Bowe and Bob Bergdahl

BedellBrave said:
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?
Click to expand...

Well, I think you have to start somewhere. It's a big step in the right direction, especially in regards to Iraq. I think it's naive to think though that the plan all along was to actually implement a true western democracy. Afghanistan is a different situation though.

Why are we doing it? I think it's complicated. I think having a democratic ally in the middle of the Middle East has its positives.
 
Still plenty of people dying in Iraq because of sectarian violence. UN reported 799 deaths in May. Would hardly call that a huge success story.
 
weso1 said:
Well, I think you have to start somewhere. It's a big step in the right direction, especially in regards to Iraq. I think it's naive to think though that the plan all along was to actually implement a true western democracy. Afghanistan is a different situation though.

Why are we doing it? I think it's complicated. I think having a democratic ally in the middle of the Middle East has its positives.
Click to expand...

We have that with Israel and had it somewhat with Mubarak and Egypt. Israel has more nukes than rest of middle east combined sans Pakistan.
 
weso1 said:
Well, I think you have to start somewhere. It's a big step in the right direction, especially in regards to Iraq. I think it's naive to think though that the plan all along was to actually implement a true western democracy. Afghanistan is a different situation though.

Why are we doing it? I think it's complicated. I think having a democratic ally in the middle of the Middle East has its positives.
Click to expand...

Iraq: and in the process we've effectively wiped out the Christian population of that country... And have a more Islamicized government. Hey, I'm no fan of tyrants. Nor am I a fan of what is taking their place...
 
We'll see what happens in the long term. I really have nothing to debate on this as I can't tell the future, but think this thread has gone way off topic. Iraq thing has been discussed to death.

As for Bergdahl. Don't really care to hear all the excuses. He's either a deserter or he isn't. It's that simple. We may never know the full story. And the admin had their pants pulled down when they tried to politicize it. That's how I see it. Don't really have anything more to say about it as I find the arguments from the left side of things to be distractions.
 
weso1 said:
We'll see what happens in the long term. I really have nothing to debate on this as I can't tell the future, but think this thread has gone way off topic. Iraq thing has been discussed to death.

As for Bergdahl. Don't really care to hear all the excuses. He's either a deserter or he isn't. It's that simple. We may never know the full story. And the admin had their pants pulled down when they tried to politicize it. That's how I see it. Don't really have anything more to say about it as I find the arguments from the left side of things to be distractions.
Click to expand...

The right's main tactic is to politicize literally everything. The GOP's response to this is a perfect example.
God, it is hilarious to hear a righter talk about distractions...I mean talk about pots, kettles, and black.
What are the "excuses" by the way? You don't know the story, we don't know the story. Let the military deal with him and do what they see fit. Getting him free cannot be called a huge mistake yet. You don't know.
 
weso1 said:
We'll see what happens in the long term. I really have nothing to debate on this as I can't tell the future, but think this thread has gone way off topic. Iraq thing has been discussed to death.

As for Bergdahl. Don't really care to hear all the excuses. He's either a deserter or he isn't. It's that simple. We may never know the full story. And the admin had their pants pulled down when they tried to politicize it. That's how I see it. Don't really have anything more to say about it as I find the arguments from the left side of things to be distractions.
Click to expand...

Puh-leeze.
 
I'm tired of talking about the Salvador Bergdahli's. I feel like my Berghdal Bob to Baghdad Bob transition was the high point for me itt. I should've walked away then.

The only thing I've grumped about itt is the PR handling by the Obama team. If you think Obama handled the politics of it well then you needs to find a way to ease up off his nuts. I understand it may be hard for some of you as I've heard his nuts are quite tasty. I've said that we don't know all the facts about Jim Bob Berghdal about a million times itt.
 
gilesfan said:
Who said he was a prisoner?
Click to expand...

Common sense. I have a hard time believing they were just having a good old time and the Taliban were like "hey bro, we know you don't want to go home but can we pretend your a hostage to get some of my homeboys back".
 
"The only thing I've grumped about itt is the PR handling by the Obama team. If you think Obama handled the politics of it well then you needs to find a way to ease up off his nuts. I understand it may be hard for some of you as I've heard his nuts are quite tasty. I've said that we don't know all the facts about Jim Bob Berghdal about a million times itt."

The PR handling was messed up?? Oh, that seems to be a common refrain. Not the policy but the PR of the policy.

See below for some context. Context vs Public Relations.
Gotcha
////////

Not only did Reagan deal with terrorists as president, as revealed in the Iran-Contra scandal, the preponderance of evidence now supports the charge that his campaign negotiated with Iranian hostage-takers while he was running for president in 1980, to delay the release of hostages before the election, which could have helped Carter win reelection — what was known as “The October Surprise.” Given that Reagan wasn’t president then, but was negotiating to thwart a president’s attempt to get hostages released, this is not simply questionable behavior, it is arguably an act of treason. Democrats’ reluctance to vigorously investigate Reagan’s misdeeds — the exact opposite of GOP attitudes toward Clinton and Obama — has left much of the true story still shrouded in mystery, but what we do know is damning enough in itself, and still cries out for a truly thorough investigation.

http://www.salon.com/2014/06/07/ron...with_terrorists_he_was_just_really_bad_at_it/
 
weso, I'll agree with you on this much. There is just too much PR stuff in politics today. Photo ops. Relatively meaningless tripe that pols of both parties try to whip up to solely create image. Totally style over substance and I agree that both sides do it to attempt to implement a macro-strategy that disguises what may really be at stake. I don't know if this falls into that category or not, but it certainly has become a political football.
 
50PoundHead said:
weso, I'll agree with you on this much. There is just too much PR stuff in politics today. Photo ops. Relatively meaningless tripe that pols of both parties try to whip up to solely create image. Totally style over substance and I agree that both sides do it to attempt to implement a macro-strategy that disguises what may really be at stake. I don't know if this falls into that category or not, but it certainly has become a political football.
Click to expand...

Yeah, I agree that politics by photo op sucks. Everybody does it, and it sacrifices substance for visuals.
 
Once again -- as the details begin to get out -- they had the policy right but the PR wrong. Am I hearing that right?

Just for a second, can we take Fox News out of the equation? Finding then we get a totally different narrative
//////////

Yes Julio it sucks but, only if one lets it obstruct the substance. Problem is everywhere you go there is a TV telling you what a screw up this is (was)
when in reality those TV's on those particular stations are the only resource of import that are reporting what a "screw up" "scandal" this was.

the problem has become the the illusion of the event vs the reality of the event. We have been seeing that for over 15 years
 
57Brave said:
Once again -- as the details begin to get out -- they had the policy right but the PR wrong. Am I hearing that right?
Click to expand...

No, I'm just saying that I don't have all the information. But from the outside looking in the policy seems questionable at best, but I don't have all the facts, so I'm not going to say it was the wrong move. I don't know how anyone could honestly say it was the right policy move without having all the facts.
 
Then what is the discussion about?
Fox News pounded on this as an egregious act on the part of the Administration, labeled the soldier in question a traitor, besmirched his parents and then gave ALL criticism legs. . To the point where the kid's hometown had to all but disown him.

Shoot, even Sen McCain had his 2 cents when he in fact was traded for and his actions leading to his becoming a prisoner are suspect. When will Fox do an hour program about the circumstances under which McCain was captured? And then baseball message boards around the world can ...

Wes, for just a second take the stories and reports from Fox out of the equation and tell me you aren't getting a whole other interpretation ??? Or at least a wait and see interpretation.
This is the Fox Scandal of the Week - nothing more
Sad part is there are human beings involved. The soldier and his family.
Death threats reported against his parents. Wow, ****ing wow
////////////////

As far as fox is concerned, any and all publicity is good publicity. Publicity is money . In their business
 
I think you're comparing apples and oranges.

Earlier you were trying to compare it to Reagan's Iran Contra scandal. Again I think that's apples and oranges, but even if it's not are you trying to excuse Obama's scandal by comparing it to what many think was the worst scandal of the 80's?

The issue is was it smart to give up 5 high ranking Talibanese (yeah that's right) for a suspected deserter and potential traitor? The smoke is thick and the questions need to be asked. And we know it was dumb to try and politicize it, so the president deserves criticism for that.

I think trying to attack FNC for this is again just a typical distraction. Point to the behavior of others and blame Fox News seems to be the way to go lately when defending this president. It went from blame Bush to blame Fox News. What a disappointment Obama must be for those who took his hope and change campaign seriously. Luckily the smart folks on this board refused to buy into it and instead just voted for him because of his liberal policies.
 
If anyone has mastered distraction, it's Fox "News". But hey, only the liberal media is biased right?

This story is definitely disappointing. Glad all of you trained Obama haters are out in force, typing all your criticisms with absolute glee.
 
weso1 said:
I think you're comparing apples and oranges.

Earlier you were trying to compare it to Reagan's Iran Contra scandal. Again I think that's apples and oranges, but even if it's not are you trying to excuse Obama's scandal by comparing it to what many think was the worst scandal of the 80's?
Wasn't comparing. I think what the article was pointing out, is there is/was precedence for dealing with terrorists in return for hostage / prisoners. Sen McCain for example.

The issue is was it smart to give up 5 high ranking Talibanese (yeah that's right) for a suspected deserter and potential traitor? The smoke is thick and the questions need to be asked. And we know it was dumb to try and politicize it, so the president deserves criticism for that.
Did the President politicize this or was the politicization brought to him. b) everything the President does can and will be seen as political. Kinda the job

I think trying to attack FNC for this is again just a typical distraction. Point to the behavior of others and blame Fox News seems to be the way to go lately when defending this president. It went from blame Bush to blame Fox News. What a disappointment Obama must be for those who took his hope and change campaign seriously. Luckily the smart folks on this board refused to buy into it and instead just voted for him because of his liberal policies.

Fox News created a Tempest in a TeaPot. Again.
Things have changed. Look at the message boards -- lots has changed.
Obama was/is not and has never been a "liberal"
Click to expand...

This bru ha-ha ws created by Right Wing media for people that will carry water for right wing media and then create doubt. As in " if there is nothing wrong, why is everyone talking about it?"

How many times is that going to work?

Let's let the people sort out what happened that are charged with sorting out what happened and let the pitchfork brigades go home and wait for the next installment
///////////////

For the record, I don't blame Fox News for anything. I blame the people that blindly fall into their all too predictable traps.
Take a look at Fox' record on reporting current events --- Ollie North is their expert !!!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top