Other Resources The Political Joe » Negotiating with terrorists Rss Feed  
Moderators: k9car363, alicefoeller Reply
2014-06-02 3:14 PM

User image

Champion
7347
5000200010010010025
SRQ, FL
Subject: Negotiating with terrorists

So as I'm sure you've all heard our President traded one American hostage for 5 Taliban bad guys being held at Gitmo.  The US had had a unwavering policy for the last 200 years that we do not negotiate with terrorists. 

Foes? Yes.  Armies? Yes. Enemy Nations? Yes.  With these groups diplomacy can work. But not with terrorists.

Am I glad we have one of our troops home.  Yes of course. But this is setting a BAD precedent IMO.



2014-06-02 3:34 PM
in reply to: TriRSquared

User image

Master
2800
2000500100100100
Minnetonka, Minnesota
Subject: RE: Negotiating with terrorists
Unwavering? Hardly. Even the GOP hero Reagan negotiated. Ever hear of the Iran-Contra scandal? Check our history - there are many examples of exceptions to this guideline, not policy.
2014-06-02 4:02 PM
in reply to: 0

User image

Champion
7347
5000200010010010025
SRQ, FL
Subject: RE: Negotiating with terrorists

That was Iran.  A country.  We're talking about the Taliban.  They are not a country.

Regardless of the past, you're OK with this then?  You don't think it sets a bad precedent?



Edited by TriRSquared 2014-06-02 4:03 PM
2014-06-02 4:19 PM
in reply to: TriRSquared

User image

Champion
34263
500050005000500050005000200020001001002525
Chicago
Subject: RE: Negotiating with terrorists
Originally posted by TriRSquared

That was Iran.  A country.  We're talking about the Taliban.  They are not a country.

Regardless of the past, you're OK with this then?  You don't think it sets a bad precedent?




I personally think it sets a bad precedent but so does NOT negotiating.

First of all, the Taliban probably would take every opportunity they could to capture an American soldier, anyway. That said, now they may think `Hey, we can actually get something for these guys, so now they're worth more, so make it a priority to capture some.'

On the other hand, if it came to light we had a chance to get him back and the administration did nothing, then that would create an even bigger sh*tstorm. As my coworker here, who did two stints as a Marine officer in Afghanistan, said to me today, one thing the soldiers and Marines and sailors and airmen who are in-country know for sure is that if they fall into enemy hands, we won't leave them behind and we'll do everything in our power to get them back. If we have a chance to get this guy back and say `Sorry, he's not worth it.' then what does that say to our fighting men and women who operate based on the knowledge that their brothers and their government aren't going to leave them behind?

As I said to my friend -- `Yeah, the guy is a giant piece of sh*t, but he's still OUR piece of sh*t.' Personally, I think he should be tried for desertion and possibly treason, if it's found that he was in fact defecting and not deserting.
2014-06-02 4:32 PM
in reply to: TriRSquared

User image

Master
2800
2000500100100100
Minnetonka, Minnesota
Subject: RE: Negotiating with terrorists
Originally posted by TriRSquared

That was Iran.  A country.  We're talking about the Taliban.  They are not a country.

Regardless of the past, you're OK with this then?  You don't think it sets a bad precedent?




It was NOT a country. It was a group of militant students, the Muslim Student Followers of the Imam's Line, who overthrew the embassy and took the hostages. Your post was very particular about definitions, so let's be careful with them.

My point is that it is not setting a precedent, as these things have been done at various times all throughout our history. Like most things in war, political/geographic struggles and foreign policy, it is not white and black.
2014-06-03 12:57 AM
in reply to: mr2tony

User image

Master
2380
2000100100100252525
Beijing
Subject: RE: Negotiating with terrorists

Originally posted by mr2tony
Originally posted by TriRSquared

That was Iran.  A country.  We're talking about the Taliban.  They are not a country.

Regardless of the past, you're OK with this then?  You don't think it sets a bad precedent?

I personally think it sets a bad precedent but so does NOT negotiating. First of all, the Taliban probably would take every opportunity they could to capture an American soldier, anyway. That said, now they may think `Hey, we can actually get something for these guys, so now they're worth more, so make it a priority to capture some.' On the other hand, if it came to light we had a chance to get him back and the administration did nothing, then that would create an even bigger sh*tstorm. As my coworker here, who did two stints as a Marine officer in Afghanistan, said to me today, one thing the soldiers and Marines and sailors and airmen who are in-country know for sure is that if they fall into enemy hands, we won't leave them behind and we'll do everything in our power to get them back. If we have a chance to get this guy back and say `Sorry, he's not worth it.' then what does that say to our fighting men and women who operate based on the knowledge that their brothers and their government aren't going to leave them behind? As I said to my friend -- `Yeah, the guy is a giant piece of sh*t, but he's still OUR piece of sh*t.' Personally, I think he should be tried for desertion and possibly treason, if it's found that he was in fact defecting and not deserting.

 

This.  Get him home, debrief him, throw him in the brig.  

 

And send those 5 taliban back with subdermal GPS trackers.



2014-06-04 7:11 AM
in reply to: moondawg14

User image

Champion
7347
5000200010010010025
SRQ, FL
Subject: RE: Negotiating with terrorists

Originally posted by moondawg14

And send those 5 taliban back with subdermal GPS trackers.

Personally I thought their plane ride back should have met with an unfortunate accident...

"Wait, is that our pilot jumping out of the plane with a parachute?"

2014-06-04 8:38 AM
in reply to: ejshowers

User image

Champion
15208
500050005000100100
Southern Chicago Suburbs, IL
Silver member
Subject: RE: Negotiating with terrorists

Originally posted by ejshowers
Originally posted by TriRSquared

That was Iran.  A country.  We're talking about the Taliban.  They are not a country.

Regardless of the past, you're OK with this then?  You don't think it sets a bad precedent?

It was NOT a country. It was a group of militant students, the Muslim Student Followers of the Imam's Line, who overthrew the embassy and took the hostages. Your post was very particular about definitions, so let's be careful with them. My point is that it is not setting a precedent, as these things have been done at various times all throughout our history. Like most things in war, political/geographic struggles and foreign policy, it is not white and black.

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2014/06/01/fact-checking-the-sunday-shows-june-1.html

Yep, Carter did it, Reagan did it, Clinton did it and even GW did it with ~500 Gitmo detainees.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/world/2014/06/01/bergdahl-release-taliban-prisoner-trade/9835759/ 

 

2014-06-04 8:40 AM
in reply to: crowny2

User image

Champion
15208
500050005000100100
Southern Chicago Suburbs, IL
Silver member
Subject: RE: Negotiating with terrorists

Originally posted by crowny2

Originally posted by ejshowers
Originally posted by TriRSquared

That was Iran.  A country.  We're talking about the Taliban.  They are not a country.

Regardless of the past, you're OK with this then?  You don't think it sets a bad precedent?

It was NOT a country. It was a group of militant students, the Muslim Student Followers of the Imam's Line, who overthrew the embassy and took the hostages. Your post was very particular about definitions, so let's be careful with them. My point is that it is not setting a precedent, as these things have been done at various times all throughout our history. Like most things in war, political/geographic struggles and foreign policy, it is not white and black.

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2014/06/01/fact-checking-the-sunday-shows-june-1.html

Yep, Carter did it, Reagan did it, Clinton did it and even GW did it with ~500 Gitmo detainees.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/world/2014/06/01/bergdahl-release-taliban-prisoner-trade/9835759/ 

 

ETA: Now if you want to talk about Obama circumventing the law (http://online.wsj.com/articles/boehner-faults-administration-for-skipping-congress-on-bergdahls-exchange-1401819673) then that's a discussion I will have with you.  But this is nothing more than hot air.

2014-06-04 9:32 AM
in reply to: 0

User image

Champion
7821
50002000500100100100
Brooklyn, NY
Subject: RE: Negotiating with terrorists
There's some stuff coming out now about how, in the past, several GOP lawmakers were on record as saying that the US should do everything in its power to free Bergdahl, and that now, those same lawmakers are saying, in effect, "Well, when we said 'everything', we didn't mean 'everything'."

"As part of ongoing efforts to urge the Department of Defense to do all it can to find Sergeant Bowe Bergdahl and bring him home safely, Senator Ayotte worked successfully to include a provision in the bill that presses Pakistan to fully cooperate in the search for SGT Bergdahl." (press release from Sen Ayotte-- NH)

"I would support [a prisoner exchange]. Obviously I'd have to know the details, but I would support ways of bringing him home, and if exchange was one of them, I think that would be something I think we should seriously consider."
(To be fair, McCain did also say that he wasn't in favor of exchanging Bergdahl for 'the hardest of the hard-core')

"Last year, on the fourth anniversary of Sgt. Bergdahl's capture, on the floor of the House of Representatives, I introduced a resolution in the House calling on the United States to do everything possible not to leave any members of the armed forces behind during the drawdown of Iraq and Afghanistan."
(Rep. Nugent- FL.)

"The mission to bring our missing soldiers home is one that will never end. It's important that we make every effort to bring this captured soldier home to his family." (Sen Inhofe-OK)


That said, like crowny, I wish this had been done differently.

Edited by jmk-brooklyn 2014-06-04 9:44 AM
2014-06-04 9:36 AM
in reply to: jmk-brooklyn

User image

Pro
15593
500050005000500252525
Subject: RE: Negotiating with terrorists

I always wonder, when I see a large gathering of Al-Queda on CNN, why we don't just bomb the hell out of them.  I know we canfind them, I know we know about the gatherings, so why not just kill them all?  Is it a war or not? 

I'm not for negotiating, I'm for killing as many terrorists as possible.



2014-06-16 11:51 AM
in reply to: Left Brain

User image

Extreme Veteran
787
500100100252525
The Woodlands/Magnolia, TX.
Subject: RE: Negotiating with terrorists
Originally posted by Left Brain

I always wonder, when I see a large gathering of Al-Queda on CNN, why we don't just bomb the hell out of them.  I know we canfind them, I know we know about the gatherings, so why not just kill them all?  Is it a war or not? 

I'm not for negotiating, I'm for killing as many terrorists as possible.




Agreed. it's either war, or it's not. this inbetween crap is like slowly pulling the bandaid off my hairy back. just rip that sonnavab*tch off and get it over with.
New Thread
Other Resources The Political Joe » Negotiating with terrorists Rss Feed  
RELATED POSTS

Cliven Bundy - States Rights Patriot or Domestic Terrorist? Pages: 1 2 3

Started by bootygirl
Views: 4077 Posts: 72

2014-05-14 1:00 PM annie