- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Coaching Changes
- 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
re: Well, Rand Paul Surprise on Bergdahl (maybe)
Posted on 6/3/14 at 5:42 pm to HarveyDent
Posted on 6/3/14 at 5:42 pm to HarveyDent
Good luck finding a candidate trying to save their seat this upcoming election to side with Bergdahl.
Bergdahl|------------------|everyone else
Bergdahl|------------------|everyone else
0
Posted on 6/3/14 at 5:55 pm to CptBengal
Guy, what are you arguing with me about? I am agreeing with you, he doesn't fit the legal description of a POW, that's why the swap happened. The Taliban had it both ways. They could argue NEVER letting him go, because, more or less, he appears to have left his ranks.
And the two terms in the same sentence doesn't validate one over the other. Berghdahl was definitely a prisoner, he wasn't free to leave the Taliban. He was detained by them, for 5 years.
Again, you are correct, no one called him a POW. A soldiers' dead body isn't a POW. But we try to get them back all the same.
Now, if you want to call him a defector, a traitor, then we can have a debate
quote:
He isnt a prisoner. He's a deserter.
And the two terms in the same sentence doesn't validate one over the other. Berghdahl was definitely a prisoner, he wasn't free to leave the Taliban. He was detained by them, for 5 years.
Again, you are correct, no one called him a POW. A soldiers' dead body isn't a POW. But we try to get them back all the same.
Now, if you want to call him a defector, a traitor, then we can have a debate
Posted on 6/3/14 at 5:58 pm to HarveyDent
Earlier I was hoping Rand of House Paul, First of His Name, King of his own Optamology Board and United States Senator, and Protector of the Paulbots would favor the release of the illegally held prisoners in Gitmo. Then He would finally convince me of his bona fides. Guess he's like all the noble bred. A sell-out.
Posted on 6/3/14 at 6:02 pm to HarveyDent
quote:Such a tough guy.
when asked if he would keep tabs on the 5 Talibans that were released (which Rand said he wouldn't release, under his Administration) Rand said, in a bumpersticker-worthy moment, that each one of them would have "A drone with his name on it".
Posted on 6/3/14 at 6:04 pm to HarveyDent
quote:
Rand said, in a bumpersticker-worthy moment, that each one of them would have "A drone with his name on it".
War criminals. Not American citizens. What's the problem?
Posted on 6/3/14 at 6:08 pm to TerryDawg03
Well that didn't take him long to sell out to the war machine. Disappointing
Posted on 6/3/14 at 6:10 pm to TerryDawg03
quote:
in a bumpersticker-worthy moment, that each one of them would have "A drone with his name on it".
Guns don't kill people (thousands of miles away). DRONES kill people (thousands of miles away)
Posted on 6/3/14 at 8:14 pm to MJM
quote:
Well that didn't take him long to sell out to the war machine. Disappointing
How does that make him a sellout?
Posted on 6/3/14 at 10:16 pm to HarveyDent
Paul doesn't oppose drone strikes on foreign combatants (which he said 1000 times during his filibuster). He opposes the targeting of US citizens abroad by drones unless they are an IMMINENT threat to the safety of US interests. The fact that he said they would each have a drone on their head actually fits in with his consistent narrative on this issue.
Posted on 6/4/14 at 7:29 am to pleading the fifth
quote:
The fact that he said they would each have a drone on their head actually fits in with his consistent narrative on this issue.
This
Both Pauls have always support strong defense in actual defense of the US.
They are non interventionist and I agree with them.
Frankly I would have very seriously considered nuking Afghanstan after 911 instead of sending troops. The message should have been send us OBL and gang Mr. Taliban or have your last look at Kabul.
Posted on 6/4/14 at 7:37 am to HarveyDent
quote:
citing a 'cessation' of war activity, as a possibility for doing so (isn't this what is going on?)
No. It's not what is going on. The Taliban said that they "don't believe in the peace process" so this prisoner exchange changed nothing.
Posted on 6/4/14 at 7:44 am to HarveyDent
quote:
Rand said, in a bumpersticker-worthy moment, that each one of them would have "A drone with his name on it".
I don't see anything wrong with killing the enemy. These are NOT citizens we are talking about. These are Taliban warriors that want to destroy America and KILL us.
Why is it shocking to hear a US senator say he would pull the trigger on our enemy?
Page 2 of 2
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News