Why won't the US end issues and take some names.

[chrisg7]

Sorry if somewhere in this thread, I sound a little angered and I'll try to make this an intelligent topic, not a rant, but this kind of upsets me.

So Obama's approval rating is at an all time low with the recent exchange of 5 Taliban... leaders for the release of Sgt. Bowe Bergdahl. I'm not to sure whether they were leaders or not, but they were in Guantanamo Bay so they weren't just the average grunt.

It's not hard to tell how that was a bad idea. A horrible idea. Wow that was just moronic.

Let's get started. Our man was a traitor. He abandoned his post. He assumed the risk of being captured and he was. I don't feel bad for him because of that. He is a traitor. Now, I know the media has spun it a little to make him look like he wasn't a traitor and such, and if that's true then I might be wrong to not feel bad about him. And if we want to get him back, that's OK. Get him back. But we can't baby these other countries with a juicy offer of 5 Taliban higher ups. The US is the leading in military technology around the world. Why was this issue resolved with a trade when it should have been the US threatening to FLATTEN Afghanistan if they didn't give us our man back. What's the problem with America taking some names to end issues like this? Why wasn't America telling Afghanistan that we'd nuke the stuffing out of them if we didn't get our man back? It worked with ending our conflict with Japan. We know if some country tried to nuke us, we'd unleash all hell on them back.

I know we could never justify blackmailing other countries to get what we want, but if someone messes with us, why can't we just end them? Why is it that we have to put up with that?

 

[Borachio]

I take it that your identification with the US is pretty much total.

Which is... fine. It's just not something I particularly relate to.

As for the rest of your "rant" (and rant it is, I think you'll agree), I relate to it even less, I think.

 

[Old Hippy]

I know we could never justify blackmailing other countries to get what we want, but if someone messes with us, why can't we just end them? Why is it that we have to put up with that?

what would you do if terroists in Canada or England had an American prisoner, bomb London?

 

[GamezRule]

what would you do if terroists in Canada or England had an American prisoner, bomb London?

This. Especially if the legitimate Canadian or British government was allied with us and fighting alongside us to defeat the terrorists in their own country. Also, the threatening to flatten Afghanistan isn't a legitimate option because it's an acceptable outcome for the Taliban and unacceptable for us. Has the OP ever stopped to consider that the world doesn't revolve around the United States?

 

[Harv]

Afghanistan

There is a reason they call it the graveyard of empires.

 

[LoneRebel]

These unequal prisoner exchanges can be a bit upsetting (the ratios in Israel are even worse), but then again, if these guys rejoin the Taliban and continue to fight, they'll probably end up getting captured again. Or killed.

 

[Borachio]

Why are they upsetting? Isn't it a sign that "your" opposition is so much weaker?

Mind you, I suppose the Taliban take it as a sign of US weakness that they're prepared to trade 1:5.

(I think the Taliban are mistaken.)

 

[GoodSarmatian]

Why was this issue resolved with a trade when it should have been the US threatening to FLATTEN Afghanistan if they didn't give us our man back. What's the problem with America taking some names to end issues like this? Why wasn't America telling Afghanistan that we'd nuke the stuffing out of them if we didn't get our man back? It worked with ending our conflict with Japan. We know if some country tried to nuke us, we'd unleash all hell on them back.

I know we could never justify blackmailing other countries to get what we want, but if someone messes with us, why can't we just end them? Why is it that we have to put up with that?

Becasue that's not how the world works. America has alread 'taken names' during the 21st cetury, none of them flattering. You should focus on repairing your reputation instead of threatening genocide or you'll quickly become a third rate power as allies turn their back on you. America alone isn't nearly as strong as you think.

 

[KMRblue1027]

You do realize they had to be let go at the end of the year anyway right? They're classified as POWs not terrorists, so at least we got something productive out of them.

 

[Joecoolyo]

There is a reason they call it the graveyard of empires.

I always hated when people claimed this. I remember doing research and finding the contrary, the region called Afghanistan today has spent more time claimed by outside empires than it has been locally independent.

"Empires" don't go to "die" there, or whatever.

 

[LoneRebel]

Why are they upsetting? Isn't it a sign that "your" opposition is so much weaker?

Mind you, I suppose the Taliban take it as a sign of US weakness that they're prepared to trade 1:5.

(I think the Taliban are mistaken.)

Hmm, you have a point there.

 

[Ajidica]

Let's get started. Our man was a traitor. He abandoned his post. He assumed the risk of being captured and he was. I don't feel bad for him because of that. He is a traitor.

I could have sworn the DoD was saying that they did not know the full circumstances of his capture and were at the time not pressing any charges of desertion. That may have changed in the last few days, but unless the military justice system works vastly different than I have been lead to believe he is still innocent until a court proves him beyond (presumably) reasonable doubt a traitor.
Plus, doesn't being a traitor require intention to aid and abet the enemy? I haven't read any indication Bergdah (or however you spell his name) acted with the intent to aid the Taliban.

But we can't baby these other countries with a juicy offer of 5 Taliban higher ups. The US is the leading in military technology around the world. Why was this issue resolved with a trade when it should have been the US threatening to FLATTEN Afghanistan if they didn't give us our man back. What's the problem with America taking some names to end issues like this?

Well, the Taliban -and the rest of the world- knows a response sufficiently out of proportion to "flatten" Afghanistan is something that would easily make the first spot on any list of war crimes.
On a more realistic note, how would "flattening" Afghanistan help our position with the Taliban over this prisoner transfer in any meaningful way?
It is an uncomfortable reality that for any sort of lasting stability in Afghanistan the Taliban -or at least former Taliban members- need to be brought into the government and gain a vested interest in keeping things stable. "Flattening" the country wouldn't help anyone.

Why wasn't America telling Afghanistan that we'd nuke the stuffing out of them if we didn't get our man back? It worked with ending our conflict with Japan. We know if some country tried to nuke us, we'd unleash all hell on them back.

If I remember right, standing US nuclear policy is that we will not initiate first strike and will take all actions within our power to prevent the launch of nuclear weapons regardless of who is launching them. (For example, if Israel decided to launch a nuclear strike against Iran, we would do everything in our power -diplomatically and militarily- to prevent that launch. Once nukes start flying, every plan goes out the window and nobody knows what will happen next.)

I always hated when people claimed this. I remember doing research and finding the contrary, the region called Afghanistan today has spent more time claimed by outside empires than it has been locally independent.

"Empires" don't go to "die" there, or whatever.

Yeah. I can't really think of any empire that 'died' there. The Brits suffered some pretty humiliating defeats but considering what we consider the British Empire managed to stumble through another 150 years of imperial management, I hardly would consider that a 'graveyard' effect. And the Brits still got most of what they wanted in the end.

 

[JollyRoger]

The U.S. government is soft. They should have taken out Cliven Bundy and his hangers-on when they had the chance.

 

[KmDubya]

You do realize they had to be let go at the end of the year anyway right? They're classified as POWs not terrorists, so at least we got something productive out of them.

The guys locked up in Gitmo are unlawful combatants not prisoners of war. At the end of the year major combat operations will be finished in Afghanistan as carried out by US forces but 10,000 some odd troops will still be based in country for the foreseeable future. There is no reason why the rest of Gitmo will be released at the end of the year or ever for that matter.

The guys released were high level commanders responsible for the deaths of thousands of Shia Afghans and have stated that as soon as possible they will rejoin the fight and kill more.

Not sure if Bergdahl was a traitor but he definitely was a deserter and caused the deaths of at least six soldiers who died while looking for him.

The whole purpose of the exchange was to get the Veterans Administration hospital scandal off of the front pages. It was just that the ineptness of the Obama administration caused it to blow up in there face.

Not sure what Obama will think up to get this off of the front pages, maybe start bombing Iraq again in the ISIS controlled areas??

 

[JollyRoger]

When did many right wingers transform into a bunch of troop hating hippies?

 

[Phrossack]

I always hated when people claimed this. I remember doing research and finding the contrary, the region called Afghanistan today has spent more time claimed by outside empires than it has been locally independent.

"Empires" don't go to "die" there, or whatever.

So true. Macedonians, Kushans, Hephthalites, Persians, Arabs, Mongols, Timurids, and a slew of other empires took over that region historically.

 

[Tee Kay]

"Empires" don't go to "die" there, or whatever.

It's stupid 'cause who goes to a graveyard to die?

 

[Phrossack]

It's stupid 'cause who goes to a graveyard to die?

A very efficient person. That person would also stay in a casket when ill. As a precautionary measure, milud.

 

[Tee Kay]

Is that how they do it in Germany?

 

[onejayhawk]

So true. Macedonians, Kushans, Hephthalites, Persians, Arabs, Mongols, Timurids, and a slew of other empires took over that region historically.

Having seen the Khyber pass from the Afghan side, you want to own it from a distance.

It's stupid 'cause who goes to a graveyard to die?

Usually they are called armies, though navies do it as well. Lately we have been cleaning up afterward, but that is not traditional.

In the "For What it's Worth" vein, kush means kill or killer. The Hindu Kush mountains are literally named for killing people.

J