あなたは単独のコメントのスレッドを見ています。

残りのコメントをみる →

[–]SooInappropriate [スコア非表示]  (55子コメント)

Warriors died trying to save this shitbag. I hope he rots, and Obama with him for trading terrorist captives for him.

[–]sportsfan113 [スコア非表示]  (1子コメント)

Obama also appeared at the Rose Garden with his arms around this guy's parents.

[–]SD99FRC [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

That was the part that bugged me the most. Everybody knew what the real story was behind the Bergdahl disappearance. This was the worst kept secret in the military and the DoD investigation had already determined he was a deserter years ago.

I can accept the "He's our guy, we need to get him back", but don't parade his fucking parents on the White House lawn like the nation just returned a hero home. The gall to turn it into a PR stunt for the Obama presidency when good soldiers were killed and wounded trying to get that dipshit back. Bring their parents onto the White House lawn.

Just go get him, bring him home, and then dishonorably discharge him.

[–]voteM [スコア非表示]  (20子コメント)

Makes absolutely no sense. Why on earth didn't we just leave him... He deserted his unit and we had to trade 5 terrorists just to put him in jail here!!!

[–]goatcoat [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

The benefit we're getting is that future soldiers will know they won't be abandoned on a technicality.

In their minds it might seem like a slippery slope. First we abandon the deserters. Then we abandon people who have serious discipline problems on their records. Then we abandon people if we estimate too many soldiers might die in rescuing them. Then we abandon people if the rescue mission would cost more than training a new soldier. Pretty soon it's "every man left behind" and soldiers are going into battle feeling afraid instead of confident and suffering from reduced effectiveness because that team spirit is gone.

This just affirms the policy really is "absolutely no man left behind whatsoever no matter how much a douchebag he might be".

[–]dancemart [スコア非表示]  (1子コメント)

There is something about America's justice system.... something something innocent something something proven something something guilty.... I can't remember, so screw it, we should have just firebombed the pickup site.

[–]chrono14 [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

People in this thread think with emotions instead of logic, it's sadly VERY evident.

Screw the innocent until proven guilty, they want their bloodlust satisfied.

[–]strawglass [スコア非表示]  (10子コメント)

Because he is US DoD property and they wanted him back. Trading a few worthless idiots out of the hundreds they have locked up solved the problem.

[–]smoke_and_spark [スコア非表示]  (9子コメント)

Marines leave no one behind.

[–]Rodriguezry [スコア非表示]  (2子コメント)

he was in the army

[–]rhino43grr [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

And he's a no one.

[–]smoke_and_spark [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

Ahh that's different.

The army don't quite have the same integrity as the marine corps, do they?

[–]Ohioboy2 [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

He's army.

[–]voteM [スコア非表示]  (4子コメント)

> Marines leave no one behind.

He literally left his unit on his own because he didn't want to play army anymore.....

[–]EvelynJames [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

So your saying the rest of the military should stoop to his example?

[–]smoke_and_spark [スコア非表示]  (2子コメント)

Yup. I'm not saying that guy isn't a dirt bag. I'm saying that regardless of that....marines leave no man behind.

All the whining about how this guy deserved this or that; "let him rot", you see marines are above all of that. Our military is above all that. Obama is above all that.

"Let him rot"..that's victimist bullshit that Marines are above.

[–]TurnMeOnline420 [スコア非表示]  (1子コメント)

I Definitly understand your argument and Thank you for serving this country. Don't you think trading terrorists is just promoting them to capture more of our troops because they know we will deal?

[–]smoke_and_spark [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

First, I'm not in the service and never have been (in America) though I am American.

It does, yes...but what's more important is that people who are serving know that the military, the country, and perhaps most importantly the president has their back no matter how bad they fuck up..or how much of an asshole they are.

[–]Isentrope [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

To clean up loose ends. As the US is preparing to exit its various foreign theaters, having a captive could be used as propaganda or other purposes.

Alternatively, it's a powerful message that the US is willing to pick up its troops even if they are going to be charged when they get back home. If the US is willing to do this for deserters, it should give soldiers a lot of confidence that their country will be willing to retrieve them in normal circumstances too.

[–]edmguru [スコア非表示]  (3子コメント)

Can someone please TL;DR this for me? From what I've been able to read online all I see is he was held captive for 5 years. What makes him "shitbag"?

[–]Ohioboy2 [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

Left the base on his own free will and was captured by tommy Taliban. Several missions were set up to rescue him and Americans died trying to accomplish those missions. Then we trade 5 prisoners for him. Just a sad situation all together. I hope he spends the remainder of his natural born life in prison.

[–]energyinmotion [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

Does it make any sense so far, as to why we don't like him too much? Good guys died trying to save a guy who walked off on his fellow platoon mates in the middle of a combat deployment. Then we traded 5 legitimate terrorists, not suspected, but 5 known terrorists for him.

[–]chrono14 [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

Basically this guy went missing in 2009. He was relieved of guard duty and the next day he failed to show for role call. The only thing they found missing (if I remember correctly) besides him was his compass.

ONE person speculated that he may have gone AWOL but there was no proof. They started a search for him and eventually found out he was captured by the Taliban.

Again, there is no proof of desertion at this point.

During searches for him, several soldiers were killed, the public was furious because he wasn't found yet, and all communications regarding him ceased.

It was something like 2 years before news of him emerged again and this time he was much thinner and talks were made for a prisoner swap to get him back. Again, there is no proof of desertion still.

After he was brought back home that's when proof of a potential desertion arose and people are angry because people died all because this guy was a deserter.

[–]OMGSPACERUSSIA [スコア非表示]  (5子コメント)

Whatever people might say, we did the right thing here. He was OUR deserter. America does not leave its own behind. Not even deserters. If he's going to rot in a cell for the next fifty years, then he's damn well going to rot in one of our cells. If he's going to be executed, then it's going to be the US military that does the honors, not some jumped up Afghan goat herder.

[–]Ohioboy2 [スコア非表示]  (4子コメント)

I somewhat agree with this but those 5 prisoners we swapped for him just seemed unjustifiable.

[–]Bert-Goldberg [スコア非表示]  (1子コメント)

Not to mention how it softened our public stance of "not negotiating with terrorists."

[–]NerdSeed [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

We always negotiate with terrorists. Downvote me if you want but it's true. Even Reagan negotiated with terrorists.

[–]NerdSeed [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

More than 500 Guantanamo detainees were released or transferred under Bush

 

For weeks, Republicans have questioned the wisdom of closing the detention facility at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. President Barack Obama plans to transfer the approximately 230 remaining detainees to other countries or to prisons in the United States.

Responding to the Republicans, House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer told reporters on June 16, 2009, that it's important to consider Obama's plans in context with the overall number of releases in the past seven years.

"Some 500 detainees were released from Guantanamo during the Bush administration," Hoyer said.

We wondered if he was correct.

Indeed, government documents indicate more than 500 detainees were released or transferred from Guantanamo while George W. Bush was president. A White House executive order issued on the second day of Obama's presidency said, " The federal government has moved more than 500 such detainees from Guantánamo, either by returning them to their home country or by releasing or transferring them to a third country."

That's backed up by a fact sheet from the military task force that runs the detention camp, which says 520 detainees had been released or transferred by March 2009.

Our only quibble with Hoyer is his use of the word "released." That could be interpreted to mean that under Bush, 500-plus detainees left the center and were immediately freed. But the Pentagon says there is a difference between a release and a transfer to another country. The vast majority of detainees leave Gitmo under a transfer, which means they are transported to another country that places them under some type of restrictions. Some are incarcerated in those countries because of criminal charges, while others face monitoring or travel limitations.

[–]OMGSPACERUSSIA [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

That was about more than just Mr. Bergdahl, though. We wanted to get the Afghan government and Taliban talking, as odd as that sounds. Somebody finally realized that the Taliban isn't going away. We can either negotiate with them or fight them quite literally forever.

[–]misterAction[S] [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

No one gets left behind*

[–]goodgamble [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

oh maybe you should be brought in as a consultant, since you clearly know more about foreign policy than the president and his advisors.

[–]CaptainFlacid [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

I am still baffled that we decided to negotiate with terrorists. Especially for someone like this guy. We have had plenty of brave and heroic POW's die at the hands of terrorists with it being nothing but a news story but we put our national security on the line for this guy? Makes no sense.

[–]NerdSeed [スコア非表示]  (1子コメント)

You hope the president rots for trading Guantanamo prisoners for a United States prisoner of war? He is a deserter but I think you are going a bit far with your wordage.

More than 500 Guantanamo detainees were released or transferred under Bush

 

For weeks, Republicans have questioned the wisdom of closing the detention facility at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. President Barack Obama plans to transfer the approximately 230 remaining detainees to other countries or to prisons in the United States.

Responding to the Republicans, House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer told reporters on June 16, 2009, that it's important to consider Obama's plans in context with the overall number of releases in the past seven years.

"Some 500 detainees were released from Guantanamo during the Bush administration," Hoyer said.

We wondered if he was correct.

Indeed, government documents indicate more than 500 detainees were released or transferred from Guantanamo while George W. Bush was president. A White House executive order issued on the second day of Obama's presidency said, " The federal government has moved more than 500 such detainees from Guantánamo, either by returning them to their home country or by releasing or transferring them to a third country."

That's backed up by a fact sheet from the military task force that runs the detention camp, which says 520 detainees had been released or transferred by March 2009.

Our only quibble with Hoyer is his use of the word "released." That could be interpreted to mean that under Bush, 500-plus detainees left the center and were immediately freed. But the Pentagon says there is a difference between a release and a transfer to another country. The vast majority of detainees leave Gitmo under a transfer, which means they are transported to another country that places them under some type of restrictions. Some are incarcerated in those countries because of criminal charges, while others face monitoring or travel limitations.

[–]SooInappropriate [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

Oh I've said many times before that every living President we have left should be thrown in a public cell monitored 24/7 by webcams with no privacy. Actually I will give Carter a pass because he is just too simple to have really done much. But Bush I, Clinton, Bush II and Obama all should be locked away.

That said... 8 years has past and the "Bush's fault" card has been played out. Obama's record stands as his own, and it is despicable.