- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
This bergdahl thing is clearly part of broader negotiations.
Posted on 6/3/14 at 11:28 am
Posted on 6/3/14 at 11:28 am
True or false? What's your speculation on it? Otherwise does not make sense.
17
Posted on 6/3/14 at 11:33 am to baybeefeetz
I think it likely is to a certain extent. It is probably part of a broader disengagement in Afghanistan. What I don't understand is the disconnected from reality press conference with the parents.
Posted on 6/3/14 at 11:36 am to baybeefeetz
False. I think this is just another case of Obama doing whatever he wants.
Posted on 6/3/14 at 11:38 am to baybeefeetz
False.
Remember Obama doesn't negotiate with terrorist
Remember Obama doesn't negotiate with terrorist
Posted on 6/3/14 at 11:43 am to constant cough
quote:
Remember Obama doesn't negotiate with terrorist
Only imprisoned Taliban leaders.
Posted on 6/3/14 at 11:46 am to baybeefeetz
I've got to think so, based on what we've seen so far.
I'm not sure what else is being worked on, but remember that this didn't happen in a vacuum. President Obama just got done talking about hitting singles, doubles, occasional homeruns, etc. This could be part of the whole "inning", so to speak.
I'm not exactly thrilled with how this has gone, but like I said before, I really do want to wait for more to play out before I decide what this is all about.
I'm not sure what else is being worked on, but remember that this didn't happen in a vacuum. President Obama just got done talking about hitting singles, doubles, occasional homeruns, etc. This could be part of the whole "inning", so to speak.
I'm not exactly thrilled with how this has gone, but like I said before, I really do want to wait for more to play out before I decide what this is all about.
Posted on 6/3/14 at 11:48 am to idlewatcher
(CNN) -- After months of infighting within the Pakistan Taliban, a major faction of the deadly militant group has apparently had enough.
I am certain that they are only militant and not terrorists and none are on THE 'List'.
I am certain that they are only militant and not terrorists and none are on THE 'List'.
This post was edited on 6/3/14 at 11:53 am
Posted on 6/3/14 at 11:49 am to baybeefeetz
We can't hold these prisoners indefinitely at Gitmo. We've already trashed our own laws and Constitution by what we've done there. When we pull out of Afghanistan the last flimsy excuse for holding them, i.e., that they're prisoners of war, disappears. When we pull out and cease hostilities the Geneva Convention prescribes how POWs are to be repatriated. We've got to dump them and dump them soon and this is probably as good a way as any to do it. There is no up side to this decision.
Posted on 6/3/14 at 11:52 am to baybeefeetz
If it is, then they set up the rest of their "negotiations" to be even bigger disasters than this one.
When your starting point is what we just saw happen, it can only go downhill from there, imho.
When your starting point is what we just saw happen, it can only go downhill from there, imho.
Posted on 6/3/14 at 11:52 am to FT
A former Adviser to GWB said that these guys were detainees, and that we couldn't hold them going into 2015, based on Some 'end of war' rules.
He also said they couldn't have been tried in court for anything as they were detainees of War, unlike the 9/11 guys who can be tried in a Fed court because of crimes against the country.
I don't know. So much info coming out.
He also said they couldn't have been tried in court for anything as they were detainees of War, unlike the 9/11 guys who can be tried in a Fed court because of crimes against the country.
I don't know. So much info coming out.
Posted on 6/3/14 at 11:56 am to HarveyDent
quote:
A former Adviser to GWB said that these guys were detainees, and that we couldn't hold them going into 2015, based on Some 'end of war' rules.
He also said they couldn't have been tried in court for anything as they were detainees of War, unlike the 9/11 guys who can be tried in a Fed court because of crimes against the country.
I don't know. So much info coming out.
It's a legal quagmire and there's no graceful way to get out of it.
Posted on 6/3/14 at 11:57 am to baybeefeetz
False. The 'broader negotiation' spin is clearly a CYA attempt after the WH realized that they fricked up.
Posted on 6/3/14 at 12:01 pm to baybeefeetz
False
Posted on 6/3/14 at 12:04 pm to baybeefeetz
quote:My speculation is, "it is NOW"!!!
True or false? What's your speculation on it? Otherwise does not make sense.
By that I mean, now that the shite storm happened, you can bet that there are those in the admin who wish to do something in the coming months that they cna attatch to this and say one led to the other.
Hence, if it IS part of a larger picture OR, if it BECOMES part of a larger picture will be pretty much impossible to discern.
Posted on 6/3/14 at 12:07 pm to HarveyDent
quote:
A former Adviser to GWB said that these guys were detainees, and that we couldn't hold them going into 2015, based on Some 'end of war' rules.
What rules are in play here exactly?
Posted on 6/3/14 at 12:11 pm to Scruffy
quote:
Scruffy
Side bar Scruff, you been hanging out around my wife lately? She called me scruffy this morning.
Posted on 6/3/14 at 12:11 pm to baybeefeetz
quote:
This bergdahl thing is clearly part of broader negotiations.
Broader negotiations for what exactly?
A promise that they will never attempt to hurt another American ever again
Posted on 6/3/14 at 12:15 pm to baybeefeetz
quote:
Otherwise does not make sense.
I don't dare think that O enjoys pissing a certain segment of the American people off for spite, that would be so un-Christ like.
Posted on 6/3/14 at 12:45 pm to baybeefeetz
That's an interesting theory, but I haven't really seen anything to support it. I know we and the Afghans have been looking for ways to engage with the Taliban in limited ways, but I'd expect a lot more reciprocity than one fricked up kid for five of the top figures from their days in power. Maybe something Karzai was pushing to ensure some Taliban support for the government once he stepped down and we withdrew the majority of our forces.
Who knows. Right now it's a collosal head scratcher that pretty much looks like a giant frick-up. Again, I'm glad the kid is home, but I'm not sure the juice was worth the squeeze unless there's something in it for our interests down the road.
Who knows. Right now it's a collosal head scratcher that pretty much looks like a giant frick-up. Again, I'm glad the kid is home, but I'm not sure the juice was worth the squeeze unless there's something in it for our interests down the road.
Posted on 6/3/14 at 12:46 pm to wilfont
quote:
What rules are in play here exactly?
Once a War ends, basically all POW's must be set free. Whatever occurs on the battlefield, is left on the battlefield. And believe it or not, even though it's ok to kill each other on the battlefield, there are still 'War crimes', that you can be charged with that contraindicate your release. These guys aren't being tried with any war crimes
Page 1 of 4
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News