Hillary Clinton: How Bergdahl disappeared 'doesn't matter'

[Skylar]

Stupid, idiotic comparison.

nope, its perfectly valid. Why all the effort to get the deserter back and zero effort to get the marine or the minister?

Probably because neither of them were prisoners of war. The 'marine' you speak of isn't. He's out of the service and has been for a decade. He went to Iran as a tourist. He was arrested for spying and charged under civilian court in Iran.

While Army Seargant Bergdahl was active duty military deployed on a tour in Iraq when he was abducted.

You may not be able to glean the difference. But a rational person could.

The issue is that the trade for Bergahl was a bad deal, the US got out negotiated by a bunch or radical muslim assholes. THAT IS THE ISSUE.

The issue is that your comparison was blithering nonsense. The 'marine' wasn't a marine, nor had been since 2005. He wasn't abducted from the field of battle, he was arrested on a TOURIST visa for spying.

While Army Seargant Bergdahl was activity duty on a tour overseas when he was abducted and held.

As for your 'bad deal', the 'Taliban 5' are still in Qatar. There is no evidence that they're engaged in any terrorist activity since release. Worse, we have no authority to hold someone without charges or trial for 10 years as we did we these 5. They were never recognized as prisoners of war, they were never charged with any crime, they were never convicted of any crime, nor are we even fighting in Afghanistan.

We had no authority to hold them. And doing so violated our own laws, our values, our international agreements, and our own constitution. And don't bother trying to argue that the constitution didn't apply to them. The USSC already ruled that it did.

So you want to release all of the gitmo prisoners?

I want to follow our laws. I want our nation to act in accordance with its values. I want us to show integrity and do what we say we're going to do. We're better than this. And there's no law nor system of laws we adhere to where holding someone who ISN'T a prisoner of war for 10 years without trial or sentence is legitimate.

Not US laws. Not the Constitution. Not military law. Not our international agreements. Not the Geneva Conventions.

We're wiping our ass with our own values and integrity. And our enemies are using our flagrant hypocrisy as a recruiting tool. Meaning that even militarily, this is one of the stupidest decisions we could possibly make. As the enemy is gaining orders of magnitude more soldiers from our illegal acts than we're imprisoning in violation of our own laws.

Its a rookie mistake.

 

[kaz]

Surely your claims about 'black bakers' and 'the KKK" involve actual people. You wouldn't be stupid enough to cite fictional characters and made up court cases....

......would you?

No, I wouldn't. And I didn't. I didn't cite anyone. It's a position on a scenario. That it's a hypothetical scenario doesn't change that when it comes to thinking, you leave that up to the Democratic party. If they say it's raining, you wear your raincoat despite the blue skies and dry weather forecast

 

[kaz]

I want to follow our laws. I want our nation to act in accordance with its values

If that actually mattered to you, you would like me say the Democratic party needs to admit the truth that they are fucking up the middle east arm in arm, cheek in cheek with the Republicans and they need a better policy. This holier than thou we did nothing crap is not representative of having values, it's proof they don't. You don't lie your way out of screwing up then get the high road

 

[Skylar]

We had no authority to hold them. And doing so violated our own laws, our values, our international agreements, and our own constitution. And don't bother trying to argue that the constitution didn't apply to them. The USSC already ruled that it did.

More of the disingenuous crap that shows yet again how you don't want to go down a different road than the Republicans, you just want to be the one behind the steering wheel.

It was OK for W to invade because of WMDs, but wait, it wasn't OK because sure they could build them but they hadn't "stockpiled" enough of them, so W is a liar and we are in an illegal war, but wait, you got a Blue guy in office, so now it's OK again, we can finish W's timeline in Iraq and actually expand nation building in Afghanistan, which you are against because we shouldn't be nation building, oh, and we have to stop getting into these wars, well except invading Iraq (which was done first by Clinton), Kosovo, attacking Libya, bombing The Sudan and Afghanistan, those were OK, we had a blue guy in office.

If we are in a just war, we should be no holds barred winning it and saying we have to put terrorists on trial is ridiculous. If we are not in a war, our troops should not be over there fighting. Democrats are in a war, but they aren't, so when it comes to being full of crap to protect Obama from the brain dead Bergdahl deal, you're first in line to do it. What's the price, your integrity? Pshaw, that's no price, your integrity is far, far back in the rear view mirror

In what world does a 'just war' mandate we violate our own laws, ignore our own constitution, violate our international agreements, ignore military law, and ignore the Geneva Conventions?

We're fighting for 'freedom, liberty and the rule of law' by ignoring and flagrantly violating freedom, liberty and the rule of law? How much of one's brain has to be shut down before that starts making sense?

 

[kaz]

Stupid, idiotic comparison.

nope, its perfectly valid. Why all the effort to get the deserter back and zero effort to get the marine or the minister?

Probably because neither of them were prisoners of war. The 'marine' you speak of isn't. He's out of the service and has been for a decade. He went to Iran as a tourist. He was arrested for spying and charged under civilian court in Iran.

While Army Seargant Bergdahl was active duty military deployed on a tour in Iraq when he was abducted.

You may not be able to glean the difference. But a rational person could.

The issue is that the trade for Bergahl was a bad deal, the US got out negotiated by a bunch or radical muslim assholes. THAT IS THE ISSUE.

The issue is that your comparison was blithering nonsense. The 'marine' wasn't a marine, nor had been since 2005. He wasn't abducted from the field of battle, he was arrested on a TOURIST visa for spying.

While Army Seargant Bergdahl was activity duty on a tour overseas when he was abducted and held.

As for your 'bad deal', the 'Taliban 5' are still in Qatar. There is no evidence that they're engaged in any terrorist activity since release. Worse, we have no authority to hold someone without charges or trial for 10 years as we did we these 5. They were never recognized as prisoners of war, they were never charged with any crime, they were never convicted of any crime, nor are we even fighting in Afghanistan.

We had no authority to hold them. And doing so violated our own laws, our values, our international agreements, and our own constitution. And don't bother trying to argue that the constitution didn't apply to them. The USSC already ruled that it did.

So you want to release all of the gitmo prisoners? so does obama. why hasn't he done it? Just declare all of the innocent and let them go. Then apologize to the taliban, al qaeda, and ISIS and send them each 5 billion dollars. You libs have no idea how this world really works.

The entire world is laughing at us and the fool that you put in the whitehouse.

Because Democrats oppose what they support being against what they didn't did when they weren't going to where they went under the guise of truth, get it?

Me either, it has something to do with W

 

[Skylar]

Surely your claims about 'black bakers' and 'the KKK" involve actual people. You wouldn't be stupid enough to cite fictional characters and made up court cases....

......would you?

No, I wouldn't. And I didn't. I didn't cite anyone. It's a position on a scenario.

On a scenario, huh? Because before you were talking about how the incident had been posted all over the board. But when we got specific....

....it turned out everything you'd been referencing was imaginary and fictitious.

Dinnit?

 

[Redfish]

nope, its perfectly valid. Why all the effort to get the deserter back and zero effort to get the marine or the minister?

Probably because neither of them were prisoners of war. The 'marine' you speak of isn't. He's out of the service and has been for a decade. He went to Iran as a tourist. He was arrested for spying and charged under civilian court in Iran.

While Army Seargant Bergdahl was active duty military deployed on a tour in Iraq when he was abducted.

You may not be able to glean the difference. But a rational person could.

The issue is that the trade for Bergahl was a bad deal, the US got out negotiated by a bunch or radical muslim assholes. THAT IS THE ISSUE.

The issue is that your comparison was blithering nonsense. The 'marine' wasn't a marine, nor had been since 2005. He wasn't abducted from the field of battle, he was arrested on a TOURIST visa for spying.

While Army Seargant Bergdahl was activity duty on a tour overseas when he was abducted and held.

As for your 'bad deal', the 'Taliban 5' are still in Qatar. There is no evidence that they're engaged in any terrorist activity since release. Worse, we have no authority to hold someone without charges or trial for 10 years as we did we these 5. They were never recognized as prisoners of war, they were never charged with any crime, they were never convicted of any crime, nor are we even fighting in Afghanistan.

We had no authority to hold them. And doing so violated our own laws, our values, our international agreements, and our own constitution. And don't bother trying to argue that the constitution didn't apply to them. The USSC already ruled that it did.

So you want to release all of the gitmo prisoners?

I want to follow our laws. I want our nation to act in accordance with its values. I want us to show integrity and do what we say we're going to do. We're better than this. And there's no law nor system of laws we adhere to where holding someone who ISN'T a prisoner of war for 10 years without trial or sentence is legitimate.

Not US laws. Not the Constitution. Not military law. Not our international agreements. Not the Geneva Conventions.

We're wiping our ass with our own values and integrity. And our enemies are using our flagrant hypocrisy as a recruiting tool. Meaning that even militarily, this is one of the stupidest decisions we could possibly make. As the enemy is gaining orders of magnitude more soldiers from our illegal acts than we're imprisoning in violation of our own laws.

Its a rookie mistake.

US laws do not apply to war criminals and enemy combatants. We do not owe them a trial. We are fully within the geneva convention to hold them until the "war" is over.

Let us know when the radical muslims surrender.

 

[kaz]

We had no authority to hold them. And doing so violated our own laws, our values, our international agreements, and our own constitution. And don't bother trying to argue that the constitution didn't apply to them. The USSC already ruled that it did.

More of the disingenuous crap that shows yet again how you don't want to go down a different road than the Republicans, you just want to be the one behind the steering wheel.

It was OK for W to invade because of WMDs, but wait, it wasn't OK because sure they could build them but they hadn't "stockpiled" enough of them, so W is a liar and we are in an illegal war, but wait, you got a Blue guy in office, so now it's OK again, we can finish W's timeline in Iraq and actually expand nation building in Afghanistan, which you are against because we shouldn't be nation building, oh, and we have to stop getting into these wars, well except invading Iraq (which was done first by Clinton), Kosovo, attacking Libya, bombing The Sudan and Afghanistan, those were OK, we had a blue guy in office.

If we are in a just war, we should be no holds barred winning it and saying we have to put terrorists on trial is ridiculous. If we are not in a war, our troops should not be over there fighting. Democrats are in a war, but they aren't, so when it comes to being full of crap to protect Obama from the brain dead Bergdahl deal, you're first in line to do it. What's the price, your integrity? Pshaw, that's no price, your integrity is far, far back in the rear view mirror

In what world does a 'just war' mandate we violate our own laws, ignore our own constitution, violate our international agreements, ignore military law, and ignore the Geneva Conventions?

We're fighting for 'freedom, liberty and the rule of law' by ignoring and flagrantly violating freedom, liberty and the rule of law? How much of one's brain has to be shut down before that starts making sense?

There is nothing just about the wars in the middle east, we should not be there. A "just" war is where we are directly attacked. And just like if someone has a gun to you in a parking lot, you don't follow rules, you defend yourself. Just like every actual just war we were in, such as the Revolution and WWII.

If you fight a war with Marcus of Queensbury rules as Democrats advocate, you are already proven wrong. You are either not in a just war or you are an idiot who thinks being civil should supersede our survival. Or you can be a Democrat and be wrong on both of those

 

[Redfish]

nope, its perfectly valid. Why all the effort to get the deserter back and zero effort to get the marine or the minister?

Probably because neither of them were prisoners of war. The 'marine' you speak of isn't. He's out of the service and has been for a decade. He went to Iran as a tourist. He was arrested for spying and charged under civilian court in Iran.

While Army Seargant Bergdahl was active duty military deployed on a tour in Iraq when he was abducted.

You may not be able to glean the difference. But a rational person could.

The issue is that the trade for Bergahl was a bad deal, the US got out negotiated by a bunch or radical muslim assholes. THAT IS THE ISSUE.

The issue is that your comparison was blithering nonsense. The 'marine' wasn't a marine, nor had been since 2005. He wasn't abducted from the field of battle, he was arrested on a TOURIST visa for spying.

While Army Seargant Bergdahl was activity duty on a tour overseas when he was abducted and held.

As for your 'bad deal', the 'Taliban 5' are still in Qatar. There is no evidence that they're engaged in any terrorist activity since release. Worse, we have no authority to hold someone without charges or trial for 10 years as we did we these 5. They were never recognized as prisoners of war, they were never charged with any crime, they were never convicted of any crime, nor are we even fighting in Afghanistan.

We had no authority to hold them. And doing so violated our own laws, our values, our international agreements, and our own constitution. And don't bother trying to argue that the constitution didn't apply to them. The USSC already ruled that it did.

So you want to release all of the gitmo prisoners? so does obama. why hasn't he done it? Just declare all of the innocent and let them go. Then apologize to the taliban, al qaeda, and ISIS and send them each 5 billion dollars. You libs have no idea how this world really works.

The entire world is laughing at us and the fool that you put in the whitehouse.

Because Democrats oppose what they support being against what they didn't did when they weren't going to where they went under the guise of truth, get it?

Me either, it has something to do with W

"bush did it and you're racist" Its all they have. Its all we are going to hear between now and nov 2016.

 

[Liminal]

Stupid, idiotic comparison.

nope, its perfectly valid. Why all the effort to get the deserter back and zero effort to get the marine or the minister?

No, you're wrong, it's a stupid, idiotic comparison. Any other questions?

Its a valid comparison. Both the marine and Bergdahl were US soldiers captured by an enemy. Why does obozo trade 5 terrorist leaders for the traitor and do nothing about the marine?

You, my little friend, are full of shit.

No, you're still wrong, those two situations bear no similarity whatsoever.

american citizens held by an enemy. Yes, I understand the military issue. But the fact remains that obama made a terrible deal for a deserter and has done nothing for other americans held captive.

So then you, and the other traitors on this thread, think an American soldier should have been left captive and denied the right to defend himself in courts martial. You people aren't even Americans as far as I'm concerned. People with stupid opinions like that are an embarrassment and a disgrace to this nation.

 

[Skylar]

We had no authority to hold them. And doing so violated our own laws, our values, our international agreements, and our own constitution. And don't bother trying to argue that the constitution didn't apply to them. The USSC already ruled that it did.

More of the disingenuous crap that shows yet again how you don't want to go down a different road than the Republicans, you just want to be the one behind the steering wheel.

It was OK for W to invade because of WMDs, but wait, it wasn't OK because sure they could build them but they hadn't "stockpiled" enough of them, so W is a liar and we are in an illegal war, but wait, you got a Blue guy in office, so now it's OK again, we can finish W's timeline in Iraq and actually expand nation building in Afghanistan, which you are against because we shouldn't be nation building, oh, and we have to stop getting into these wars, well except invading Iraq (which was done first by Clinton), Kosovo, attacking Libya, bombing The Sudan and Afghanistan, those were OK, we had a blue guy in office.

If we are in a just war, we should be no holds barred winning it and saying we have to put terrorists on trial is ridiculous. If we are not in a war, our troops should not be over there fighting. Democrats are in a war, but they aren't, so when it comes to being full of crap to protect Obama from the brain dead Bergdahl deal, you're first in line to do it. What's the price, your integrity? Pshaw, that's no price, your integrity is far, far back in the rear view mirror

In what world does a 'just war' mandate we violate our own laws, ignore our own constitution, violate our international agreements, ignore military law, and ignore the Geneva Conventions?

We're fighting for 'freedom, liberty and the rule of law' by ignoring and flagrantly violating freedom, liberty and the rule of law? How much of one's brain has to be shut down before that starts making sense?

There is nothing just about the wars in the middle east, we should not be there.

Then what about an UNjust war would mandate we violate our own laws, ignore our own constitution, violate our international agreements, ignore military law, and ignore the Geneva Conventions?

 

[kaz]

Surely your claims about 'black bakers' and 'the KKK" involve actual people. You wouldn't be stupid enough to cite fictional characters and made up court cases....

......would you?

No, I wouldn't. And I didn't. I didn't cite anyone. It's a position on a scenario.

On a scenario, huh? Because before you were talking about how the incident had been posted all over the board. But when we got specific....

....it turned out everything you'd been referencing was imaginary and fictitious.

Dinnit?

What is the source of your view that you can't have positions on hypothetical scenarios.

So you are not against invading Iran, right? I mean it hasn't happened, so you can't have a view on it.

I like to keep you talking. Pompous people are a hoot, you take yourselves so seriously you never recognize when you are being mocked. You have the shallowest explanations for your hypocrisies you can't see because you're so arrogant

 

[Redfish]

nope, its perfectly valid. Why all the effort to get the deserter back and zero effort to get the marine or the minister?

No, you're wrong, it's a stupid, idiotic comparison. Any other questions?

Its a valid comparison. Both the marine and Bergdahl were US soldiers captured by an enemy. Why does obozo trade 5 terrorist leaders for the traitor and do nothing about the marine?

You, my little friend, are full of shit.

No, you're still wrong, those two situations bear no similarity whatsoever.

american citizens held by an enemy. Yes, I understand the military issue. But the fact remains that obama made a terrible deal for a deserter and has done nothing for other americans held captive.

So then you, and the other traitors on this thread, think an American soldier should have been left captive and denied the right to defend himself in courts martial. You people aren't even Americans as far as I'm concerned. People with stupid opinions like that are an embarrassment and a disgrace to this nation.

No, I never said anything like that. We should get all americans held illegally by foreign governments, whether military or civilian.

The issue here is that obama made a terrible deal to get Bergdahl. 5 terrorist leaders for one deserter is a BAD DEAL

 

[kaz]

nope, its perfectly valid. Why all the effort to get the deserter back and zero effort to get the marine or the minister?

No, you're wrong, it's a stupid, idiotic comparison. Any other questions?

Its a valid comparison. Both the marine and Bergdahl were US soldiers captured by an enemy. Why does obozo trade 5 terrorist leaders for the traitor and do nothing about the marine?

You, my little friend, are full of shit.

No, you're still wrong, those two situations bear no similarity whatsoever.

american citizens held by an enemy. Yes, I understand the military issue. But the fact remains that obama made a terrible deal for a deserter and has done nothing for other americans held captive.

So then you, and the other traitors on this thread, think an American soldier should have been left captive and denied the right to defend himself in courts martial. You people aren't even Americans as far as I'm concerned. People with stupid opinions like that are an embarrassment and a disgrace to this nation.

If it was just a choice of taking him or leaving him, we should obviously take him. However, we should not have traded terrorists for a deserter. The families of anyone they kill are way more important than leftists rallying around a leftist President. If W did that, you'd be screaming bloody murder. It's all just a partisan game to you, and a shallowly obvious one

 

[Obiwan]

Liminal

Actually, I agree that Bergdahl should have his day in court (along with the appropriate penalty if convicted), and I'm sure most of the posters will agree.

The problem is that Obama released five high ranking Taliban to get him back, while the war is still going on, and three of them have already been caught trying to get back into the fight. It seems Obozo is just too dumb to grasp the concept that you kick the shit out of the enemy until they surrender instead of sending them reinforcements.

 

[Liminal]

No, you're wrong, it's a stupid, idiotic comparison. Any other questions?

Its a valid comparison. Both the marine and Bergdahl were US soldiers captured by an enemy. Why does obozo trade 5 terrorist leaders for the traitor and do nothing about the marine?

You, my little friend, are full of shit.

No, you're still wrong, those two situations bear no similarity whatsoever.

american citizens held by an enemy. Yes, I understand the military issue. But the fact remains that obama made a terrible deal for a deserter and has done nothing for other americans held captive.

So then you, and the other traitors on this thread, think an American soldier should have been left captive and denied the right to defend himself in courts martial. You people aren't even Americans as far as I'm concerned. People with stupid opinions like that are an embarrassment and a disgrace to this nation.

No, I never said anything like that. We should get all americans held illegally by foreign governments, whether military or civilian.

The issue here is that obama made a terrible deal to get Bergdahl. 5 terrorist leaders for one deserter is a BAD DEAL

Does he get to defend himself against that charge, or has he already been tried in absentia? Looks like the court of public opinion is good enough for you.

 

[Skylar]

Surely your claims about 'black bakers' and 'the KKK" involve actual people. You wouldn't be stupid enough to cite fictional characters and made up court cases....

......would you?

No, I wouldn't. And I didn't. I didn't cite anyone. It's a position on a scenario.

On a scenario, huh? Because before you were talking about how the incident had been posted all over the board. But when we got specific....

....it turned out everything you'd been referencing was imaginary and fictitious.

Dinnit?

What is the source of your view that you can't have positions on hypothetical scenarios.

And where, pray tell, did you mention a 'hypothetical scenerio' when you brought up the topic?

Yet you're silent (at best) on the KKK being denied cakes from blacks even when they haven't broken a law

Kaz
Post #175

Hillary Clinton How Bergdahl disappeared doesn t matter Page 18 US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

Odd, not a single mention of 'hypothetical scenarios' there at all. And worse, the entire premise of your post was imaginary bullshit. As the KKK wasn't being denied cakes from blacks even when they had broken no law.

You were commenting on a made up story from a SATIRE website. And with zero mention of 'hypothetical situations'. You swallowed that bullshit whole without fact checking any of it. And then laughably whined about how I was silent about an incident that never actually happened.

Yeah, I'm silent on all sorts of things that never happened.

 

[Liminal]

Liminal

Actually, I agree that Bergdahl should have his day in court (along with the appropriate penalty if convicted), and I'm sure most of the posters will agree.

The problem is that Obama released five high ranking Taliban to get him back, while the war is still going on, and three of them have already been caught trying to get back into the fight. It seems Obozo is just too dumb to grasp the concept that you kick the shit out of the enemy until they surrender instead of sending them reinforcements.

Maybe you can tell us how much a US serviceman is worth? What would you traitors and rug merchants have traded?

 

[Obiwan]

Liminal

Actually, I agree that Bergdahl should have his day in court (along with the appropriate penalty if convicted), and I'm sure most of the posters will agree.

The problem is that Obama released five high ranking Taliban to get him back, while the war is still going on, and three of them have already been caught trying to get back into the fight. It seems Obozo is just too dumb to grasp the concept that you kick the shit out of the enemy until they surrender instead of sending them reinforcements.

Maybe you can tell us how much a US serviceman is worth? What would you traitors and rug merchants have traded?

Let me try to explain this in terms even a Liberal can understand (hopefully)......

Those Taliban that were released are already trying to get back into the fight, where they can kill a lot more of our troops. So the actual question should be "Is the life of one deserter (or his convenience, since the Taliban kept him as a pet for all those years) worth the lives of God knows how many troops that are serving honorably?"

Or have you already converted hook-line-and-sinker to Obozo's doctrine that anything that is bad for America and our troops is a good thing?

 

[kaz]

Surely your claims about 'black bakers' and 'the KKK" involve actual people. You wouldn't be stupid enough to cite fictional characters and made up court cases....

......would you?

No, I wouldn't. And I didn't. I didn't cite anyone. It's a position on a scenario.

On a scenario, huh? Because before you were talking about how the incident had been posted all over the board. But when we got specific....

....it turned out everything you'd been referencing was imaginary and fictitious.

Dinnit?

What is the source of your view that you can't have positions on hypothetical scenarios.

And where, pray tell, did you mention a 'hypothetical scenerio' when you brought up the topic?

Yet you're silent (at best) on the KKK being denied cakes from blacks even when they haven't broken a law

Kaz
Post #175

Hillary Clinton How Bergdahl disappeared doesn t matter Page 18 US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

Odd, not a single mention of 'hypothetical scenarios' there at all. And worse, the entire premise of your post was imaginary bullshit. As the KKK wasn't being denied cakes from blacks even when they had broken no law.

You were commenting on a made up story from a SATIRE website. And with zero mention of 'hypothetical situations'. You swallowed that bullshit whole without fact checking any of it. And then laughably whined about how I was silent about an incident that never actually happened.

Yeah, I'm silent on all sorts of things that never happened.

I didn't say it is or is not hypothetical. How does whether it is hypothetical or not change your position on the issue? Is what you want to know which party is in power? Like your flip flopping on the middle east?

Invade Iraq? No, I'm against that! No, I mean when Clinton did it. Oh, then I'm for it. But W did it. I'm against that! Even when O finished W's timeline? No, I'm for that.

OK, I get it now. Let's say Obama is in office for the black baker, should he have to bake a cake for a KKK member who hasn't been convicted of a crime?

 

[kaz]

Let me try to explain this in terms even a Liberal can understand (hopefully)......