Bowe and Bob Bergdahl

yeezus said:
I don't even necessarily disagree.
However, I know a few GOPers who, months ago, were clamoring for Obama to go and bring him back and mad that he hadn't yet.
Obama could find a cure for cancer and republicans would **** on him for it in some way. Obama's taking away god's cancer plan for you!!! He is defying god!
Click to expand...

Nah, when it's a positive the other party will find a way to give their party credit.

With that in mind the left doesn't really have a good defense if their best defense is the GOP is always grumpy about Obama. Kind of desperate
 
From what I have read the Administrations intent is if you are in the military and captured we will do everything we can to get you back.
Regardless ...

I think Obama's word was "Period"
 
weso1 said:
Nah, when it's a positive the other party will find a way to give their party credit.

With that in mind the left doesn't really have a good defense if their best defense is the GOP is always grumpy about Obama. Kind of desperate
Click to expand...

But that was pretty much the Right's defense against criticism about W. Both sides are doing it and I think the only two things it accomplishes are: (1) a hardening of the positions of people at the poles of the spectrum, and (2) the creation of a perception among those on the street that the whole system is rotten, which is really bad for our democracy.

I want to stress that both sides do it and both sides look beyond the issues and go ad hominem on the participants in the debate instead of the substance of their issues.
 
50PoundHead said:
But that was pretty much the Right's defense against criticism about W. Both sides are doing it and I think the only two things it accomplishes are: (1) a hardening of the positions of people at the poles of the spectrum, and (2) the creation of a perception among those on the street that the whole system is rotten, which is really bad for our democracy.

I want to stress that both sides do it and both sides look beyond the issues and go ad hominem on the participants in the debate instead of the substance of their issues.
Click to expand...

I think that complaint is really just a distraction in this case though. Usually it's more relevant when there is a better defense for the president. Here it's just what the hell was he thinking from a pr point of view especially.
 
That may indeed be the case, but with Hannity and company, they've been the boys crying wolf for the past five and a half years. Any point they may have has been eroded by their previous behavior.
 
As I think most of you will agree, I am not a liberal.

I too think desertion is a major crime. I am in favor of Bowe facing the music.

With that said, I think we all need to step back and think a bit more deeply about what we are forcing our troops to do. We are placing them in a Muslim country, with the mission of trying to establish local and national governments which are hopefully more friendly to us but are Sharia-based. We did it in Iraq and we are doing it in Afghanistan. And in Afghanistan, unless we go on a major offensive to eradicate the wide spread Taliban forces through a huge swath of the country, we are left with trying to deal with elements of the Taliban. We foment anger at Bowe Bergdahl due to his purported "going native." To a lesser extent, isn't that what the whole operation is going?

Yes, I was for the original mission. But we are not going to establish Western-styled democracies. It's a fool's dream.
 
BedellBrave said:
As I think most of you will agree, I am not a liberal.

Yes, I was for the original mission. But we are not going to establish Western-styled democracies. It's a fool's dream.
Click to expand...

Wuhhhhhhh. Are you implying that it's impossible to force people to love Murica's freedom? I thought we should be spreading more and more freedom in the middle east because they'd welcome us with open arms.

Should we strike Tehran unilaterally because they say mean things about us or because we need to protect Israel?
 
KeithLockhart said:
Wuhhhhhhh. Are you implying that it's impossible to force people to love Murica's freedom? I thought we should be spreading more and more freedom in the middle east because they'd welcome us with open arms.

Should we strike Tehran unilaterally because they say mean things about us or because we need to protect Israel?
Click to expand...

BB-lmDdCUAA2DEf.jpg
 
KeithLockhart said:
Wuhhhhhhh. Are you implying that it's impossible to force people to love Murica's freedom? I thought we should be spreading more and more freedom in the middle east because they'd welcome us with open arms.

Should we strike Tehran unilaterally because they say mean things about us or because we need to protect Israel?
Click to expand...

Do you believe women and girls should have rights or should they be told what to do, who to marry, be raped and stoned for the helluva it? You think people who live there and speak up about bad people should be imprisoned, tortured and killed with no judge or jury? I don't think you'd want your mom or even yourself to live in a place like that. No one should.


People who can stop injustices should. Damned if you do and damned if you don't.
 
Well, Iraq technically is a democratic republic now. Sure it's flimsy at best, but I'm just saying.
 
KeithLockhart said:
Wuhhhhhhh. Are you implying that it's impossible to force people to love Murica's freedom? I thought we should be spreading more and more freedom in the middle east because they'd welcome us with open arms.

Should we strike Tehran unilaterally because they say mean things about us or because we need to protect Israel?
Click to expand...

I am asking I suppose, why are we using our military men and women to work our damnedest in establishing Sharia-based Islamic Republics? And in the process getting a bunch of civilians and our troops killed? Why exactly?
 
If I were a gambling man my money would go on oil.

Iraq was obvious. Afghanistan more subtle. There is a pipeline ...
 
weso1 said:
Nah, when it's a positive the other party will find a way to give their party credit.

With that in mind the left doesn't really have a good defense if their best defense is the GOP is always grumpy about Obama. Kind of desperate
Click to expand...

That's not really the "left's defense," but whatever.
The point I made is some GOPers wanted this and now that Obama did it, claim they don't want it and Obama screwed up. There are many reasons this is defensible, what I said is a separate point.
 
BedellBrave said:
As I think most of you will agree, I am not a liberal.

I too think desertion is a major crime. I am in favor of Bowe facing the music.

With that said, I think we all need to step back and think a bit more deeply about what we are forcing our troops to do. We are placing them in a Muslim country, with the mission of trying to establish local and national governments which are hopefully more friendly to us but are Sharia-based. We did it in Iraq and we are doing it in Afghanistan. And in Afghanistan, unless we go on a major offensive to eradicate the wide spread Taliban forces through a huge swath of the country, we are left with trying to deal with elements of the Taliban. We foment anger at Bowe Bergdahl due to his purported "going native." To a lesser extent, isn't that what the whole operation is going?

Yes, I was for the original mission. But we are not going to establish Western-styled democracies. It's a fool's dream.
Click to expand...

I think you've summed up why Clinton sidled up to the Taliban diplomatically in the first place. Supporting elements that will create and preserve internal order is often the first priority in modern diplomacy (not talking creating insurrection with covert actions, which seemed to be one of America's strengths in the 1950s and 1960s) and the Taliban showed themselves to be the strongest element in Afghanistan in the 1990s. Granted, the order they created was not Western in any sense, but it's always difficult when one tries to incorporate Wilsonian morality into foreign policy.

I frankly don't know what to do. I was skeptical when the neocon elements of the Bush administration undertook this macro-mission. I agreed with W's campaign statements about his aversion to nation-building and if there are two regions where nations can't be built, it's probably the Middle East and Eurasia. Extreme nationalism and extreme religion are just headaches and unless we want America to truly build and maintain an empire (and responsibly foot the costs to the project), we are kind of hamstrung. And I don't know about anyone here, but when I don't know what to do, I am very cautious about doing anything. Of course, that leads to the charge of dithering (which Obama has faced), but I don't think there is any amount of military force we can show short of making the whole region glow that would amount to anything truly influential.

Bedell, you've hit it right on the head.
 
50PoundHead said:
That may indeed be the case, but with Hannity and company, they've been the boys crying wolf for the past five and a half years. Any point they may have has been eroded by their previous behavior.
Click to expand...

While that sounds good I don't think that's actually the reality in this case. I think most Americans can think for themselves here and understand this was a pretty bad screw up.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top