Bergdahl's Health: What's So Bad About It ?

[protectionist]

The foulness of the far right reactionary fascists here are beyond belief.

America is not buying this Fox made propaganda nonsense.

More unsubstantiated hot air. The boy who cried wolf seems to be a scholar compared to the off topic, wandering wails you emit.

 

[protectionist]

he took off and left all his gear behind. sounds incriminating to me. and im bettin' daddy O back here told him to run

Former team leader: Bergdahl tried to seek out Taliban

video

Leaving without his weapons indicates he was not deserting, why would he leave behind what could help the radicals?

Seriously, that is your reasoning? Because he left his weapons and sent his uniforms and gear home, he is not a deserter. The emails his parents released in 2012 showed exactly how he felt and he was leaving- because he hated America and being a soldier. He even told them to find a use for his gear he would no longer be needing.


The FACT the Army stated in 2010 they would not go to any extraordinary efforts to find him is the most telling. If he were not a deserter, the Army would have been all over finding a soldier who was in fact missing due to no fault of his own.

Having spent 5 years in the Army, I can tell you there is no telling what the Army will or won't do, at any point in time. As for extraordinary efforts, at least 6 soldiers DIED trying to find him. Deserter or not, the Army DID try hard to find him, as the widows and children of those dead soldiers will attest.

6 soldiers killed searching for ?deserter? POW, fueling backlash | New York Post

 

[MikeK]

We need to look more closely at the kind of pressures these soldiers are exposed to in Afghanistan -- where we have no good reason to be in the first place.

We have more good reason to be in Afghanistan than any place we have ever been, in any war we have ever fought, including World War II. It is the most critically important deployment in American history. The withdrawl from it, unless corrected by very fast redeployment, will likely result in the complete ANNIHILATION OF THE USA.

Do you know why we're there ?

Every day we remain in Iraq and Afghanistan we add to the level of antagonistic hatred held by Islamic jihadists for everything American. What effect do you suppose our drone strikes and aggressive occupation activities is having on the situation you've described?

I'd like to know how you think our presence in Afghanistan can prevent the Taliban or Al Qaeda fanatics from obtaining a nuclear weapon from Pakistan. That contingency will depend mainly on the willingness of some Pakistani source to supply the weapon. Obtaining it will take place far more easily than transporting a load of raw opium, which the Afghans have no trouble doing.

Our best approach to preventing what you are concerned with is to stop provoking these fanatics. We need to get the hell out of the Middle East, leave those people alone, and mind our own business. Our best defense is Mutually Assured Destruction if we are attacked. And the best way to minimize that potential is to minimize the provocation to attack us.

What you are suggesting is to not only maintain our provocation of the jihadists but to increase it.

 

[MikeK]

I don't think too many people know what Bergdahl knows, which might be useful to the Taliban. I served in the Army for 5 years, and only became a Spec 5. I knew a ton of things that could be useful to an enemy force, and I was a lower rank than Bergdahl.

Bergdahl was a PFC when he was captured. He was promoted to sergeant during his captivity -- which is something to think about.

 

[Oldstyle]

CiC does not have to answer to Senate for his use of wartime powers.

Dead issue, guys.

Barack Obama signed a bill just last year that prohibited him from moving any of the Gauntanamo Bay detainees without Congressional approval. He can do as he pleases with Sgt. Bergdahl but he broke the law when he released those 5 high level Taliban leaders. It isn't a "dead issue"...it's one more pile of dog poop that Barry has stepped in.

At this point it begs the question...is there ANYONE in this Administration with a dollop of common sense? Did they REALLY not think there was going to be an outcry over this? I know that Barry had zero executive experience coming into this job but JESUS he's done some incredibly stupid things and they seem to be happening more and more frequently.

 

[protectionist]

We need to look more closely at the kind of pressures these soldiers are exposed to in Afghanistan -- where we have no good reason to be in the first place.

We have more good reason to be in Afghanistan than any place we have ever been, in any war we have ever fought, including World War II. It is the most critically important deployment in American history. The withdrawl from it, unless corrected by very fast redeployment, will likely result in the complete ANNIHILATION OF THE USA.

Do you know why we're there ?

Every day we remain in Iraq and Afghanistan we add to the level of antagonistic hatred held by Islamic jihadists for everything American. What effect do you suppose our drone strikes and aggressive occupation activities is having on the situation you've described?

I'd like to know how you think our presence in Afghanistan can prevent the Taliban or Al Qaeda fanatics from obtaining a nuclear weapon from Pakistan. That contingency will depend mainly on the willingness of some Pakistani source to supply the weapon. Obtaining it will take place far more easily than transporting a load of raw opium, which the Afghans have no trouble doing.

Our best approach to preventing what you are concerned with is to stop provoking these fanatics. We need to get the hell out of the Middle East, leave those people alone, and mind our own business. Our best defense is Mutually Assured Destruction if we are attacked. And the best way to minimize that potential is to minimize the provocation to attack us.

What you are suggesting is to not only maintain our provocation of the jihadists but to increase it.

1. There is no mutually assured destruction deterrent with Islamic jihadists. They value death above life.

2. Islamic jihadists do not respond positively to appeasement. To them, if we're nice that shows weakness, and simply emboldens them more (this is elementary Islam)

3. The Taliban or Al Qaeda fanatics from obtaining a nuclear weapon from Pakistan, does NOT depend on the willingness of some Pakistani source to supply the weapon. Obviously, you didn't click the link in Post # 41 (which you quoted). You seem to not have any idea of what;s been going on. Pakistani nukes have been under repeated attack by jihadists. The govt now moves them around in ordinary cargo vans (ex UPS), which actually makes them even more vulnerable.
Actually the real danger is if the fragile Pakistani govt should fall to the loonies. This would necessitate US troops in close proximity to rush in and secure the nukes. ASAP.

If I had my way, we would go in there right now, and get those nukes, and bring them back to the USA, or some secure place away from the Pakistani radicals, who number in the millions.

All this was in the link. You know how to click a mouse ?

http://www.usmessageboard.com/curre...ica-facing-its-worst-danger-in-238-years.html

http://www.wired.com/2011/11/pakistan-nukes-delivery-vans/

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2010/dec/01/wikileaks-cables-pakistan-nuclear-threat

http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2013...tan-nuclear-threat-should-be-our-top-concern/

http://www.europeanleadershipnetwor...hreat-to-nuclear-weapons-in-pakistan_613.html

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/11/07/pakistan-nuclear-arsenal-protected_n_1079630.html

http://www.ndtv.com/article/world/pakistan-nuclear-weapons-threat-under-estimated-448407

http://www.dw.de/why-pakistans-nuclear-bombs-are-a-threat/a-16730597

 

[Oldstyle]

I don't think too many people know what Bergdahl knows, which might be useful to the Taliban. I served in the Army for 5 years, and only became a Spec 5. I knew a ton of things that could be useful to an enemy force, and I was a lower rank than Bergdahl.

Bergdahl was a PFC when he was captured. He was promoted to sergeant during his captivity -- which is something to think about.

That's an automatic thing for time served, Mike. He is considered not guilty of anything until the Army can get to the bottom of what Bergdahl was doing when he walked away from his command. I would be very surprised however if his Sgt's rank didn't go bye bye. From the reaction by his fellow soldiers, Bowe Bergdahl is roundly despised by the men he served with. Unless there's some mitigating circumstances that nobody has brought up so far...this is a man who simply turned himself over to the enemy because he didn't believe in what he was fighting for.

 

[MikeK]

Bergdahl looked disappointed and hurt. He did not look like a man being sent home. He looked like a man being turned away from home. He cried. Last report is he is still refusing to speak English.

Perhaps he considers Afghanistan to be his home. And the Taliban to be his family.

If that is true the cause of such a mindset could be an extreme example of induced Stockholm syndrome (remember Patti Hearst?). Before making any assumptions about this fellow it's important to first find out how psychologically damaging his experience has been.

Five years is a long time to subject one to intensive indoctrination (brainwash) techniques.

 

[MikeK]

If I had my way, we would go in there right now, and get those nukes, and bring them back to the USA, or some secure place away from the Pakistani radicals, who number in the millions.

That seem sa logical solution. Why do you suppose we don't just do that instead of wasting our time in Iraq and Afghanistan?

 

[protectionist]

If I had my way, we would go in there right now, and get those nukes, and bring them back to the USA, or some secure place away from the Pakistani radicals, who number in the millions.

That seem sa logical solution. Why do you suppose we don't just do that instead of wasting our time in Iraq and Afghanistan?

Because the "leaders" of our country are more worried about our image in the eyes of the world than they are about the safety and national security of America. To put it in short form, they're jimokes.

 

[MikeK]

We have more good reason to be in Afghanistan than any place we have ever been, in any war we have ever fought, including World War II. It is the most critically important deployment in American history. The withdrawl from it, unless corrected by very fast redeployment, will likely result in the complete ANNIHILATION OF THE USA.

Do you know why we're there ?

Every day we remain in Iraq and Afghanistan we add to the level of antagonistic hatred held by Islamic jihadists for everything American. What effect do you suppose our drone strikes and aggressive occupation activities is having on the situation you've described?

I'd like to know how you think our presence in Afghanistan can prevent the Taliban or Al Qaeda fanatics from obtaining a nuclear weapon from Pakistan. That contingency will depend mainly on the willingness of some Pakistani source to supply the weapon. Obtaining it will take place far more easily than transporting a load of raw opium, which the Afghans have no trouble doing.

Our best approach to preventing what you are concerned with is to stop provoking these fanatics. We need to get the hell out of the Middle East, leave those people alone, and mind our own business. Our best defense is Mutually Assured Destruction if we are attacked. And the best way to minimize that potential is to minimize the provocation to attack us.

What you are suggesting is to not only maintain our provocation of the jihadists but to increase it.

1. There is no mutually assured destruction deterrent with Islamic jihadists. They value death above life.

2. Islamic jihadists do not respond positively to appeasement. To them, if we're nice that shows weakness, and simply emboldens them more (this is elementary Islam)

3. The Taliban or Al Qaeda fanatics from obtaining a nuclear weapon from Pakistan, does NOT depend on the willingness of some Pakistani source to supply the weapon. Obviously, you didn't click the link in Post # 41 (which you quoted). You seem to not have any idea of what;s been going on. Pakistani nukes have been under repeated attack by jihadists. The govt now moves them around in ordinary cargo vans (ex UPS), which actually makes them even more vulnerable.
Actually the real danger is if the fragile Pakistani govt should fall to the loonies. This would necessitate US troops in close proximity to rush in and secure the nukes. ASAP.

If I had my way, we would go in there right now, and get those nukes, and bring them back to the USA, or some secure place away from the Pakistani radicals, who number in the millions.

All this was in the link. You know how to click a mouse ?

http://www.usmessageboard.com/curre...ica-facing-its-worst-danger-in-238-years.html

Pakistan Carts Its Nukes Around In Delivery Vans | Danger Room | WIRED

WikiLeaks cables highlight Pakistani nuclear terror threat | World news | The Guardian

Enough about Iran, Pakistan's nuclear threat should be our top concern | Fox News

The Terrorist Threat to Nuclear Weapons in Pakistan

Pakistan: Nuclear Arsenal Will Be Protected By 8,000 Trainees, Military Says

'Pakistan nuclear weapons' threat under estimated' | NDTV.com

Why Pakistan's nuclear bombs are a threat | Asia | DW.DE | 09.04.2013

I'd like to know your opinion on something.

If the fanatical jihadists do manage to obtain a nuclear weapon, which nation do you think they will attack with it, the U.S. or Israel?

 

[MikeK]

Every day we remain in Iraq and Afghanistan we add to the level of antagonistic hatred held by Islamic jihadists for everything American. What effect do you suppose our drone strikes and aggressive occupation activities is having on the situation you've described?

I'd like to know how you think our presence in Afghanistan can prevent the Taliban or Al Qaeda fanatics from obtaining a nuclear weapon from Pakistan. That contingency will depend mainly on the willingness of some Pakistani source to supply the weapon. Obtaining it will take place far more easily than transporting a load of raw opium, which the Afghans have no trouble doing.

Our best approach to preventing what you are concerned with is to stop provoking these fanatics. We need to get the hell out of the Middle East, leave those people alone, and mind our own business. Our best defense is Mutually Assured Destruction if we are attacked. And the best way to minimize that potential is to minimize the provocation to attack us.

What you are suggesting is to not only maintain our provocation of the jihadists but to increase it.

1. There is no mutually assured destruction deterrent with Islamic jihadists. They value death above life.

2. Islamic jihadists do not respond positively to appeasement. To them, if we're nice that shows weakness, and simply emboldens them more (this is elementary Islam)

3. The Taliban or Al Qaeda fanatics from obtaining a nuclear weapon from Pakistan, does NOT depend on the willingness of some Pakistani source to supply the weapon. Obviously, you didn't click the link in Post # 41 (which you quoted). You seem to not have any idea of what;s been going on. Pakistani nukes have been under repeated attack by jihadists. The govt now moves them around in ordinary cargo vans (ex UPS), which actually makes them even more vulnerable.
Actually the real danger is if the fragile Pakistani govt should fall to the loonies. This would necessitate US troops in close proximity to rush in and secure the nukes. ASAP.

If I had my way, we would go in there right now, and get those nukes, and bring them back to the USA, or some secure place away from the Pakistani radicals, who number in the millions.

All this was in the link. You know how to click a mouse ?

http://www.usmessageboard.com/curre...ica-facing-its-worst-danger-in-238-years.html

Pakistan Carts Its Nukes Around In Delivery Vans | Danger Room | WIRED

WikiLeaks cables highlight Pakistani nuclear terror threat | World news | The Guardian

Enough about Iran, Pakistan's nuclear threat should be our top concern | Fox News

The Terrorist Threat to Nuclear Weapons in Pakistan

Pakistan: Nuclear Arsenal Will Be Protected By 8,000 Trainees, Military Says

'Pakistan nuclear weapons' threat under estimated' | NDTV.com

Why Pakistan's nuclear bombs are a threat | Asia | DW.DE | 09.04.2013

I'd like to know your opinion on something.

If the fanatical jihadists do manage to obtain a nuclear weapon, which nation do you think they will attack with it, the U.S. or Israel?

No answer.

 

[namvet]

looks like the boy does have to account for being a traitor. congrads dad

Bergdahl declared jihad in captivity, secret documents show

U.S. Army Sgt. Bowe Bergdahl at one point during his captivity converted to Islam, fraternized openly with his captors and declared himself a "mujahid," or warrior for Islam, according to secret documents prepared on the basis of a purported eyewitness account and obtained by Fox News.

link

 

[MikeK]

looks like the boy does have to account for being a traitor. congrads dad

Bergdahl declared jihad in captivity, secret documents show

U.S. Army Sgt. Bowe Bergdahl at one point during his captivity converted to Islam, fraternized openly with his captors and declared himself a "mujahid," or warrior for Islam, according to secret documents prepared on the basis of a purported eyewitness account and obtained by Fox News.

link

Don't you think he (or anyone) can be excused for saying reproachable things while under the duress of captivity by known killers?

 

[TemplarKormac]

Well... this just points out that the Taliban takes better care of their men than we do. And that is a damned shame.

 

[protectionist]

Every day we remain in Iraq and Afghanistan we add to the level of antagonistic hatred held by Islamic jihadists for everything American. What effect do you suppose our drone strikes and aggressive occupation activities is having on the situation you've described?

I'd like to know how you think our presence in Afghanistan can prevent the Taliban or Al Qaeda fanatics from obtaining a nuclear weapon from Pakistan. That contingency will depend mainly on the willingness of some Pakistani source to supply the weapon. Obtaining it will take place far more easily than transporting a load of raw opium, which the Afghans have no trouble doing.

Our best approach to preventing what you are concerned with is to stop provoking these fanatics. We need to get the hell out of the Middle East, leave those people alone, and mind our own business. Our best defense is Mutually Assured Destruction if we are attacked. And the best way to minimize that potential is to minimize the provocation to attack us.

What you are suggesting is to not only maintain our provocation of the jihadists but to increase it.

1. There is no mutually assured destruction deterrent with Islamic jihadists. They value death above life.

2. Islamic jihadists do not respond positively to appeasement. To them, if we're nice that shows weakness, and simply emboldens them more (this is elementary Islam)

3. The Taliban or Al Qaeda fanatics from obtaining a nuclear weapon from Pakistan, does NOT depend on the willingness of some Pakistani source to supply the weapon. Obviously, you didn't click the link in Post # 41 (which you quoted). You seem to not have any idea of what;s been going on. Pakistani nukes have been under repeated attack by jihadists. The govt now moves them around in ordinary cargo vans (ex UPS), which actually makes them even more vulnerable.
Actually the real danger is if the fragile Pakistani govt should fall to the loonies. This would necessitate US troops in close proximity to rush in and secure the nukes. ASAP.

If I had my way, we would go in there right now, and get those nukes, and bring them back to the USA, or some secure place away from the Pakistani radicals, who number in the millions.

All this was in the link. You know how to click a mouse ?

http://www.usmessageboard.com/curre...ica-facing-its-worst-danger-in-238-years.html

Pakistan Carts Its Nukes Around In Delivery Vans | Danger Room | WIRED

WikiLeaks cables highlight Pakistani nuclear terror threat | World news | The Guardian

Enough about Iran, Pakistan's nuclear threat should be our top concern | Fox News

The Terrorist Threat to Nuclear Weapons in Pakistan

Pakistan: Nuclear Arsenal Will Be Protected By 8,000 Trainees, Military Says

'Pakistan nuclear weapons' threat under estimated' | NDTV.com

Why Pakistan's nuclear bombs are a threat | Asia | DW.DE | 09.04.2013

I'd like to know your opinion on something.

If the fanatical jihadists do manage to obtain a nuclear weapon, which nation do you think they will attack with it, the U.S. or Israel?

Do you really think "OR" is the correct word here ? And do you also think "A" is a correct word ? I could easily see the fanatical jihadists (probably the majority of 180 million Pakistanis) getting hold of ALL of Pakistan's nuclear warheads (over 100 of them) I'd guess every country that participated in the coalition war in Afghanistan might be targeted (60 countries)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Participants_in_Operation_Enduring_Freedom

 

[protectionist]

looks like the boy does have to account for being a traitor. congrads dad

Bergdahl declared jihad in captivity, secret documents show

U.S. Army Sgt. Bowe Bergdahl at one point during his captivity converted to Islam, fraternized openly with his captors and declared himself a "mujahid," or warrior for Islam, according to secret documents prepared on the basis of a purported eyewitness account and obtained by Fox News.

link

Being with the Taliban for 5 years, Bergdahl could have gone through various phases of love/hate with them. Maybe even some pretending to like them, just to keep from being tortured or killed. What might be getting a little lost in all the attention to Bergdahl though is the really serious direction all of this is going. That is, Gitmo prisoners being released, Gitmo being closed down, the Obamans acting like the war is over and withdrawing almost all the troops, while the raggy heads have no intention of ending anything, and once all the gains made in the war (at the cost of thousands of US lives) are lost, they'll be coming at us with everything they've got.

It's kind of like a boxer who has been winning a fight for 9 rounds, and then comes out in the tenth, smiling, with his hands behind his back, and saying "OK, fight's over now now", only to have his opponent promptly knock him right out of the ring with one big punch.

One can only wonder what in the world the Obama people could be thinking. Can you imagine if FDR, in 1944, said "OK, war's over", and then pulled all the troops home ?

 

[protectionist]

Well... this just points out that the Taliban takes better care of their men than we do. And that is a damned shame.

We need to keep the VA medical care scandal fresh in our minds, and keep up the pressure to improve it. Good point.

 

[MikeK]

Well... this just points out that the Taliban takes better care of their men than we do. And that is a damned shame.

We need to keep the VA medical care scandal fresh in our minds, and keep up the pressure to improve it. Good point.

Very good. I agree.

Also, I'd like your opinion on this: If the fanatics in Afghanistan manage to get hold of a nuclear weapon, do you think they will use it on the United States or Israel?

 

[Jack203]

One can only wonder what in the world the Obama people could be thinking. Can you imagine if FDR, in 1944, said "OK, war's over", and then pulled all the troops home ?

I did agree with the first paragraph of your post. But this sentence you seem to be in favor of prolonging the 10+ year war in Afghanistan? That is mind boggling to me. We could be there a hundred years and it wouldn't matter. They would still fight us as the occupiers.