Bergdahl Pose with Taliban

[mac]

then, if he leaves office, our war on terror will have no end date

which will make it impossible to make a prisoner exchange only after the conclusion of that war

I'm pretty sure the present President is not going to be the last President, and at some point, the current President (at the time) is going to declare our military involvement in Afghanistan over.

Write this down, it will come true...and you can come back and thank me.

 

[mac]

Not really.

I knew several "fighter jocks" (it's the mentality) who would get a kick out of showing off in front of others. There are just some humans who do that. Showing off. With wet starts, bending the rules slightly during the start procedure, one can show off. Testosterone thing I suspect.

Admiral's son had his ass covered, as that's part of nepotism, military style.

Which has zero to do with the implication that McCain is the cause of the Forrestal fire.

 

[mac]

nailed it
who else loses three jets and continues to be placed in flying status

argumentative, and **** to do with the accusation that he caused the forrestal fire.

 

[justabubba]

argumentative, and **** to do with the accusation that he caused the forrestal fire.

but factual and comparing the reich wing treatment of bergdahl's relationship with the way they ignore the canary's singing while a prisoner, and his ignition of rockets causing the Forrestal fire and losing multiple jets thru pilot error and still maintaining flight status. must be nice when the canary's father was an active duty admiral with political connections

 

[mac]

but factual and comparing the reich wing treatment of bergdahl's relationship with the way they ignore the canary's singing while a prisoner, and his ignition of rockets causing the Forrestal fire and losing multiple jets thru pilot error and still maintaining flight status. must be nice when the canary's father was an active duty admiral with political connections

There's no evidence that he ignited the fire, full stop, and NONE of that has anything to do with what Bergdahl did. Standard hyper-leftist smoke and mirror routine, right there, bubba.

 

[Thoreau72]

McCain's old man was part of the chain of command that turned around those Phantoms heading to defend the Liberty back in 1967. That fairly well defines him as a traitor IMO.

 

[Oozlefinch]

I'm old enough to remember when it was on the evening news. Are you?

Then that means that providing proof should be outrageously easy, right?

So show us that proof.

 

[Oozlefinch]

Pose with Taliban ?

Mujahadeen.... not Taliban.

The majority of those we supported later formed the Northern Alliance, a group who opposed the Taliban.

That is like going "The Nationalists, the Socialists, does not matter who we supported in the Spanish Civil War, they were all the same, Spanish".

Very ignorant and stupid if you ask me.

 

[Oozlefinch]

Here ia Wiki article on the USS Forrestal.

Wow, can you stay on target?

I was asking for proof that the former Secretary of State was meeting with Taliban and giving them money months prior to 9/11. What you put had not a thing to do with that at all.

Then for the other, I know what happened. LtCdr McCain was on his plane on the deck, when the rocket pod of another plane malfunctioned. Unlike somebody who claimed that the former pilot was the one that started the chain reaction.

 

[Oozlefinch]

Except during the Revolutionary War, the Spanish-American War, the Civil War, the Mexican-American War, etc...

Gosh, history is such a bummer!

Basically, every war, ever.

The biggest difference this time is that the enemy never took prisoners, and never followed any of the Laws of Land Warfare about the treatment of prisoners. This is why all of the others were generally found decapitated with their hands cut off in garbage dumps.

 

[Oozlefinch]

Source it.

Sorry, this I can do.

The term commonly used was "Parole". While mostly offered to officers, it could be offered to anybody captured in battle. In essence the individual promises to not take up arms again during the current conflict, and they were released. Now nothing actually prevented a paroled prisoner from taking up arms again, other then the fact that if they were captured again they could be summarily executed.

During the Civil War, Paroles were common. However, the shortage of Southerners meant they frequently ignored the parole and returned to fight in another theatre. This was one factor in the decision to end paroles and exchanges. This in turn led to the massive overcrowding in all prisons both North and South. Especially in Andersonville, Libby, Johnson's Island, and Cahaba.

How anybody could question such a commonly known fact of history actually surprises me.

Prisoners of war in the American Revolutionary War - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Prisoner of war - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

American Civil War prison camps - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[mac]

Sorry, this I can do.

The term commonly used was "Parole". While mostly offered to officers, it could be offered to anybody captured in battle. In essence the individual promises to not take up arms again during the current conflict, and they were released. Now nothing actually prevented a paroled prisoner from taking up arms again, other then the fact that if they were captured again they could be summarily executed.

During the Civil War, Paroles were common. However, the shortage of Southerners meant they frequently ignored the parole and returned to fight in another theatre. This was one factor in the decision to end paroles and exchanges. This in turn led to the massive overcrowding in all prisons both North and South. Especially in Andersonville, Libby, Johnson's Island, and Cahaba.

How anybody could question such a commonly known fact of history actually surprises me.

Prisoners of war in the American Revolutionary War - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Prisoner of war - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

American Civil War prison camps - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Actually, I do know the history...it's my thing. I asked him to source it so that we could discuss the differences in those situations and this situation using his own sources.

Now first, as your link suggests, the British at first didn't consider American prisoners POWs, but rather criminals....much as Obama does, applying the legal standards of the time regarding criminal punishment. I could go into a lot of depth here, but I'll summarize America's part in the revolutionary war regarding this as simply amatuerish....this was were America was establishing itself and "figuring" it out, so to speak.

During the Civil war, you have to keep in mind that it was Americans on both sides of the fence, and I'll leave it there.

My position is not that it has never happened, but that this occurrence was stupid. Both in the reasoning (WH PR at home) and the consequence (5 deadly enemy combatants for one deserter). Motives are important to consider.

 

[Thoreau72]

Then that means that providing proof should be outrageously easy, right?

So show us that proof.

Even if I spent an hour trying to find a video clip of it and posted it here, or an NYT article describing the event, you would find something to convince yourself it wasn't true.

It doesn't matter whether you believe it or not Oozle. I certainly don't care if you understand it or not.

It happened, pictures were taken and articles were written.

What you were doing at the time I have no interest in. Personal problems of yours are not my concern. eace Men in denial of facts cannot be reasoned with.

 

[TNAR]

(5 deadly enemy combatants for one deserter)

Alleged deserter. Or does "innocent until proven guilty" mean nothing to you?

I'll see if I can dig up some sources for you; don't have my books with me at work.

 

[TNAR]

Actually, I do know the history...it's my thing.

If you know it, are you simply looking for context and we can skip the sourcing?

the British at first didn't consider American prisoners POWs, but rather criminals ... I'll summarize America's part in the revolutionary war regarding this as simply amatuerish

The British essentially fought two wars during the American Revolution: a civil war with the colonies and a foreign war with France, Spain and the Dutch Republic. In this sense, you are correct that it was not until shortly after the Battle of Yorktown that Parliament officially recognized American soldiers as prisoners of war. The treatment of prisoners by Britain could either be considered war crimes or crimes against humanity, depending on how you look at it.

However, I’m not sure it would be accurate to call the American treatment of POWs as “amateurish.” For much of history prisoners could expect to be killed or enslaved for the remainder of their lives. About the time of the Middle Ages, rich lords and knights had a reasonable expectation of ransom. It was not until the Thirty Years’ War that the release of prisoners without ransom became “standardized.” The American Revolutionary War and Napoleonic Wars were really the first time in history that prisoners were exchanged while hostilities continued to occur between the belligerent parties.

During the Civil war, you have to keep in mind that it was Americans on both sides of the fence, and I'll leave it there.

The American Civil War from the perspective of modern America is virtually identical to the American Revolutionary War from the perspective of Britain; the only difference being the outcome of hostilities. However, we find dramatically different treatment of prisoners during the Civil War than occurred in the Revolution. After coming to an official agreement over the handling of prisoners, the Union was only too happy to exchange prisoners under the constraint of parole. Exchanged prisoners were to remain in established camps (and continue to be paid), but were not allowed to contribute to the military endeavor.

My position is not that it has never happened, but that this occurrence was stupid.

But this is not at all what you said. “No, what we don't do is prisoner swaps until the war has ended. Well, we didn't. Until now.”

What is your motive?

 

[rhinefire]

He has been returned to duty...........correct m if I am wrong but is there not a concern with post combat syndrome? This guy runs away and five soldiers die trying to find him and they simply send him back to duty???????!!!!!!!!! Also,as of July 20,2014 he has still not met with his parents. Does any of this make sense to anyone?

 

[Thoreau72]

He has been returned to duty...........correct m if I am wrong but is there not a concern with post combat syndrome? This guy runs away and five soldiers die trying to find him and they simply send him back to duty???????!!!!!!!!! Also,as of July 20,2014 he has still not met with his parents. Does any of this make sense to anyone?

I hate to be really cynical, but if those 5 soldiers died the same way Pat Tillman did, what's your point?

 

[braindrain]

I hate to be really cynical, but if those 5 soldiers died the same way Pat Tillman did, what's your point?

Is there anything that indicates that those soldiers were killed the same way as Tilman. And if they were killed in a blue on blue accident while looking for the turd deserter how does that change anything.

 

[American]

yes, let's look at a photo of the smiling republican canary ... this was after mccain ignited the Forrestal blast causing the navy's most massive losses during the vietnam war
McCain’s Plane Crashes
View attachment 67169525

Keep is classy............and true.

 

[Thoreau72]

Is there anything that indicates that those soldiers were killed the same way as Tilman. And if they were killed in a blue on blue accident while looking for the turd deserter how does that change anything.

Not to my knowledge, is there anything to indicate that.

But that's rather the point. There was nothing to indicate that Tillman had been killed by friendly fire either, AT FIRST.

 

[braindrain]

Not to my knowledge, is there anything to indicate that.

But that's rather the point. There was nothing to indicate that Tillman had been killed by friendly fire either, AT FIRST.

That seems to really be grasping for straws and looking for some sort of conspiracy where there is nothing.
The US military is rather good at preventing blue on blue all things considered.

 

[Thoreau72]

That seems to really be grasping for straws and looking for some sort of conspiracy where there is nothing.
The US military is rather good at preventing blue on blue all things considered.

I absolutely agree with your point. No military man supports fratricide or casualties from friendly fire. I certainly don't.

My only point was that we civilians don't know how those 5 men out searching for Bergdahl died. We will never know, I suppose.

Hostile fire is certainly more likely.

The point is that one can never tell if ANY given statement from DoD is true, or not. Only point. And I'm really sorry to say, the probability is not much better than 50%

 

[APACHERAT]

The point is that one can never tell if ANY given statement from DoD is true, or not.

Definitely not during the Obama administration. And Obama has politicized the DoD.

 

[Chaddelamancha]

:roll: Fixed that for you.

Definitely not during the [Insert any Presidents name here] administration.

 

[APACHERAT]

:roll: Fixed that for you.

The IRS became politicized during the Obama administration so >"Insert any Presidents name here"< wouldn't work.

The DoD is run by political appointed civilians, but for the first time in America's history under the Obama administration the four uniform branches of the military are being politicized.

That's what's dangerous.

When Obama referred to the nations military as "My military" should have been a dead giveaway.

Those diversity officers you now find with in todays Obama PC military are actually political officers.