US Soldier Freed From Captivity in Afghanistan

[Hossfly]

Ain't that just dandy, a coward and deserter is now flaunted as a hero and 5 terrorists are now free to kill Americans. What a pathetic precedent this clown has set. Or is it just a case of a coward bowing down to save a coward.

General: Deserter Should Never Draw a Free Breath


‘He needs to spend the rest of his life in prison at a minimum’

(Tea Party) – Retired U.S. Army Lt. Gen. William “Jerry” Boykin has made his position on Sgt. Bowe Bergdahl clear: he is a deserter who should never draw a free breath. Boykin also charges that President Obama is guilty of high crimes and misdemeanors as he again ignored federal law in pursuit of his own administration goal.

In a WND radio interview Boykin tore into Obama for releasing five high level members of the Taliban in exchange for Bergdahl. The retired US Army General also slammed the Obama administration for attacking the character of the Afghanistan veterans who come forward to publicly denounce Bergdahl’s actions in Afghanistan.

Obama’s actions clearly demonstrate why he is unfit for office stated the general as he categorically dismissed Obama’s notion that the exchange had to happen in order to honor America’s commitment to leave no Americans behind. Boykin contends that leaving no American behind clearly was not the case in Benghazi. Furthermore, Boykin said that the administration seems to care less about the U.S. Marine jailed in Mexico, the American pastor imprisoned in Iran or the Sudanese Christian in custody for her faith along with her two American children.

General: Deserter Should Never Draw a Free Breath - Tea Party

 

[Mustang]

Your stupidity is noted. And not just by me.
Berdahl is a traitor. Obama is a dupe. And even the Democrats won't defend him on this.

Yeah, the conservative penchant to place the condemnation before the evidence has even been presented and therefore demand the punishment before the trial has even begun has long been known. Jumping to conclusions has always been the forte of the right. I've just never understood why you guys don't seem to learn from your mistakes when the facts bear out your error. You just jump from one assumption to the next as if the mere fact that you've reached a conclusion must mean it's true. What is it? Do you just remember the times you guessed right and then forget all the times you were wrong?

Regardless, you're STILL anti-American in your sentiments and your rhetoric no matter how you choose to couch it or try to explain it away.

There is sufficient evidence in the court of public opinion.

No there is not. And the truth of the matter is that public opinion can be, and in today's media environment, often IS manipulated by people with an agenda. Public opinion can also often be flat out wrong, as well. Public opinion can even express itself in ways that are not only wrong, but are also illegal, as well as immoral. After all, a lynch mob is an expression of public opinion once the emotions of certain people are whipped into a frenzy. Frankly, that's what I'm seeing right now. It's a damn pile on with little regard for the rights of a man accused of crimes he's in no position to address at this point in time.

Intentionally or unintentionally, there are a number of people who are fanning the flames of a public lynching of Bergdahl for reasons that probably wouldn't hold up well under closer scrutiny. For example, controversy is good for ratings. Always has been. Sgt Bergdahl is now a convenient whipping boy for certain people who see increased ratings as an economic boon to themselves in terms of advertising revenue etc. They're certainly not motivated by love of country. It's more like love of self.

And of course there's the anti-American crowd who wouldn't miss a chance to undermine our country if it allowed them to further their own political agenda in the process. Those people don't give a shit about the nation, despite what they might claim. They want power, and if that's what it takes to get it, they don't have a problem with using those kinds of tactics.

 

[depotoo]

Nope. Propagandists pretty much all sing from the same songbook. It's just relatively rare for people to make such a public display of taking the bait and then turning on the leadership of their own country at the same time. Hell, all things being equal, I always thought most people were smart enough not to take the word of the enemy over that of their fellow countrymen. But American conservatives seem to be charting new territory, here. I guess they think the Taliban is more trustworthy.

I'm sorry but did Obama not just take the word of 5 killers that they would be good boys for the next year?

I hadn't heard that the five had pledged to only do charity work from the day of their release on forward. But what does it matter if they had? Nobody would have believed them anyway. So, even if the released detainees are not necessarily inclined to want that life again (they ARE older, after all), I think everyone in the administration is sophisticated enough to understand that they're going back into the same environment as before. And even like a drug addict who wants to reform, going back into the same environment will probably lead them back into the same life.

But I have a sneaking suspicion those guys will find that the NEW leaders won't necessarily be willing to give up their power and just step aside to let the old guard take over again. As a general rule, human nature doesn't work that way. The new leaders will also be suspicious about what the former prisoners may have revealed to the Americans about their operation. After an initial happy reunion, I have a funny feeling there's gonna be some tension as personal ambitions and suspicions take hold. No doubt something to this effect was included in any briefing to the people who make the decisions. And in true Psy Ops form, it also wouldn't surprise me to learn that American operatives have spread some seeds of distrust in that regard in the hope that some of those seeds might just take root. I mean, haven't you even considered the possibility that they'll just eventually kill those guys when they get back to Afghanistan? Maybe it'll be because they don't trust them. Maybe it'll be because they want to take over and the new guys in charge don't much care for that idea. Could happen. After all, life is cheap there, and there's no real law to hold them accountable if they do kill them.

So, here's the scenario. One day, Sahib and Farook go out for a camel ride, and in something akin to a Mafia hit, Farook doesn't come back. Some predetermined story is cooked up beforehand and then dished out as an explanation. Then, everybody says a little prayer to Allah, and they all go back to the way things were before the guy came back.

Then there's always the possibility that a predator drone may find them at almost any hour of the day or night about a month from now. Bye bye, Farook!

Really believe that, after these guys have been wheeling and dealing that only these 5 would do for an exchange for at least 4 years?

And if a drone finds them, what do you bet the taliban will more than double down? And we will have at least 10,000 soldier's in there for a few more years to come. Well after their imposed Qatar only existence, that is if it is even enforced. The last one we gave to Qatar traveled out of country freely, until re arrested by Britain this time, in Britain upon his second visit.

 

[depotoo]

Your stupidity is noted. And not just by me.
Berdahl is a traitor. Obama is a dupe. And even the Democrats won't defend him on this.

Yeah, the conservative penchant to place the condemnation before the evidence has even been presented and therefore demand the punishment before the trial has even begun has long been known. Jumping to conclusions has always been the forte of the right. I've just never understood why you guys don't seem to learn from your mistakes when the facts bear out your error. You just jump from one assumption to the next as if the mere fact that you've reached a conclusion must mean it's true. What is it? Do you just remember the times you guessed right and then forget all the times you were wrong?

Regardless, you're STILL anti-American in your sentiments and your rhetoric no matter how you choose to couch it or try to explain it away.

Many have been frred from Gitmo and returned to terrorist acts. We can only hope Qatar places survival over kow towing to al Qaeda.

Survival? They were rewarded with the top 5 after they refused to kowtow last time. Think.

 

[depotoo]

Yeah, the conservative penchant to place the condemnation before the evidence has even been presented and therefore demand the punishment before the trial has even begun has long been known. Jumping to conclusions has always been the forte of the right. I've just never understood why you guys don't seem to learn from your mistakes when the facts bear out your error. You just jump from one assumption to the next as if the mere fact that you've reached a conclusion must mean it's true. What is it? Do you just remember the times you guessed right and then forget all the times you were wrong?

Regardless, you're STILL anti-American in your sentiments and your rhetoric no matter how you choose to couch it or try to explain it away.

There is sufficient evidence in the court of public opinion.

No there is not. And the truth of the matter is that public opinion can be, and in today's media environment, often IS manipulated by people with an agenda. Public opinion can also often be flat out wrong, as well. Public opinion can even express itself in ways that are not only wrong, but are also illegal, as well as immoral. After all, a lynch mob is an expression of public opinion once the emotions of certain people are whipped into a frenzy. Frankly, that's what I'm seeing right now. It's a damn pile on with little regard for the rights of a man accused of crimes he's in no position to address at this point in time.

Intentionally or unintentionally, there are a number of people who are fanning the flames of a public lynching of Bergdahl for reasons that probably wouldn't hold up well under closer scrutiny. For example, controversy is good for ratings. Always has been. Sgt Bergdahl is now a convenient whipping boy for certain people who see increased ratings as an economic boon to themselves in terms of advertising revenue etc. They're certainly not motivated by love of country. It's more like love of self.

And of course there's the anti-American crowd who wouldn't miss a chance to undermine our country if it allowed them to further their own political agenda in the process. Those people don't give a shit about the nation, despite what they might claim. They want power, and if that's what it takes to get it, they don't have a problem with using those kinds of tactics.

One aspect of Anti-Americanism is not looking out for the best interests of our soldiers on the battlefied, the ones that risk their lives so we can remain free. It is stating to the world a deserter is both honorable and has served with distinction. It is true he served with distinction, as he left his comrades behind. That clearly made him distinct.

 

[Mustang]

I'm sorry but did Obama not just take the word of 5 killers that they would be good boys for the next year?

I hadn't heard that the five had pledged to only do charity work from the day of their release on forward. But what does it matter if they had? Nobody would have believed them anyway. So, even if the released detainees are not necessarily inclined to want that life again (they ARE older, after all), I think everyone in the administration is sophisticated enough to understand that they're going back into the same environment as before. And even like a drug addict who wants to reform, going back into the same environment will probably lead them back into the same life.

But I have a sneaking suspicion those guys will find that the NEW leaders won't necessarily be willing to give up their power and just step aside to let the old guard take over again. As a general rule, human nature doesn't work that way. The new leaders will also be suspicious about what the former prisoners may have revealed to the Americans about their operation. After an initial happy reunion, I have a funny feeling there's gonna be some tension as personal ambitions and suspicions take hold. No doubt something to this effect was included in any briefing to the people who make the decisions. And in true Psy Ops form, it also wouldn't surprise me to learn that American operatives have spread some seeds of distrust in that regard in the hope that some of those seeds might just take root. I mean, haven't you even considered the possibility that they'll just eventually kill those guys when they get back to Afghanistan? Maybe it'll be because they don't trust them. Maybe it'll be because they want to take over and the new guys in charge don't much care for that idea. Could happen. After all, life is cheap there, and there's no real law to hold them accountable if they do kill them.

So, here's the scenario. One day, Sahib and Farook go out for a camel ride, and in something akin to a Mafia hit, Farook doesn't come back. Some predetermined story is cooked up beforehand and then dished out as an explanation. Then, everybody says a little prayer to Allah, and they all go back to the way things were before the guy came back.

Then there's always the possibility that a predator drone may find them at almost any hour of the day or night about a month from now. Bye bye, Farook!

Really believe that, after these guys have been wheeling and dealing that only these 5 would do for an exchange for at least 4 years?

And if a drone finds them, what do you bet the taliban will more than double down? And we will have at least 10,000 soldier's in there for a few more years to come. Well after their imposed Qatar only existence, that is if it is even enforced. The last one we gave to Qatar traveled out of country freely, until re arrested by Britain this time, in Britain upon his second visit.

You're worried about the Taliban doubling down? Why? They're a bunch of half-assed mountain boys. America has about as much to fear from the Taliban as the Federal Gov't had to fear from the Symbionese Liberation Army back in the 1970s. For the most part, they're a danger to the people of Afghanistan. Americans have more to worry about from random violence originating right here on the streets of this country.

What is it about conservatives with their fear of almost anything and everything? If this country wants to confront REAL potential threats, it should prepare for Chinese expansionism in Asia and Russia meddling in the affairs of Eastern Europe, thereby upsetting the status quo. Throwing more resources at the ridiculous Taliban threat only drains our resources that would be better spent trying to prepare for real existential threats.

 

[Hossfly]

There is sufficient evidence in the court of public opinion.

No there is not. And the truth of the matter is that public opinion can be, and in today's media environment, often IS manipulated by people with an agenda. Public opinion can also often be flat out wrong, as well. Public opinion can even express itself in ways that are not only wrong, but are also illegal, as well as immoral. After all, a lynch mob is an expression of public opinion once the emotions of certain people are whipped into a frenzy. Frankly, that's what I'm seeing right now. It's a damn pile on with little regard for the rights of a man accused of crimes he's in no position to address at this point in time.

Intentionally or unintentionally, there are a number of people who are fanning the flames of a public lynching of Bergdahl for reasons that probably wouldn't hold up well under closer scrutiny. For example, controversy is good for ratings. Always has been. Sgt Bergdahl is now a convenient whipping boy for certain people who see increased ratings as an economic boon to themselves in terms of advertising revenue etc. They're certainly not motivated by love of country. It's more like love of self.

And of course there's the anti-American crowd who wouldn't miss a chance to undermine our country if it allowed them to further their own political agenda in the process. Those people don't give a shit about the nation, despite what they might claim. They want power, and if that's what it takes to get it, they don't have a problem with using those kinds of tactics.

One aspect of Anti-Americanism is not looking out for the best interests of our soldiers on the battlefied, the ones that risk their lives so we can remain free. It is stating to the world a deserter is both honorable and has served with distinction. It is true he served with distinction, as he left his comrades behind. That clearly made him distinct.

This Mustang critter likes to call military and combat veterans, "un-American". And he worships a Kenyan who calls Bergdolts platoon members "liars" and releases war criminals.

 

[birddog]

No there is not. And the truth of the matter is that public opinion can be, and in today's media environment, often IS manipulated by people with an agenda. Public opinion can also often be flat out wrong, as well. Public opinion can even express itself in ways that are not only wrong, but are also illegal, as well as immoral. After all, a lynch mob is an expression of public opinion once the emotions of certain people are whipped into a frenzy. Frankly, that's what I'm seeing right now. It's a damn pile on with little regard for the rights of a man accused of crimes he's in no position to address at this point in time.

Intentionally or unintentionally, there are a number of people who are fanning the flames of a public lynching of Bergdahl for reasons that probably wouldn't hold up well under closer scrutiny. For example, controversy is good for ratings. Always has been. Sgt Bergdahl is now a convenient whipping boy for certain people who see increased ratings as an economic boon to themselves in terms of advertising revenue etc. They're certainly not motivated by love of country. It's more like love of self.

And of course there's the anti-American crowd who wouldn't miss a chance to undermine our country if it allowed them to further their own political agenda in the process. Those people don't give a shit about the nation, despite what they might claim. They want power, and if that's what it takes to get it, they don't have a problem with using those kinds of tactics.

One aspect of Anti-Americanism is not looking out for the best interests of our soldiers on the battlefied, the ones that risk their lives so we can remain free. It is stating to the world a deserter is both honorable and has served with distinction. It is true he served with distinction, as he left his comrades behind. That clearly made him distinct.

This Mustang critter likes to call military and combat veterans, "un-American". And he worships a Kenyan who calls Bergdolts platoon members "liars" and releases war criminals.

Mustang is a liar at best, or a biased, dumbass liar otherwise!

We Veterans would rather believe the Veterans that were there, and I believe most of the general public feels the same way.

 

[Mustang]

No there is not. And the truth of the matter is that public opinion can be, and in today's media environment, often IS manipulated by people with an agenda. Public opinion can also often be flat out wrong, as well. Public opinion can even express itself in ways that are not only wrong, but are also illegal, as well as immoral. After all, a lynch mob is an expression of public opinion once the emotions of certain people are whipped into a frenzy. Frankly, that's what I'm seeing right now. It's a damn pile on with little regard for the rights of a man accused of crimes he's in no position to address at this point in time.

Intentionally or unintentionally, there are a number of people who are fanning the flames of a public lynching of Bergdahl for reasons that probably wouldn't hold up well under closer scrutiny. For example, controversy is good for ratings. Always has been. Sgt Bergdahl is now a convenient whipping boy for certain people who see increased ratings as an economic boon to themselves in terms of advertising revenue etc. They're certainly not motivated by love of country. It's more like love of self.

And of course there's the anti-American crowd who wouldn't miss a chance to undermine our country if it allowed them to further their own political agenda in the process. Those people don't give a shit about the nation, despite what they might claim. They want power, and if that's what it takes to get it, they don't have a problem with using those kinds of tactics.

One aspect of Anti-Americanism is not looking out for the best interests of our soldiers on the battlefied, the ones that risk their lives so we can remain free. It is stating to the world a deserter is both honorable and has served with distinction. It is true he served with distinction, as he left his comrades behind. That clearly made him distinct.

This Mustang critter likes to call military and combat veterans, "un-American". And he worships a Kenyan who calls Bergdolts platoon members "liars" and releases war criminals.

Can't even get the right word, can you? I said ANTI-American, although I suppose I can call your post un-American in the sense that you question the legitimacy of the duly elected President of the United States of America. It's just one more example of the anti-American leanings of the modern-day American conservative movement. I have plenty more examples since this has been going on for years. I've just reached a point where I finally had my fill of the all the anti-American rants from the right.

As for the detainees being released, you can blame that on conservatives who fought tooth and nail to prevent the very kind of trials that might very well have convicted them of war crimes and placed them in a federal prison for life. Once in prison, it would have been considerably more difficult for ANY president to have them released.

 

[Mustang]

There is sufficient evidence in the court of public opinion.

No there is not. And the truth of the matter is that public opinion can be, and in today's media environment, often IS manipulated by people with an agenda. Public opinion can also often be flat out wrong, as well. Public opinion can even express itself in ways that are not only wrong, but are also illegal, as well as immoral. After all, a lynch mob is an expression of public opinion once the emotions of certain people are whipped into a frenzy. Frankly, that's what I'm seeing right now. It's a damn pile on with little regard for the rights of a man accused of crimes he's in no position to address at this point in time.

Intentionally or unintentionally, there are a number of people who are fanning the flames of a public lynching of Bergdahl for reasons that probably wouldn't hold up well under closer scrutiny. For example, controversy is good for ratings. Always has been. Sgt Bergdahl is now a convenient whipping boy for certain people who see increased ratings as an economic boon to themselves in terms of advertising revenue etc. They're certainly not motivated by love of country. It's more like love of self.

And of course there's the anti-American crowd who wouldn't miss a chance to undermine our country if it allowed them to further their own political agenda in the process. Those people don't give a shit about the nation, despite what they might claim. They want power, and if that's what it takes to get it, they don't have a problem with using those kinds of tactics.

One aspect of Anti-Americanism is not looking out for the best interests of our soldiers on the battlefied, the ones that risk their lives so we can remain free. It is stating to the world a deserter is both honorable and has served with distinction. It is true he served with distinction, as he left his comrades behind. That clearly made him distinct.

You buy in to the argument that you would not remain free or that your freedom is/was somehow in jeopardy if American troops were not stationed in Afghanistan and earlier not in Iraq? That's always been one of the most piss-poor explanations for sending American troops into war because I don't see how our freedom was threatened by them at all. Hell, if there was anything threatening our freedom it was and still is The Patriot Act and all the NSA spying being conducted on Americans by our Federal Govt through private contracts where the work was and is actually conducted by corporations with insufficient governmental oversight.

 

[depotoo]

No there is not. And the truth of the matter is that public opinion can be, and in today's media environment, often IS manipulated by people with an agenda. Public opinion can also often be flat out wrong, as well. Public opinion can even express itself in ways that are not only wrong, but are also illegal, as well as immoral. After all, a lynch mob is an expression of public opinion once the emotions of certain people are whipped into a frenzy. Frankly, that's what I'm seeing right now. It's a damn pile on with little regard for the rights of a man accused of crimes he's in no position to address at this point in time.

Intentionally or unintentionally, there are a number of people who are fanning the flames of a public lynching of Bergdahl for reasons that probably wouldn't hold up well under closer scrutiny. For example, controversy is good for ratings. Always has been. Sgt Bergdahl is now a convenient whipping boy for certain people who see increased ratings as an economic boon to themselves in terms of advertising revenue etc. They're certainly not motivated by love of country. It's more like love of self.

And of course there's the anti-American crowd who wouldn't miss a chance to undermine our country if it allowed them to further their own political agenda in the process. Those people don't give a shit about the nation, despite what they might claim. They want power, and if that's what it takes to get it, they don't have a problem with using those kinds of tactics.

One aspect of Anti-Americanism is not looking out for the best interests of our soldiers on the battlefied, the ones that risk their lives so we can remain free. It is stating to the world a deserter is both honorable and has served with distinction. It is true he served with distinction, as he left his comrades behind. That clearly made him distinct.

You buy the argument that you would not remain free or that your freedom is/was somehow in jeopardy if American troops were not stationed in Afghanistan and earlier not in Iraq? That's always been one of the most piss-poor explanation for sending American troops abroad because I don't see how our freedom was threatened by them at all. Hell, if there was anything threatening our freedom it was and still is The Patriot Act and all the NSA spying being conducted on Americans by our Federal Govt through private contracts where the work was and is actually conducted by corporations with insufficient governmental oversight.

Those soldiers that are honest with themselves enlist to help us remain free.
Do you think our country could continue to be free if there are continued attacks on our soil? Or on our citizens abroad?
Had you asked, I have not be happy with all the decisions Bush and Congress made. But you just assume.

 

[Hossfly]

One aspect of Anti-Americanism is not looking out for the best interests of our soldiers on the battlefied, the ones that risk their lives so we can remain free. It is stating to the world a deserter is both honorable and has served with distinction. It is true he served with distinction, as he left his comrades behind. That clearly made him distinct.

This Mustang critter likes to call military and combat veterans, "un-American". And he worships a Kenyan who calls Bergdolts platoon members "liars" and releases war criminals.

Can't even get the right word, can you? I said ANTI-American, although I suppose I can call your post un-American in the sense that you question the legitimacy of the duly elected President of the United States of America. It's just one more example of the anti-American leanings of the modern-day American conservative movement. I have plenty more examples since this has been going on for years. I've just reached a point where I finally had my fill of the all the anti-American rants from the right.

As for the detainees being released, you can blame that on conservatives who fought tooth and nail to prevent the very kind of trials that might very well have convicted them of war crimes and placed them in a federal prison for life. Once in prison, it would have been considerably more difficult for ANY president to have them released.

Obhomo releases four war criminals in exchange for a questionable blivet. Do you think he will make amends for this fiasco by trading a herd of convicted felons to Mexico for an honorable Marine who is unjustly imprisoned? P.S.: I would lose the anti-American labels if I were you in order to avoid a legal action. Seriously.

 

[Mustang]

This Mustang critter likes to call military and combat veterans, "un-American". And he worships a Kenyan who calls Bergdolts platoon members "liars" and releases war criminals.

Can't even get the right word, can you? I said ANTI-American, although I suppose I can call your post un-American in the sense that you question the legitimacy of the duly elected President of the United States of America. It's just one more example of the anti-American leanings of the modern-day American conservative movement. I have plenty more examples since this has been going on for years. I've just reached a point where I finally had my fill of the all the anti-American rants from the right.

As for the detainees being released, you can blame that on conservatives who fought tooth and nail to prevent the very kind of trials that might very well have convicted them of war crimes and placed them in a federal prison for life. Once in prison, it would have been considerably more difficult for ANY president to have them released.

Obhomo releases four war criminals in exchange for a questionable blivet. Do you think he will make amends for this fiasco by trading a herd of convicted felons to Mexico for an honorable Marine who is unjustly imprisoned? P.S.: I would lose the anti-American labels if I were you in order to avoid a legal action. Seriously.

"...an honorable Marine who is unjustly imprisoned?"

You can't be serious. Sgt Tahmooressi has a serious problem. It's not just that he was caught entering a foreign country with three firearms which was against their laws, he also didn't have a good explanation for why he had three weapons in the first place. Unfortunately for the Sgt, he told a story that was not believable, and if that wasn't bad enough, he didn't tell it convincingly. He said he made a wrong turn. Hey, if you get on the wrong road, turn around, dude. But you can't say you accidentally entered another country unless you did so on the frontier where there are no markers.

Tahmooressi's other problem is that he just so happened to be entering a country with a very serious drug gang problem where drugs flow north to the US, and cash and weapons flow south. This drug gang problem has resulted in tens of thousands of murders in Mexico over the last few years, and apparently Mexican authorities have what they believe are good reasons to suspect that Tahmooressi intended to SELL those weapons while in Mexico. Not good for Tahmooressi.

It just so happens that I heard the Sgt being interviewed on CNN, and he was not at all convincing with the story he told. No doubt, the Mexicans were not impressed and not amused.

Like I said, Sgt Tahmooressi has a serious problem.

And by the way, if what someone says on this forum (or elsewhere, for that matter) qualifies as Anti-American sentiment in my book, that's exactly how I will refer to it.

 

[Hossfly]

Can't even get the right word, can you? I said ANTI-American, although I suppose I can call your post un-American in the sense that you question the legitimacy of the duly elected President of the United States of America. It's just one more example of the anti-American leanings of the modern-day American conservative movement. I have plenty more examples since this has been going on for years. I've just reached a point where I finally had my fill of the all the anti-American rants from the right.

As for the detainees being released, you can blame that on conservatives who fought tooth and nail to prevent the very kind of trials that might very well have convicted them of war crimes and placed them in a federal prison for life. Once in prison, it would have been considerably more difficult for ANY president to have them released.

Obhomo releases four war criminals in exchange for a questionable blivet. Do you think he will make amends for this fiasco by trading a herd of convicted felons to Mexico for an honorable Marine who is unjustly imprisoned? P.S.: I would lose the anti-American labels if I were you in order to avoid a legal action. Seriously.

"...an honorable Marine who is unjustly imprisoned?"

You can't be serious. Sgt Tahmooressi has a serious problem. It's not just that he was caught entering a foreign country with three firearms against their laws, and with no good explanation for why he had three weapons in the first place. Unfortunately for the Sgt, he told a story that was not believable, and if that wasn't bad enough, he didn't tell it convincingly. He said he made a wrong turn. Hey, if you get on the wrong road, turn around, dude. But you can't say you accidentally entered another country unless you did so on the frontier where there are no markers.

Tahmooressi other problem is that he just so happened to be entering a country with a very serious drug gang problem where drugs flow north to the US, and cash and weapons flow south. This drug gang problem has resulted in tens of thousands of murders in Mexico over the last few years, and apparently Mexican authorities have what they believe are good reasons to suspect that Tahmooressi intended to SELL those weapons while in Mexico.

It just so happens that I heard the Sgt being interviewed on CNN, and he was not at all convincing with the story he told. No doubt, the Mexicans were not impressed and not amused.

Like I said, Sgt Tahmooressi has a serious problem.

And by the way, if what someone says on this forum (or elsewhere, for that matter) qualifies as Anti-American sentiment in my book, that's exactly how I will refer to it.

The Marine didn't get anybody killed, did he? And the only anti-American statements I've seen come from Left wingnut Commie defeatist Libbys here.

 

[Mustang]

Obhomo releases four war criminals in exchange for a questionable blivet. Do you think he will make amends for this fiasco by trading a herd of convicted felons to Mexico for an honorable Marine who is unjustly imprisoned? P.S.: I would lose the anti-American labels if I were you in order to avoid a legal action. Seriously.

"...an honorable Marine who is unjustly imprisoned?"

You can't be serious. Sgt Tahmooressi has a serious problem. It's not just that he was caught entering a foreign country with three firearms against their laws, and with no good explanation for why he had three weapons in the first place. Unfortunately for the Sgt, he told a story that was not believable, and if that wasn't bad enough, he didn't tell it convincingly. He said he made a wrong turn. Hey, if you get on the wrong road, turn around, dude. But you can't say you accidentally entered another country unless you did so on the frontier where there are no markers.

Tahmooressi other problem is that he just so happened to be entering a country with a very serious drug gang problem where drugs flow north to the US, and cash and weapons flow south. This drug gang problem has resulted in tens of thousands of murders in Mexico over the last few years, and apparently Mexican authorities have what they believe are good reasons to suspect that Tahmooressi intended to SELL those weapons while in Mexico.

It just so happens that I heard the Sgt being interviewed on CNN, and he was not at all convincing with the story he told. No doubt, the Mexicans were not impressed and not amused.

Like I said, Sgt Tahmooressi has a serious problem.

And by the way, if what someone says on this forum (or elsewhere, for that matter) qualifies as Anti-American sentiment in my book, that's exactly how I will refer to it.

The Marine didn't get anybody killed, did he? And the only anti-American statements I've seen come from Left wingnut Commie defeatist Libbys here.

I wouldn't know. No doubt the Mexican authorities suspect that Tahmooressi's trip across the border may not have been the first time he's done this.

Yeah, I see the occasional anti-American comment from someone on the left. But it's usually done in a scattershot way with a lone person making an off the cuff comment, often about something long in the past. The anti-American comments from the right are almost always about something going on right now, and it seems considerably more widespread and disseminated all over the media.

 

[Hossfly]

"...an honorable Marine who is unjustly imprisoned?"

You can't be serious. Sgt Tahmooressi has a serious problem. It's not just that he was caught entering a foreign country with three firearms against their laws, and with no good explanation for why he had three weapons in the first place. Unfortunately for the Sgt, he told a story that was not believable, and if that wasn't bad enough, he didn't tell it convincingly. He said he made a wrong turn. Hey, if you get on the wrong road, turn around, dude. But you can't say you accidentally entered another country unless you did so on the frontier where there are no markers.

Tahmooressi other problem is that he just so happened to be entering a country with a very serious drug gang problem where drugs flow north to the US, and cash and weapons flow south. This drug gang problem has resulted in tens of thousands of murders in Mexico over the last few years, and apparently Mexican authorities have what they believe are good reasons to suspect that Tahmooressi intended to SELL those weapons while in Mexico.

It just so happens that I heard the Sgt being interviewed on CNN, and he was not at all convincing with the story he told. No doubt, the Mexicans were not impressed and not amused.

Like I said, Sgt Tahmooressi has a serious problem.

And by the way, if what someone says on this forum (or elsewhere, for that matter) qualifies as Anti-American sentiment in my book, that's exactly how I will refer to it.

The Marine didn't get anybody killed, did he? And the only anti-American statements I've seen come from Left wingnut Commie defeatist Libbys here.

I wouldn't know. No doubt the Mexican authorities suspect that Tahmooressi's trip across the border may not have been the first time he's done this.

Yeah, I see the occasional anti-American comment from someone on the left. But it's usually done in a scattershot way with a lone person making an off the cuff comment, often about something long in the past. The anti-American comments from the right are almost always about something going on right now, and it seems considerably more widespread and disseminated all over the media.

You don't know about the Marine but you're an informed expert genius about the blivet. Got it.

 

[Mustang]

One aspect of Anti-Americanism is not looking out for the best interests of our soldiers on the battlefied, the ones that risk their lives so we can remain free. It is stating to the world a deserter is both honorable and has served with distinction. It is true he served with distinction, as he left his comrades behind. That clearly made him distinct.

You buy the argument that you would not remain free or that your freedom is/was somehow in jeopardy if American troops were not stationed in Afghanistan and earlier not in Iraq? That's always been one of the most piss-poor explanation for sending American troops abroad because I don't see how our freedom was threatened by them at all. Hell, if there was anything threatening our freedom it was and still is The Patriot Act and all the NSA spying being conducted on Americans by our Federal Govt through private contracts where the work was and is actually conducted by corporations with insufficient governmental oversight.

Those soldiers that are honest with themselves enlist to help us remain free.
Do you think our country could continue to be free if there are continued attacks on our soil? Or on our citizens abroad?
Had you asked, I have not be happy with all the decisions Bush and Congress made. But you just assume.

I was in the service, and I don't remember one person ever saying that he or she enlisted in order to help us remain free. Not once. I think if anyone would have ever said that, the rest of us would have laughed and wouldn't have taken it seriously. Of course, that was before 9-11. But even now, I find it hard to believe that anyone thinks our freedom here at home hinges on what happens half a world away. Even the people who enlist for motives of patriotism probably just want to exact a measure of retribution for both real and perceived wrongs inflicted on our nation and our people. In the parlance of a twenty-something young man, they just want to kick some ass.

But the reality is considerably less idealistic. People join because there are no jobs, or because they have no money for college, or to get out of their hometown and start a new life for themselves. I've even known people who enlisted as an option in order to prevent going to jail.

Like Bruce Hornsby once extolled, that's just the way it is.

 

[Hossfly]

You buy the argument that you would not remain free or that your freedom is/was somehow in jeopardy if American troops were not stationed in Afghanistan and earlier not in Iraq? That's always been one of the most piss-poor explanation for sending American troops abroad because I don't see how our freedom was threatened by them at all. Hell, if there was anything threatening our freedom it was and still is The Patriot Act and all the NSA spying being conducted on Americans by our Federal Govt through private contracts where the work was and is actually conducted by corporations with insufficient governmental oversight.

Those soldiers that are honest with themselves enlist to help us remain free.
Do you think our country could continue to be free if there are continued attacks on our soil? Or on our citizens abroad?
Had you asked, I have not be happy with all the decisions Bush and Congress made. But you just assume.

I was in the service, and I don't remember one person ever saying that he or she enlisted in order to help us remain free. Not once. I think if anyone would have ever said that, the rest of us would have laughed and wouldn't have taken it seriously. Of course, that was before 9-11. But even now, I find it hard to believe that anyone thinks our freedom here at home hinges on what happens half a world away. Even the people who enlist for motives of patriotism probably just want to exact a measure of retribution for both real and perceived wrongs inflicted on our nation and our people. In the parlance of a twenty-something young man, they just want to kick some ass.

But the reality is considerably less idealistic. People join because there are no jobs, or because they have no money for college, or to get out of their hometown and start a new life for themselves. I've even known people who enlisted as an option in order to prevent going to jail.

Like Bruce Hornsby once extolled, that's just the way it is.

This is what Mr Bergdahl will be expected to have observed during his "captivity".
He may not have enlisted to make sure we remain free but he damn certain signed off on this
little gem when he raised his hand.



Code of Conduct is a personal conduct mandate for members of the American armed forces throughout the world.
Article I: I am an American, fighting in the armed forces which guard my country and our way of life. I am prepared to give my life in their defense.
Article II: I will never surrender of my own free will. If in command I will never surrender the members of my command while they still have the means to resist.
Article III: If I am captured, I will continue to resist by all means available. I will make every effort to escape and aid others to escape. I will accept neither parole nor special favors from the enemy.
Article IV: If I become a prisoner of war, I will keep faith with my fellow prisoners. I will give no information nor take part in any action which might be harmful to my comrades. If I am senior, I will take command. If not, I will obey the lawful orders of those appointed over me and will back them up in every way.
Article V: When questioned, should I become a prisoner of war, I am required to give name, rank, service, number, and date of birth. I will evade answering further questions to the utmost of my ability. I will make no oral or written statements disloyal to my country and its allies or harmful to their cause.
Article VI: I will never forget that I am an American, responsible for my actions, and dedicated to the principles which made my country free. I will trust in my God and in the United States of America.

 

[HenryBHough]

That "to the best of my ability" clause covers an awful lot when used by liberals. On their own they have no ability; once contact with the hive mind is lost then all bets are off.

 

[Hossfly]

That "to the best of my ability" clause covers an awful lot when used by liberals. On their own they have no ability; once contract with the hive mind is lost then all bets are off.

Would the Stockholm Syndrome be a mitigating cirumstance?