Total Posts:9|Showing Posts:1-9
Jump to topic:

5 Terrorist for Bowe Bergdahl? Good or Bad?

NJF
Posts: 13
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/11/2014 8:18:11 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
First off, lets not assume Bowe Bergdahl deserted his post and sought out the enemy. Until he is convicted, he will be assumed innocent.

The Good:
1. We got back an american POW to his family.
2. Cut back cost of feeding 5 detainees?
3. Possibility of tracking terrorist?

The Bad:
1. Negotiated with Terrorist. Now that they know what we are willing to do to get back 1, what will stop them from kidnapping more (even civilians)?
2. Let 5 known terrorist go back into the fight to kill us?

What do you guys think, I'm sure there are more to both sides of this, but just off the top of my head these are a few. Can you find why point 1 of the bad could be outweighed by anything else? I am interested to hear other peoples concerns or those that thought it was a good move, why? Thanks.

NJF
slo1
Posts: 4,314
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/13/2014 8:57:23 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/11/2014 8:18:11 AM, NJF wrote:
First off, lets not assume Bowe Bergdahl deserted his post and sought out the enemy. Until he is convicted, he will be assumed innocent.

The Good:
1. We got back an american POW to his family.
2. Cut back cost of feeding 5 detainees?
3. Possibility of tracking terrorist?

The Bad:
1. Negotiated with Terrorist. Now that they know what we are willing to do to get back 1, what will stop them from kidnapping more (even civilians)?
2. Let 5 known terrorist go back into the fight to kill us?

What do you guys think, I'm sure there are more to both sides of this, but just off the top of my head these are a few. Can you find why point 1 of the bad could be outweighed by anything else? I am interested to hear other peoples concerns or those that thought it was a good move, why? Thanks.

NJF

The risk associated with #1 on the bad is over inflated. Facts are that we do negotiate with terrorists and adversaries. Anyone who promotes not having communications ever and negotiations ever with adversaries is living in a closet on how the actual world works.

Time to slough off cheap slogans such as never negotiate with terrorists and grow up in the world.
ararmer1919
Posts: 362
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/13/2014 8:12:32 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/13/2014 8:57:23 AM, slo1 wrote:
At 6/11/2014 8:18:11 AM, NJF wrote:
First off, lets not assume Bowe Bergdahl deserted his post and sought out the enemy. Until he is convicted, he will be assumed innocent.

The Good:
1. We got back an american POW to his family.
2. Cut back cost of feeding 5 detainees?
3. Possibility of tracking terrorist?

The Bad:
1. Negotiated with Terrorist. Now that they know what we are willing to do to get back 1, what will stop them from kidnapping more (even civilians)?
2. Let 5 known terrorist go back into the fight to kill us?

What do you guys think, I'm sure there are more to both sides of this, but just off the top of my head these are a few. Can you find why point 1 of the bad could be outweighed by anything else? I am interested to hear other peoples concerns or those that thought it was a good move, why? Thanks.

NJF

The risk associated with #1 on the bad is over inflated. Facts are that we do negotiate with terrorists and adversaries. Anyone who promotes not having communications ever and negotiations ever with adversaries is living in a closet on how the actual world works.

Time to slough off cheap slogans such as never negotiate with terrorists and grow up in the world.

You do not negotiate with terrorist. This is extremely ill advised. Not because of some hardheaded refusal to make compromises or ignorance but because, as stated, all it does is provide an incentive for more attacks. They have just shown that they are willing to pay five high valued prisoners for 1 man. If I was a jihadi head honcho if have my guys out across the nation trying to snatch up every American they can claw at. That is what happens when you negotiate with terrorist.

And terrorist and regular adversaries are 2 completely different things. On the one hand you have a legitimate enemy who most likely abides by the same rules and regulations of warfare as you do. They have a uniformed army with a code of military justice and a recognized governing body with laws and process and are held accountable for their decisions. Almost every actually nation on earth falls under this category and a war with said nation would be normally more then open to such dealings like prisoner exchange. Our fight with Germany or Japan during WW2 are good examples. However, on the other hand, you have a group of criminal, illigeitamte, terrorist who follow no law but the one they make up at the spot, hide amongst the civilian population, consistently target the civilian populace in their attacks with the sole purpose of killing civilians, normally do things like cut the heads off of prisoners when they get ahold of them (all except Berdahl apparently. Interesting). And are not held accountable for their decisions. You. Do. Not. Negotiate with these people. Unless of course your are the omnipotent and all knowing Barack Obama.
ChosenWolff
Posts: 3,361
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/13/2014 8:23:06 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/13/2014 8:12:32 PM, ararmer1919 wrote:
At 6/13/2014 8:57:23 AM, slo1 wrote:
At 6/11/2014 8:18:11 AM, NJF wrote:
First off, lets not assume Bowe Bergdahl deserted his post and sought out the enemy. Until he is convicted, he will be assumed innocent.

The Good:
1. We got back an american POW to his family.
2. Cut back cost of feeding 5 detainees?
3. Possibility of tracking terrorist?

The Bad:
1. Negotiated with Terrorist. Now that they know what we are willing to do to get back 1, what will stop them from kidnapping more (even civilians)?
2. Let 5 known terrorist go back into the fight to kill us?

What do you guys think, I'm sure there are more to both sides of this, but just off the top of my head these are a few. Can you find why point 1 of the bad could be outweighed by anything else? I am interested to hear other peoples concerns or those that thought it was a good move, why? Thanks.

NJF

The risk associated with #1 on the bad is over inflated. Facts are that we do negotiate with terrorists and adversaries. Anyone who promotes not having communications ever and negotiations ever with adversaries is living in a closet on how the actual world works.

Time to slough off cheap slogans such as never negotiate with terrorists and grow up in the world.

You do not negotiate with terrorist. This is extremely ill advised. Not because of some hardheaded refusal to make compromises or ignorance but because, as stated, all it does is provide an incentive for more attacks. They have just shown that they are willing to pay five high valued prisoners for 1 man. If I was a jihadi head honcho if have my guys out across the nation trying to snatch up every American they can claw at. That is what happens when you negotiate with terrorist.

And terrorist and regular adversaries are 2 completely different things. On the one hand you have a legitimate enemy who most likely abides by the same rules and regulations of warfare as you do. They have a uniformed army with a code of military justice and a recognized governing body with laws and process and are held accountable for their decisions. Almost every actually nation on earth falls under this category and a war with said nation would be normally more then open to such dealings like prisoner exchange. Our fight with Germany or Japan during WW2 are good examples. However, on the other hand, you have a group of criminal, illigeitamte, terrorist who follow no law but the one they make up at the spot, hide amongst the civilian population, consistently target the civilian populace in their attacks with the sole purpose of killing civilians, normally do things like cut the heads off of prisoners when they get ahold of them (all except Berdahl apparently. Interesting). And are not held accountable for their decisions. You. Do. Not. Negotiate with these people. Unless of course your are the omnipotent and all knowing Barack Obama.

Ararmer, you can debate this with me if you want. You seem to be the foremost person to go to when disscussing the topic.

I agree, I was edgy at first, but I think I got past all the weak grab bags of conservative and liberal media. Hail the great omnipotent Obama!
How about NO elections?

#onlyonedeb8
ararmer1919
Posts: 362
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/13/2014 8:26:19 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/13/2014 8:23:06 PM, ChosenWolff wrote:
At 6/13/2014 8:12:32 PM, ararmer1919 wrote:
At 6/13/2014 8:57:23 AM, slo1 wrote:
At 6/11/2014 8:18:11 AM, NJF wrote:
First off, lets not assume Bowe Bergdahl deserted his post and sought out the enemy. Until he is convicted, he will be assumed innocent.

The Good:
1. We got back an american POW to his family.
2. Cut back cost of feeding 5 detainees?
3. Possibility of tracking terrorist?

The Bad:
1. Negotiated with Terrorist. Now that they know what we are willing to do to get back 1, what will stop them from kidnapping more (even civilians)?
2. Let 5 known terrorist go back into the fight to kill us?

What do you guys think, I'm sure there are more to both sides of this, but just off the top of my head these are a few. Can you find why point 1 of the bad could be outweighed by anything else? I am interested to hear other peoples concerns or those that thought it was a good move, why? Thanks.

NJF

The risk associated with #1 on the bad is over inflated. Facts are that we do negotiate with terrorists and adversaries. Anyone who promotes not having communications ever and negotiations ever with adversaries is living in a closet on how the actual world works.

Time to slough off cheap slogans such as never negotiate with terrorists and grow up in the world.

You do not negotiate with terrorist. This is extremely ill advised. Not because of some hardheaded refusal to make compromises or ignorance but because, as stated, all it does is provide an incentive for more attacks. They have just shown that they are willing to pay five high valued prisoners for 1 man. If I was a jihadi head honcho if have my guys out across the nation trying to snatch up every American they can claw at. That is what happens when you negotiate with terrorist.

And terrorist and regular adversaries are 2 completely different things. On the one hand you have a legitimate enemy who most likely abides by the same rules and regulations of warfare as you do. They have a uniformed army with a code of military justice and a recognized governing body with laws and process and are held accountable for their decisions. Almost every actually nation on earth falls under this category and a war with said nation would be normally more then open to such dealings like prisoner exchange. Our fight with Germany or Japan during WW2 are good examples. However, on the other hand, you have a group of criminal, illigeitamte, terrorist who follow no law but the one they make up at the spot, hide amongst the civilian population, consistently target the civilian populace in their attacks with the sole purpose of killing civilians, normally do things like cut the heads off of prisoners when they get ahold of them (all except Berdahl apparently. Interesting). And are not held accountable for their decisions. You. Do. Not. Negotiate with these people. Unless of course your are the omnipotent and all knowing Barack Obama.

Ararmer, you can debate this with me if you want. You seem to be the foremost person to go to when disscussing the topic.

I agree, I was edgy at first, but I think I got past all the weak grab bags of conservative and liberal media. Hail the great omnipotent Obama!

I'm
Sorry are you saying we should or we shouldn't negotiate with terrorist? Cause you said let's debate this but then in the next sentence you said you agree. Lol.
ChosenWolff
Posts: 3,361
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/13/2014 8:28:58 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/13/2014 8:26:19 PM, ararmer1919 wrote:
At 6/13/2014 8:23:06 PM, ChosenWolff wrote:
At 6/13/2014 8:12:32 PM, ararmer1919 wrote:
At 6/13/2014 8:57:23 AM, slo1 wrote:
At 6/11/2014 8:18:11 AM, NJF wrote:
First off, lets not assume Bowe Bergdahl deserted his post and sought out the enemy. Until he is convicted, he will be assumed innocent.

The Good:
1. We got back an american POW to his family.
2. Cut back cost of feeding 5 detainees?
3. Possibility of tracking terrorist?

The Bad:
1. Negotiated with Terrorist. Now that they know what we are willing to do to get back 1, what will stop them from kidnapping more (even civilians)?
2. Let 5 known terrorist go back into the fight to kill us?

What do you guys think, I'm sure there are more to both sides of this, but just off the top of my head these are a few. Can you find why point 1 of the bad could be outweighed by anything else? I am interested to hear other peoples concerns or those that thought it was a good move, why? Thanks.

NJF

The risk associated with #1 on the bad is over inflated. Facts are that we do negotiate with terrorists and adversaries. Anyone who promotes not having communications ever and negotiations ever with adversaries is living in a closet on how the actual world works.

Time to slough off cheap slogans such as never negotiate with terrorists and grow up in the world.

You do not negotiate with terrorist. This is extremely ill advised. Not because of some hardheaded refusal to make compromises or ignorance but because, as stated, all it does is provide an incentive for more attacks. They have just shown that they are willing to pay five high valued prisoners for 1 man. If I was a jihadi head honcho if have my guys out across the nation trying to snatch up every American they can claw at. That is what happens when you negotiate with terrorist.

And terrorist and regular adversaries are 2 completely different things. On the one hand you have a legitimate enemy who most likely abides by the same rules and regulations of warfare as you do. They have a uniformed army with a code of military justice and a recognized governing body with laws and process and are held accountable for their decisions. Almost every actually nation on earth falls under this category and a war with said nation would be normally more then open to such dealings like prisoner exchange. Our fight with Germany or Japan during WW2 are good examples. However, on the other hand, you have a group of criminal, illigeitamte, terrorist who follow no law but the one they make up at the spot, hide amongst the civilian population, consistently target the civilian populace in their attacks with the sole purpose of killing civilians, normally do things like cut the heads off of prisoners when they get ahold of them (all except Berdahl apparently. Interesting). And are not held accountable for their decisions. You. Do. Not. Negotiate with these people. Unless of course your are the omnipotent and all knowing Barack Obama.

Ararmer, you can debate this with me if you want. You seem to be the foremost person to go to when disscussing the topic.

I agree, I was edgy at first, but I think I got past all the weak grab bags of conservative and liberal media. Hail the great omnipotent Obama!

I'm
Sorry are you saying we should or we shouldn't negotiate with terrorist? Cause you said let's debate this but then in the next sentence you said you agree. Lol.

No, I wish to debate that the decision to trade bergdahl was a goodish idea. I got a couple points that I think support my case. I'll say now, that one of them involves denying that the Taliban are truly terrorists.

At least not one's that present any threat to us.
How about NO elections?

#onlyonedeb8
slo1
Posts: 4,314
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/14/2014 9:56:51 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/13/2014 8:12:32 PM, ararmer1919 wrote:
At 6/13/2014 8:57:23 AM, slo1 wrote:
At 6/11/2014 8:18:11 AM, NJF wrote:
First off, lets not assume Bowe Bergdahl deserted his post and sought out the enemy. Until he is convicted, he will be assumed innocent.

The Good:
1. We got back an american POW to his family.
2. Cut back cost of feeding 5 detainees?
3. Possibility of tracking terrorist?

The Bad:
1. Negotiated with Terrorist. Now that they know what we are willing to do to get back 1, what will stop them from kidnapping more (even civilians)?
2. Let 5 known terrorist go back into the fight to kill us?

What do you guys think, I'm sure there are more to both sides of this, but just off the top of my head these are a few. Can you find why point 1 of the bad could be outweighed by anything else? I am interested to hear other peoples concerns or those that thought it was a good move, why? Thanks.

NJF

The risk associated with #1 on the bad is over inflated. Facts are that we do negotiate with terrorists and adversaries. Anyone who promotes not having communications ever and negotiations ever with adversaries is living in a closet on how the actual world works.

Time to slough off cheap slogans such as never negotiate with terrorists and grow up in the world.

You do not negotiate with terrorist. This is extremely ill advised. Not because of some hardheaded refusal to make compromises or ignorance but because, as stated, all it does is provide an incentive for more attacks. They have just shown that they are willing to pay five high valued prisoners for 1 man. If I was a jihadi head honcho if have my guys out across the nation trying to snatch up every American they can claw at. That is what happens when you negotiate with terrorist.

And terrorist and regular adversaries are 2 completely different things. On the one hand you have a legitimate enemy who most likely abides by the same rules and regulations of warfare as you do. They have a uniformed army with a code of military justice and a recognized governing body with laws and process and are held accountable for their decisions. Almost every actually nation on earth falls under this category and a war with said nation would be normally more then open to such dealings like prisoner exchange. Our fight with Germany or Japan during WW2 are good examples. However, on the other hand, you have a group of criminal, illigeitamte, terrorist who follow no law but the one they make up at the spot, hide amongst the civilian population, consistently target the civilian populace in their attacks with the sole purpose of killing civilians, normally do things like cut the heads off of prisoners when they get ahold of them (all except Berdahl apparently. Interesting). And are not held accountable for their decisions. You. Do. Not. Negotiate with these people. Unless of course your are the omnipotent and all knowing Barack Obama.

By your definition we should not have any type of contact with North Korea who also kidnaps american civilians. Like I said it is a cheap slogan which has very little to do with reality.
Bannanawamajama
Posts: 125
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/14/2014 1:04:34 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
I rather agree with Slo. We're taking "not negotiating with terrorists" a bit too literally. We offer compromises to terrorists all the time. Like, "If you stop trying to kill us, we'll stop bombing everywhere we think you live or occupying your home land". Its the fact that we have the ability to soften up and give something back that makes our threats worth anything. If you're staring down a hungry wolf you're going to fight to the death no matter what because there's no chance the wolf is gonna say "Ok, let's just go our separate ways on this one".

On the other point of whether FIVE HIGH LEVEL terrorists are worth one American soldier, thats a bit more complicated, but I would still argue yes. Bergdahl was the only POW the taliban had, and he's been gone for years, possibly in very difficult conditions. We ought to have some obligation to try to free him, and it seems unlikely that we could just send in seal team 6 without just having them kill him once we show up. The president probably should have asked congress first. I don't particularly care because this was a military thing and the president is commander of the military, but its a fair point.