Lets look at this. The Taliban isn’t a singular fighting force with which we can negotiate. We’re currently not pulling our troops out of Afghanistan. The Vietnamese weren’t exporting their terrorist activities. Not really an apples to apples comparison.
We have a process in place for releasing detainees. They’re reviewed based on the threats they pose. It wasn’t followed.
Yet, remarkably, we got Bergdahl back doing precisely that.
So you’ve been repeatedly told.
Any politician can pay a ransom when it’s politically expedient to his career. A responsible leader would listen to the people around him.
So you’ve repeatedly ignored.
The point ElvisL1ves made is that we found a Taliban individual/group/cadre/whatever who was willing to negotiate and who had sufficient pull to be able to fulfill the promises made during that negotiation. If that is not a “force with which we can negotiate,” what is?
Yes, we are pulling our troops out of Afghanistan. Four years ago we had a hundred thousand there; last month we had 32,000; by the end of the year that number is scheduled to be below ten thousand. By 2016, on current plans they will all be gone.
To where are the Taliban currently exporting terrorist activities? Pakistan isn’t a foreign nation to them.
A singular army that recognizes cessation of combat and doesn’t export terrorism.
Future tense. Right now we still have forces in Afghanistan and will continue to have them after 2016 as advisers. Paying this ransom is going to encourage more of the same activity.
Pakistan you say? American tourist killed there last year by the Taliban. The world is not a vacuum.
The claim was that these 5 specific terrorists would have been released within the next year because the U.S. would no longer be involved in hostilities in Afghanistan. These 5 specific terrorist didn’t represent Afghanistan. They represent the Taliban.
The NLF/VC represented a recognized nation state that the U.S. was no longer (winding down?) in conflict with. Exchanges are then made.
It’s my position, subject to the whims of the U.S. State Dept., that these 5 could have been held until the conflict between the U.S. and the Taliban is resolved (aka forever).
I think our enemies in Afghanistan and Pakistan are already encouraged/motivated as much as they can to do bad things to Americans.
A bad reason to add 5 people with a history of causing mayhem.
We could have released them to Afghanistan so they could face trial. That ship sailed and sank. We released them to a country known for financing dangerous terrorist groups.
I’ve noticed that many of the right’s arguments against Obama eventually devolve into “this is going to send the wrong message to our enemies.”
That’s a bullshit argument, of course- there’s simply no way for anyone to argue against the hypothetical third party you’ve created. And what’s more, it’s impossible to back that up with facts: it can never be proven that Presidential Action X clearly resulted in Enemy Action Y.
It’d be like if we said, “If Obama hadn’t rescued Bergdahl, soldiers will be less likely to risk their lives in combat from now on because they’ll be afraid we’ll leave them behind if they get captured.” It’s an unfalsifiable argument- you can’t prove whether the statement is true or false.
So stop it. Quit telling us how someone else will interpret Obama’s actions- you don’t know, and at *best *it’s a complete guess. Your track record on predicting how someone else will respond to anything Obama does is completely unreliable.
It’s a little more than a guess. The idea that giving hostage takers what they want encourages more hostage taking isn’t exactly a controversial concept. It’s kinda why we normally don’t negotiate with them.
Except we do habitually negotiate with terrorists, and have for centuries. On what evidence do you conclude that we normally don’t?
From George Washington paying protection money to the Barbary pirates to George W. Bush “facilitating” a $300K payment to Abu Sayyaf, American history has as many examples of negotiations as refusals to negotiate.
Besides, what is the alternative to hostage-taking? If the Taliban has the option of trying to kidnap American soldiers or trying to kill American soldiers, well, we can negotiate with the Taliban, but not with the afterlife.
[quote=“Magiver, post:825, topic:689840”]
A singular army that recognizes cessation of combat and doesn’t export terrorism.
[/QUOTE\
That proves my point, however, not yours. The Pakistani Taliban consists mainly of individuals born in Pakistan, in the vast Pashtun tribal areas of the northwest frontier. The very article to which you link blames the attack on the “local branch of the Taliban” upset because of a U.S. drone strike on their leader. When citizens of Pakistan commit terrorist acts in Pakistan, what are you terming “exporting”?
Pakistan and Afghanistan both have very large populations of Pashtun tribesmen, and the border between them is porous and artificial.
What “recognized nation state” did the NLF/VC represent?
North Vietnam established the National Liberation Front in 1960 and the NLF created the Viet Cong.
Stop what? Telling people what they are allowed to think or what they are allowed to say? You can do it. Why can’t anyone else?
Not much doubt about that, who can forget the images of Communist cadres soaking themselves in gasoline and setting themselves ablaze? Sure, they dressed up in costumes pretending to be Buddhist monks, but that didn’t fool you, did it?
The popular resistance to the South Vietnamese regimes arose from Buddhist resentment of the power of Catholic elites who inherited their power and position from being collaborators with the French colonialists. The Communists allied themselves with that movement, and, having the advantages of organization, arms and finance, gradually subverted the movement to their own purposes.
And so it goes…
You didn’t answer Ibn Warraq’s question. What “recognized nation state” did the NLF/VC represent?
[quote=“slash2k, post:832, topic:689840”]
[quote=“Magiver, post:825, topic:689840”]
A singular army that recognizes cessation of combat and doesn’t export terrorism.
[/QUOTE\
That proves my point, however, not yours. The Pakistani Taliban consists mainly of individuals born in Pakistan, in the vast Pashtun tribal areas of the northwest frontier. The very article to which you link blames the attack on the “local branch of the Taliban” upset because of a U.S. drone strike on their leader. When citizens of Pakistan commit terrorist acts in Pakistan, what are you terming “exporting”?
Pakistan and Afghanistan both have very large populations of Pashtun tribesmen, and the border between them is porous and artificial.[/QUOTE]
I recall a leader operating in Afghanistan whom we supported who eventually turned on us causing the greatest attack on American soil in the 20th century. It was in the news and everything.
Again, we have a process in place where the detainees in Guantanamo are evaluated for risk. We also have a law that expressly demands Congress be notified when the detainees are released. Obama ignored this process. He broke the law doing so. He claimed it had to done in secrecy which was a lie. He claimed Berghahl’s life was in danger. That was a lie.
He and he alone is responsible for the unnecessary release of dangerous terrorists.
That was yesterday. Today, he is solely responsible for the collapse of Iraqi democracy into previously unknown sectarian strife.
One which operates at the sole discretion of the Executive branch, as has been explained to you.
Strong statements to make about your President and Commander in Chief, considering the evidence is all to the opposite. Why do you hate America?
BTW, even Fox is running the story that he was held in solitary for two years by his new “comrades”.
Review. Digest. Then comment.