rambo / Iron Eagle move here. Fortunately for everyone reality is somewhere between those extremes
but US is not above using diplomatic pressure. And as far as morality goes, you don't refuse a turnaround at the border crossing, geez
Do you not think it's a dangerous precedent to set? Holding people indefinitely without trial?
Imagine if that happened to Joe America... I imagine there would be quite the fuss.
Perhaps, but maybe not. How much can we really on any info we've gathered from these folks since? I would think that what they tell us about themselves would be the least reliable type of intel they offer, esp if its that they were set up.
Even so, no doubt there's enough gained since their initial capture to confuse the issue of if they should have been killed or taken alive.
The big difference is still that death = martyrdom to these folks and their movement, so its actually more cost effective for us to just detain them. Esp when there's no hope for any trial or release. Gitmo is wholly irrelevant to all that.
Yes, sure I have no problem with the US using diplomatic pressure, etc..
But when looking at this case one must realize that any diplomatic pressure will likely be tossed back in our faces, considering how Texas ignored and defied World court rulings and executed a Mexican national not too long ago (and didn't bother to inform him of his rights to contact his consulate to get representation when they booked him, among other things). I have little doubt that this is their little bit of payback here.
And since these men have been out of the loop for quite some time, so even their accurate intel is years out of date.
In short, we've gotten as much as we can get out of them -- what else are they good for besides bargaining chips?
What we do know, or at least can safely assume, is that they have nothing more to give -- since the US does NOT kill prisoners, we either hold them or use them. We found a way to use them to get back one of our own.
On a side note, was Bergdahl a model soldier for this trade? Probably not, but 1) that doesn't mean he deserved to be in captivity, and 2) being our onlyPOW, well, beggars can't be choosers.
If Audie Murphy had been captured, I'm sure Obama would've swapped for him instead -- and the chickenhawks would STILL whine about it.
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.
How long will it take for them to be every bit as good to AQ as they ever were?
How much blood and treasure have we already spent on the capture of each of these 5 men?
You seem to have this idea that they have an endless supply of manpower.
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.
Sure intel is part of that, but AQ has been suffering for a lack of effective leadership. These pieces all fit neatly together ... (even though no one at Gitmo has given us good info for years now)
We are the ones that have been used. How many other detainees at Gitmo? Why these 5? Clearly these were AQ's top choice. No doubt they have good reason for that.
There is one other possibility, that some seriously high level James Bond type stuff no one will know about for 20 years is going on here, and I would love for that to be the case. You know as well as I do that Obama really isn't that creative, or dedicated to the task.
Instead, he's still kissing Arab Kings.
This is not a side note but the whole crux of the issue! These 5 are not bargaining chips; we've got plenty of those. These 5 are the last to be let go - meaning never let go.
Possibly never -- AQ has moved on in their absence, and how eager is the current leadership going to be about stepping down to let these men (who presumably spilled all their secrets under tort-- ahem, enhanced interrogation) take the reigns from them?
AQ doesn't seem like the sort of organization where paradigm shifts are handled smoothly... but more on that later.
How much less would it have cost to kill them once we found them? And what would we have lost by doing so?
Is that what happened in Vietnam?
We've been over this before -- If war worked like a videogame, where whoever scores the most kills wins, then yes, you would be correct. However, this isn't Call of Duty; it's the real world, where war is a political action with political goals. Make those goals impossible to achieve -- by any means -- and the war is over.
You want to fight asymmetrical warfare by attrition -- WWI style. It doesn't work.
As they're no good to us, they're only going to be slightly less useful to them.
if we don't at least respect them when they get captured, how in the name of the devil's mother are we going to keep a standing army?
If I were in AQ, I'd make a big spectacle of welcoming them back... but I wouldn't let them sit at the grown-up table or do any serious planning until they're proven that they're not a liability or worse, a double agent... and that might take some time, if ever.
This lends itself to the same sort of Ian Fleming stuff you said doesn't happen. Pump up these 5 pre-release about how important they are, and try to create inner tension that weakens AQ more than we can otherwise. Grasping at straws to find some good reasons Obama might have for this, but it is possible, however remote.
Hey, that's my argument
No. We lost.
Obviously false. We started with the impossible goal of establishing Democracy where it is neither understood nor wanted. You say that's what ends wars?
Asymmetrical or no, if your opponent is dead, there is no more war. We CAN kill all of them; we simply haven't. Personally, I think if we're not willing to do that, that is a war we have no business fighting.
I certainly hope you're right about this, but I don;t think AQ is the bunch of simpletons this portrays them to be.
Standing armies were considered a terrible thing by our founding Fathers. The only thing worse would be a private central bank, issuing our currency.
More Iam Fleming stuff. Which might actually be what Obama is up to ... I hesitate to give him that much credit, but if he can actually transform US into a non-interventionist State?
3 loaded weapons and 400 spare rounds of ammo is a bit excessive for one person under most circumstances-...Not really
Not really?
How is it not excessive? Where was he driving to? Baghdad?
Not really
Without a trial
I'm looking for Obama to make a move to get him released. Heck, he could trade any number of illegal aliens for one sergeant.If you are looking for a speedy trial, next time tell him to not fire his lawyer
He was driving to a dinner date with his his arsenal by his side....
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?