PILOT SPIN
Spin Zone => Spin Zone => Topic started by: acrogimp on October 06, 2017, 12:28:28 PM
-
So Obama released 5 lifetime Club Gitmo members, in a clear violation of the law, to recover a guy who is now expected to plead guilty of desertion and misbehavior before the enemy - this after 6 soldiers are alleged to have died while trying to find/rescue the coward in the first place.
There are no words to describe this level of treachery and abandon of the true ideals we stand for.
All I know is that Brutus will have company in the mouth of Satan - pathetic fucking losers all.
'Gimp
-
Unfucking believable. Bergdahl needs to spend the rest of his life behind bars.
-
Unfucking believable. Bergdahl needs to spend the rest of his life behind bars.
As should obama, hilary and holder.
-
I don't think I know enough about past presidents to declare who was the worst. But of those from my lifetime, Obama is on the bottom of my list with Carter just above him.
-
It’s just a darned shame none of you fellas will be writing history books.
-
It’s just a darned shame none of you fellas will be writing history books.
The shame is that liberals revel in REwriting history.
-
It’s just a darned shame none of you fellas will be writing history books.
Instead of your typical drive by slam, why don't you try to articulate a response to the OP. From your little snippet I take it you were fine with a US President trading hardened terrorist for a deserter who cost American lives in an attempt to rescue him? And you were fine with that same President promoting the deserter as a hero of sorts?
-
Instead of your typical drive by slam, why don't you try to articulate a response to the OP. From your little snippet I take it you were fine with a US President trading hardened terrorist for a deserter who cost American lives in an attempt to rescue him? And you were fine with that same President promoting the deserter as a hero of sorts?
Even if he isn't "fine" with that, his knee-jerk reaction is to object to anything that he feels will trigger the right.
-
Even if he isn't "fine" with that, his knee-jerk reaction is to object to anything that he feels will trigger the right.
He keeps making references to things he feels "triggers" the conservatives as if only a conservative can be triggered (notice how progressives have a new catch phrase in their talking points now?)
But Mark doesn't want to discuss those things that trigger the progressives. Such as history (actual), patriotism, constitutional rights (the real ones, not the perceived ones), the democrats use of racism, etc.
-
Like it or not, this idiot (Bergdahl, not Lucifer) is a US citizen and moreover a US soldier. He should be brought back to home soil. He committed a crime, so he should do the time for that on home soil. What would the alternative be? Let him stay a deserter? What kind of message does THAT send to our soldiers (and would-be soldiers) at home and abroad?
-
Like it or not, this idiot (Bergdahl, not Lucifer) is a US citizen and moreover a US soldier. He should be brought back to home soil. He committed a crime, so he should do the time for that on home soil. What would the alternative be? Let him stay a deserter? What kind of message does THAT send to our soldiers (and would-be soldiers) at home and abroad?
So you are in agreement that trading 5 hardened terrorist for him was in order?
-
So you are in agreement that trading 5 hardened terrorist for him was in order?
Let’s hypothesize that Bergdahl was not a criminal deserter. Let’s hypothesize that he was captured and detained. How do you propose we get him home?
-
Let’s hypothesize that Bergdahl was not a criminal deserter. Let’s hypothesize that he was captured and detained. How do you propose we get him home?
How about we stick with the FACTS since that is what we are discussing here? Bergdahl was in FACT a deserter, and 6 Americans died trying to get him back (FACT) and BHO traded 5 hardened terrorist for him (FACT).
Can you defend how a sitting US President did this?
-
How about we stick with the FACTS since that is what we are discussing here? Bergdahl was in FACT a deserter, and 6 Americans died trying to get him back (FACT) and BHO traded 5 hardened terrorist for him (FACT).
Can you defend how a sitting US President did this?
Can you prove that six soldiers were killed in direct relation to a mission to rescue Bergdahl?
Good luck: at the time heavy fighting occurred in the Paktika Province. 300 Taliban fighters overran COP Keating, Bergdahl’s post at time of capture. At least six from Begdahl’s unit, and dozens more soldiers were KIA between the time of Bergdahl’s capture and the closing of Keating.
So what you are saying is, it’s okay to leave a POW/MIA behind enemy lines if he was suspected to be a deserter?
-
Can you prove that six soldiers were killed in direct relation to a mission to rescue Bergdahl?
Good luck: at the time heavy fighting occurred in the Paktika Province. 300 Taliban fighters overran COP Keating, Bergdahl’s post at time of capture. At least six from Begdahl’s unit, and dozens more soldiers were KIA between the time of Bergdahl’s capture and the closing of Keating.
So what you are saying is, it’s okay to leave a POW/MIA behind enemy lines if he was suspected to be a deserter?
Several men who was serving with Bergdahl stated they knew he had deserted his post, so there was no question then as there is no question now. Six Americans died in a direct effort to rescue him. You are attempting to obfuscate this by implying because there was other enemy action those six may have died from that.
And you are ignoring the key point here: Why did BHO trade 5 hardened terrorist for Bergdahl? What was BHO hoping to really achieve with this? And please don't try to tell us it was because he was so concerned with Bergdahl.
So what you are saying is it's OK to return hardened terrorist to the battle field to fight and continue killing Americans in exchange for someone who is a confirmed deserter, a soldier who has broken the MCC and turned his back on his post and fellow soldiers as well as costing lives?
-
So what you are saying is, it’s okay to leave a POW/MIA behind enemy lines if he was suspected to be a deserter?
Perhaps getting him back to face trial was the right thing to do. (But I don't believe that was Obama's goal). But as far as priorities go, it was nowhere near the top, and releasing even one hardened enemy of this country to secure his release was a mistake of giant proportions. Especially when there are many other captives throughout the world that are more deserving of Presidential efforts.
Admit it: Obama fucked up again. But you won't because he is a liberal.
-
Perhaps getting him back to face trial was the right thing to do. (But I don't believe that was Obama's goal). But as far as priorities go, it was nowhere near the top, and releasing even one hardened enemy of this country to secure his release was a mistake of giant proportions. Especially when there are many other captives throughout the world that are more deserving of Presidential efforts.
Admit it: Obama fucked up again. But you won't because he is a liberal.
I guess since you assume I’m a dirty progressive liberal, I march blindly lockstep with Obama no matter what, right?
Obama was naive thinking that showing a gesture of good will to the Taliban would help initiate talks between President Karzai and the Taliban. It’d be great if it worked, but you can’t negotiate with irrational extremists. Bergdahl wasn’t the focus, he was collateral benefit. Upon realizing his failure, I’m guessing Obama celebrated “bringing a POW home” to save face. Only to find out that this POW was in fact a deserter.
-
I guess since you assume I’m a dirty progressive liberal, I march blindly lockstep with Obama no matter what, right?
Obama was naive thinking that showing a gesture of good will to the Taliban would help initiate talks between President Karzai and the Taliban. It’d be great if it worked, but you can’t negotiate with irrational extremists. Bergdahl wasn’t the focus, he was collateral benefit. Upon realizing his failure, I’m guessing Obama celebrated “bringing a POW home” to save face. Only to find out that this POW was in fact a deserter.
Uh, wrong.
Military had already known the guy was a deserter, no secret there. Problem was they couldn't keep a lid on it and BHO got exposed for yet another one of his colossal fuck ups.
But hey, BHO put 5 ruthless murdering terrorist right back on the battle field hoping to appease the enemy. One has to wonder how many more Americans have died because of his stupidity.
-
Let’s hypothesize that Bergdahl was not a criminal deserter. Let’s hypothesize that he was captured and detained. How do you propose we get him home?
For any case (e.g., deserter or POW or civilian hostage) everything shy of paying a ransom or in any way negotiating with terrorists should be on the table - from a practical sense that would look mostly like a rescue/recovery mission in my book since everything else ultimately boils down to paying a ransom or negotiating with terrorists.
This deal set a bad precedent (as did Iran-Contra), only in this case it actually resulted in an increase in danger for the world at-large instead of 'just' being an embarrasing political fallout.
'Gimp
-
I guess since you assume I’m a dirty progressive liberal, I march blindly lockstep with Obama no matter what, right?
I can only judge you from the evidence you display.
I don't think you are a "dirty progressive liberal". I think you are a very smart liberal that has chosen a side, for some reason that I don't understand, and will defend that side against all logic. After all, liberals use feelings rather than logic to weight their decisions and conclusions. Sometimes, I don't like my conclusions, even when I am convinced they are right. But I try to choose logical conclusions. Like the logic that says that if humans don't have to work for a reward, they won't value that reward as much.
-
I can only judge you from the evidence you display.
I don't think you are a "dirty progressive liberal". I think you are a very smart liberal that has chosen a side, for some reason that I don't understand, and will defend that side against all logic. After all, liberals use feelings rather than logic to weight their decisions and conclusions. Sometimes, I don't like my conclusions, even when I am convinced they are right. But I try to choose logical conclusions. Like the logic that says that if humans don't have to work for a reward, they won't value that reward as much.
It’s hard not to judge “evidence” when your view is skewed. To an extreme right winger I’m a die hard progressive liberal. The extreme left wingers I know don’t talk politics because I’m too conservative for them. So I say I’m a hockey fan with a penchant for a sharp wit and a sharper tongue.
At least that’s what my wife tells me. When I let her get a word in edgewise.
I never liked the way Obama handled the Gitmo 5, nor did I like the way he did a lot of things. But I’m not so blind or extremist to not see logic and reasoning behind the move, no matter how flawed or naive. Obama’s naïveté was what left him with an egg on his face: he sacrificed political capital to rescue a soldier who turned out to be a deserter. He tried to find a way to end the war, but what he found out was what we know from our joint venture in the spin zone: you can’t talk to extremists.
I don’t buy the “we knew he was a deserter” all along BS that Lucy is spewing either. Sorry not sorry. Hindsight is 20/20, a man (even a soldier) is innocent until proven guilty, and at the time Bergdahl was a SUSPECTED deserter. He was a CONFIRMED POW, and for that alone we should do what we could to get him out. Trading the Gitmo 5 was a bad idea, but I could see why the move was made. I just don’t agree with it.
-
It’s hard not to judge “evidence” when your view is skewed. To an extreme right winger I’m a die hard progressive liberal. The extreme left wingers I know don’t talk politics because I’m too conservative for them. So I say I’m a hockey fan with a penchant for a sharp wit and a sharper tongue.
At least that’s what my wife tells me. When I let her get a word in edgewise.
I never liked the way Obama handled the Gitmo 5, nor did I like the way he did a lot of things. But I’m not so blind or extremist to not see logic and reasoning behind the move, no matter how flawed or naive. Obama’s naïveté was what left him with an egg on his face: he sacrificed political capital to rescue a soldier who turned out to be a deserter. He tried to find a way to end the war, but what he found out was what we know from our joint venture in the spin zone: you can’t talk to extremists.
I don’t buy the “we knew he was a deserter” all along BS that Lucy is spewing either. Sorry not sorry. Hindsight is 20/20, a man (even a soldier) is innocent until proven guilty, and at the time Bergdahl was a SUSPECTED deserter. He was a CONFIRMED POW, and for that alone we should do what we could to get him out. Trading the Gitmo 5 was a bad idea, but I could see why the move was made. I just don’t agree with it.
The FACT Marcy is that it was well known among the men in that company that Bergdahl was a deserter. This inconvenient truth was suppose to have been under wraps but got out. Let's just say Bergdahl was a less than steller soldier. Again, another FACT you choose to ignore.
You are correct in that BHO fucked up royally getting involved trading 5 known murdering terrorist for a deserter. But BHO once again showed his real interest was in appeasing the enemy.
And I do enjoy how Marcy laments Bergdahl not being fairly treated in that he should get a trial first before anyone rushes to judgment. How about those US CITIZENS that BHO targeted and killed using drones? Why did they not get their day in court, or better yet, why were they exempt from their constitutional rights?
Then we have Marcy proclaiming he's not a progressive. How sweet. But he sure loves using progressive talking points, reciting progressive ideology and of course using projection like a true progressive.
And anyone who disagrees with him is an extremist. How sweet.
-
That's hilarious. I'm all for giving people the benefit of the doubt. Here's what Bergdahl sent to his dad, three days before he walked away:
On June 27, 2009, Bergdahl sent an e-mail to his parents before he was captured:[1]:4
mom, dad
The future is too good to waste on lies. And life is way too short to care for the damnation of others, as well as to spend it helping fools with their ideas that are wrong. I have seen their ideas and I am ashamed to even be american. The horror of the self-righteous arrogance that they thrive in. It is all revolting. [...] [Three good sergeants had been forced to move to another company] [...] and one of the biggest shit bags is being put in charge of the team. [...] [My battalion commander was] a conceited old fool. [...] In the US army you are cut down for being honest... but if you are a conceited brown nosing shit bag you will be allowed to do what ever you want, and you will be handed your higher rank... The system is wrong. I am ashamed to be an american. And the title of US soldier is just the lie of fools. ... The US army is the biggest joke the world has to laugh at. It is the army of liars, backstabbers, fools, and bullies. The few good SGTs are getting out as soon as they can, [...] I am sorry for everything here. These people need help, yet what they get is the most conceited country in the world telling them that they are nothing and that they are stupid, that they have no idea how to live... We don't even care when we hear each other talk about running their children down in the dirt streets with our armored trucks... We make fun of them in front of their faces, and laugh at them for not understanding we are insulting them [...] I am sorry for everything. The horror that is america is disgusting. There are a few more boxes coming to you guys. Feel free to open them, and use them.
His unit knows he went AWOL a few days after he left. The rest of the Army knew what happened in the field a month later. Veterans knew just after that, and the world figured it out less than a year later. The guy was a nut bag, and whether he walked away, or 'got left behind' on patrol, he still hated his fellow soldiers, and treated them with contempt.
No one's opinion matters except the court marshal board. I'm sure they have enough to put him away, and we all knew(except BO).
-
That's hilarious. I'm all for giving people the benefit of the doubt. Here's what Bergdahl sent to his dad, three days before he walked away:
On June 27, 2009, Bergdahl sent an e-mail to his parents before he was captured:[1]:4
mom, dad
The future is too good to waste on lies. And life is way too short to care for the damnation of others, as well as to spend it helping fools with their ideas that are wrong. I have seen their ideas and I am ashamed to even be american. The horror of the self-righteous arrogance that they thrive in. It is all revolting. [...] [Three good sergeants had been forced to move to another company] [...] and one of the biggest shit bags is being put in charge of the team. [...] [My battalion commander was] a conceited old fool. [...] In the US army you are cut down for being honest... but if you are a conceited brown nosing shit bag you will be allowed to do what ever you want, and you will be handed your higher rank... The system is wrong. I am ashamed to be an american. And the title of US soldier is just the lie of fools. ... The US army is the biggest joke the world has to laugh at. It is the army of liars, backstabbers, fools, and bullies. The few good SGTs are getting out as soon as they can, [...] I am sorry for everything here. These people need help, yet what they get is the most conceited country in the world telling them that they are nothing and that they are stupid, that they have no idea how to live... We don't even care when we hear each other talk about running their children down in the dirt streets with our armored trucks... We make fun of them in front of their faces, and laugh at them for not understanding we are insulting them [...] I am sorry for everything. The horror that is america is disgusting. There are a few more boxes coming to you guys. Feel free to open them, and use them.
His unit knows he went AWOL a few days after he left. The rest of the Army knew what happened in the field a month later. Veterans knew just after that, and the world figured it out less than a year later. The guy was a nut bag, and whether he walked away, or 'got left behind' on patrol, he still hated his fellow soldiers, and treated them with contempt.
No one's opinion matters except the court marshal board. I'm sure they have enough to put him away, and we all knew(except BO).
Marcy has already told us this is untrue, and if we disagree we are extremist.
-
That's hilarious. I'm all for giving people the benefit of the doubt. Here's what Bergdahl sent to his dad, three days before he walked away:
You’ve provided what was undoubtedly damming evidence used in a court martial. In the time that spans between his capture and his rescue, had he been convicted of anything criminal? Didn’t he in fact get a promotion from PFC to SGT in that time?
I’ll ask again, hoping someone here takes a real stab at the question. If a POW/MIA is suspected of desertion (or any other felonious crime as defined by USCMJ that faces a potential life sentence), should the United States not take actions to bring that POW/MIA home?
-
If a deserter (like the pansy Bergdahl) takes up with the enemy, they are guilty of treason and should be shot once captured.
They should not have been used to emancipate FIVE murderous islamic cretins so the treasonous president could suck up to muslims who hate America.
mark is twisting the facts to fit his narrative, just like the press does to avoid uncomfortable truths. Every time he gets trapped by the facts he demands others prove proven facts to avoid facing reality that triggers the truth about his carefully invented world.
It's no wonder that so many snowflakes behave like Mark on this and other topics. The education cartel along with the entire marxist media make it possible for people like him to live in a fantasy world, as long as their fantasies are properly adjusted.
-
If a deserter (like the pansy Bergdahl) takes up with the enemy, they are guilty of treason and should be shot once captured.
They should not have been used to emancipate FIVE murderous islamic cretins so the treasonous president could suck up to muslims who hate America.
mark is twisting the facts to fit his narrative, just like the press does to avoid uncomfortable truths. Every time he gets trapped by the facts he demands others prove proven facts to avoid facing reality that triggers the truth about his carefully invented world.
It's no wonder that so many snowflakes behave like Mark on this and other topics. The education cartel along with the entire marxist media make it possible for people like him to live in a fantasy world, as long as their fantasies are properly adjusted.
Such trades are generally reserved for high value prisoners, not suspected traitors. They should have tried him in absensia and then decided what to do. Perhaps we could have filed for extradition.
We have many other, more deserving prisoners around the world that we should be working to have released, but for some reason BHO chose Bergdahl. Makes no sense to me.
-
It should have easy for you.
barack obama is as queer as a three dollar bill, and the person that himself michelle obama is his bitch. Bergdahl is just like the person who calls himself Michelle obama and Barack likes his men that way.
The plus is that he got to suck up to his fellow American hating muslim friends and injure the country in the deal.
In his twisted, sick, mind, it was a win/win for the bad guys.
-
Such trades are generally reserved for high value prisoners, not suspected traitors. They should have tried him in absensia and then decided what to do. Perhaps we could have filed for extradition.
We have many other, more deserving prisoners around the world that we should be working to have released, but for some reason BHO chose Bergdahl. Makes no sense to me.
I think he did it to attempt to ease tensions between the Taliban and President Karzai. A “gesture of good will,” to bring the Taliban into peace talks. If that was the case, Bergdahl was collateral gain as opposed to the primary reason. Of course, it failed remarkably...because extremists have no desire to engage a counterpart.
-
During captivity, a soldier is credited with time in rank, and time in service. Promotions are automatic, and can only be denied for proven cases of dereliction, which is almost impossible because unless they are lost or unaccounted for, anything a captive says is discounted as unreliable due to the likely case of prisoner torture or mind control.
In the real world, and not the captive world, promotions are also nearly automatic from PV2 up to SGT or SP-5(Navy has their own goofy ranks). Once a person reaches SGT or SP-5, promotions above that require a bit more initiative. Unless an EM does something stupid, or gets in trouble regularly, they will advance from PVT to SGT within 3-5 years, depending on their MOS, and needs of the service. If you don't make SGT or SP-5 by late 4 years, it's a good time to re-evaluate your value to the military.
-
You’ve provided what was undoubtedly damming evidence used in a court martial. In the time that spans between his capture and his rescue, had he been convicted of anything criminal? Didn’t he in fact get a promotion from PFC to SGT in that time?
I’ll ask again, hoping someone here takes a real stab at the question. If a POW/MIA is suspected of desertion (or any other felonious crime as defined by USCMJ that faces a potential life sentence), should the United States not take actions to bring that POW/MIA home?
Mark I answered you, no trade/negotiation - we don't leave people behind so that means a rescue/recovery operation (and with it the attendant and unfortunate potential loss of life). I object to the trade of the Club Gitmo lifers.
'Gimp
-
I've been avoiding the situation on POW/MIA returns because it's complex, and also dynamic. In the front lines of the Marines the position has always been we leave no Marine behind, even the corpses are taken home. That's a long standing tradition, and it serves us well up to the company, or perhaps the battalion level. Promotes esprit-de-corp knowing that your buddies are there for you come hell or high water. The Army, navy and air farce don't really have a policy except that the normal combat dynamic of unit cohesion. You're all in this together, and I guess on the Navy would be the ship commander is responsible for all the men on the boat being watched out for up until sinking.
As for the history with POWs, things get pretty murky. Vietnam didn't help much with so many men held for so many years by the NVA. Also, there was a fair amount of media presence with the POWs in Vietnam, keeping their images, and lives in the front of the public. With the Bergdahl situation, we had a one-off with very little guidance on how to proceed. Of course, the media swayed one way or the other depending on the bias involved. We also didn't know if he was a deserter, or an actual POW.
Given his last public statement about his fellow soldiers, and the immediate ranks above him, if I were in his unit, I wouldn't expend any time in going after him. I suspect at the company level which is an O-2/3 level, there was a lot of hand wringing going on. No one liked him, no one really supported him, but he's still wearing the same camo as everyone else. So - that's why there was some effort expended to go find and recover him. Having said that, it's a presumption that the guy that is missing is trying to BE found, and has not gone rogue(or native). There's also significant info showing that Bergdahl was going native by learning the language(Pashtun) and also spending his personal time with the local population, and not with his squad mates. I can tell you right now, this does not engender much support from those charged with supporting the unit, and will cause some bad feelings among many fellow soldiers. It's one thing to go after some local tail, and find a willing bedmate, that kind of stuff is expected. But - when a soldier starts taking on the culture and the common traits of the local population, that they are trying to solve their terrorist problem, this drives a big wedge between the guy who just won't toe the line.
Here we are, a guy who has little or no respect for his immediate supervisors, doesn't like or hang out with his squad mates, spends most of his time with the locals, is learning the local language and for the most part shows all indications that he prefers the locals POV over that of his commanders. Let's suppose, just to give him the benefit of the doubt - that all of his sergeants, LTs, and other manages in his outfit were as bad as he says they were. Lets say he was right, and they were all wrong and it was a slack outfit, and everyone around him was useless, and he was the only one who had his shit stacked and stapled. Lets just go with that. Ya know what? it - does - not - matter! You signed up, you took your training, you were assigned to a company/squad. You make the best of it, because you are IN THE ARMY. Almost every private thinks almost every Lt is a jackass. It's the nature of the beast, but I don't care if you are a Rhodes scholar as an army private, if the Lt says jump you say 'yes sir! How high sir?!' The value of a PVTs opinion on the military command or management structure around him is worth the dried spit from a diseased camel.
Finally, this guy who's no ones choice for a squad mate is missing. No one knows if he walked off, or was taken, or what, he just disappears into the cold, dark night of Afghanistan. We have to presume he didn't leave on his own. We have to presume he's been taken, and is in some kind of bad situation. Sadly, the battalion cmd and the CO of the company have to send out patrols, and search for him. Or his body. We have to. It's what we do.
Then, to make things worse, he shows up on TV. In the media, sitting around, drinking tea, chatting with his hosts/kidnappers, and now - no one from the battalion/Army group on down knows what to do. They throw up their hands, call the Army CinC. the call goes something like this: CinC: "WTF! is going on out there! You lost a man, and he shows up on Afghan TV! How the hell did this happen, and what are you doing about it!" Company CO/batt XO/Adjutant: "Sir, he was on guard duty, and the relief went out he was just - gone. All his equipment, rifle, everything was just gone. No shots fired, nothing at the post, just Bergdahl missing. And Sir - turns out Bergdahl was kind of a shitbird. He was going native, and spending a lot of time with the locals, learning the language, and didn't bond at all with his squad. We suspect he walked away from his post." CinC: " I don't give a SHIT what kind of asswipe he is! Go - find - his - ass, and get him back to Leavinworth. I do not want to see him on TV again!" CO/Adj: "Yes sir! We will re-double our effort to get him back sir. I will advise you when we have him in hand." CinC: "Get on it mister, or I WILL have some nuts on my desk asap."
After that, Bergdahl is once again seen on TV, breaking bread with the locals, and he's not busted up, not behind bars, looking scared but healthy and then CNN gets wind under their sails, and the whole things blows up right out of the Army, and into the political arena. Now, all rules are gone. Is he a deserter? We think so, but we can't assume. That means we have to make effort to get him back. How much effort? Well, now that the locals have indicated he's a POW/kidnapped, we have to assume he didn't walk away(or did walk away, and was got by the wrong side), and we have to negotiate to get him back. Since it's out of the Army now, and in the hands of pols, there are no rules anymore.
All I can say at this point is that I would have listened to what they wanted for him, and done the exact opposite. 'Oh, you want these four terrorists we have locked up? Well, here we go then - they have just been tried, convicted, and are being executed in 7 days. Put that in your pipe and smoke it.' No release in 7 days, then four less terrorists in the world, and we lose one marginal private. Sounds like a good bargain for me. I don't give a wet dribbly shit if the turdhole comes back whole, or in pieces. We get a four for one on the deal, and I can sell that in Peoria. Other people - other decisions. But remember, this is from a veteran of both Army and Marines. Although being a CW, I never had any command authority, except a couple of crew chiefs. I can tell you, if one of my crew chiefs had EVER done something like Bergdahl, he would get a nightly blanket party/code red until shaping up(google it).
YMMV
-
Careful, you may trigger MarkZ again.......
-
I was out looking for examples of command authority breaking down, and guess what I found.
https://www.navytimes.com/news/your-navy/2017/10/09/i-now-hate-my-ship-surveys-reveal-disastrous-morale-on-cruiser-shiloh/
Someone with a lot of stripes on his arm is gonna lose his j - o - b.
The military/navy isn't immune to command problems. Not every commander, or even senior EM is outstanding. They made a pretty good book and movie out of it called 'The Caine Mutiny'. However, it doesn't matter who the commander is, you still have a job to do, and follow orders, and do your best in the circumstance.
-
I was out looking for examples of command authority breaking down, and guess what I found.
https://www.navytimes.com/news/your-navy/2017/10/09/i-now-hate-my-ship-surveys-reveal-disastrous-morale-on-cruiser-shiloh/
Someone with a lot of stripes on his arm is gonna lose his j - o - b.
The military/navy isn't immune to command problems. Not every commander, or even senior EM is outstanding. They made a pretty good book and movie out of it called 'The Caine Mutiny'. However, it doesn't matter who the commander is, you still have a job to do, and follow orders, and do your best in the circumstance.
Great post before, and thank you for sharing the article.
-
Mark I answered you, no trade/negotiation - we don't leave people behind so that means a rescue/recovery operation (and with it the attendant and unfortunate potential loss of life). I object to the trade of the Club Gitmo lifers.
'Gimp
I agree. Even if he is a suspected criminal: get his ass back and let him rot in Leavenworth. I’m not sure what the practice may be on POW trades, but I would think that it would be inappropriate unless a cease fire is agreed to or a peace treaty is signed.
-
Like I said, once it gets out of the armed forces, and into politics, there is no policy. Shit is made up on the fly.
Which is why I would have tried and executed those terrorist scum once I knew that they were valuable to the enemy.
If Bergdahl did walk off his post, he deserves no effort, as he let his unit, and his nation down. If he was just slow getting back from patrol, and got lost, then he's incompetent and we didn't need him. If he was captured by the enemy, and never fired a shot, he's lost any respect that was once deserving of. Like those whiny navy pukes in the little tender boat giving up to the Iranian navy in the gulf. I would have let Iran keep them and feed them for a few years. Let them and other learn a lesson when you put your hands up and start crying. Good riddance.
-
I guess since you assume I’m a dirty progressive liberal, I march blindly lockstep with Obama no matter what, right?
No, that was Chris (2112). ;D
-
Bowie has admitted everything.
http://www.foxnews.com/us/2017/10/16/bowe-bergdahl-pleads-guilty-in-desertion-case.html
He's going a way for a long, long time. A deserter in the face of the enemy deserves a bullet to the brain, but I'll settle for 30 years.
BTW, BO called him an honor to the country and a person who served with honor and distinction. Another cock-up.
-
Bowie has admitted everything.
http://www.foxnews.com/us/2017/10/16/bowe-bergdahl-pleads-guilty-in-desertion-case.html
He's going a way for a long, long time. A deserter in the face of the enemy deserves a bullet to the brain, but I'll settle for 30 years.
BTW, BO called him an honor to the country and a person who served with honor and distinction. Another cock-up.
He served his country with similar distinction as BHO, but Bergdahl did less damage.
-
Reviving this a bit.
Here's some more nuggets of wisdom from the mind of Bergdahl:
In a recent interview with the Sunday Times, Bergdahl said the U.S treated him worse than the Taliban. “At least the Taliban were honest enough to say, ‘I’m the guy who’s gonna cut your throat,’” he told the paper.
“Here, it could be the guy I pass in the corridor who’s going to sign the paper that sends me away for life,’’ he added. “We may as well go back to kangaroo courts and lynch mobs.”
His sentencing is today for desertion in the face of the enemy. I don't want to go into this too deeply, but there's something here that needs to be pointed out. In the military, there is 'AWOL' absent without leave' which is a minor offense, a small crime, which may not even be punishable. In fact, I was AWOL several times while in uniform, and when I explained the situation, all was forgiven, and there was no harm no foul. Note - this is in peacetime, in a unit where lives are not immediately at stake, and if I get in a car wreck on the way to the post, and have to go to the hospital thus missing a mandatory formation well - I can't very well stand at attention and say 'all present and accounted for' if I'm on my back in a hosp bed.
Now we have dereliction of duty. In summary, this can be semi-serious, or very serious. If you fall asleep while on guard post duty you are 'derelict' in your duty to guard something. Punishment can be a fine, letter of reprimand, reduction in rank, and in a more serious case confinement to quarters, or other non-judicial punishment, up to and including dismissal from the forces in a rare serious case. If your dereliction causes harm, or serious damage to others, the punishment gets harsher along the way.
Finally we have desertion in the face of the enemy. Note that above, if Bergdahl had simply left his post, or went to sleep, or got drunk he would be derelict. When you desert in the face of the enemy, this is going way, way over the top. Not only have you voluntarily(not sleeping, or drunk) made a conscious decision to abandon your fellow soldiers, but you have done it in a situation which can imperil and critically affect the lives, and success of a mission. This is a classic case of a turncoat, and since way, way before there was a US, it has been punishable by execution. The prototypical example for those interested in the history of this would read up on Alaric(Alericus), Rome 410AD.
Through history, there are been famous(infamous?) turncoats. The more modern version would be Vikund Quisling of Norway in the WWII(well worth investigating). Quisling met his maker after a trial, and was executed. I see very little difference in the efforts of Bergdahl and Quisling, and forever in my future the eponymous 'Quisling' of the 1940s, will now be the name 'Bergdahl' for the US. Like I said before, I would happily put a 45 to his head, and blow him to bits. Sadly, I guess we'll settle for a long prison term. If he ever draws another free breath in the future, I'm hoping someone from the Army will find and dispatch him appropriately.
-
Bergdahl represents one of Obama's closely held behaviors. Since I am quite convinced that he 'married' a tranny, falling in lust with Bowe would be a pretty obvious outcome for the former traitor in chief.
-
-
In a recent interview with the Sunday Times, Bergdahl said the U.S treated him worse than the Taliban. “At least the Taliban were honest enough to say, ‘I’m the guy who’s gonna cut your throat,’” he told the paper.
But...he is still here and without a cut throat. That guy was lying to him.
-
But...he is still here and without a cut throat. That guy was lying to him.
Like I said, we should have executed the scum they wanted back and let them keep Bergdahl. The only thing standing in the way of that was the POS running the country. It was way out of the hands of the Army, or DoD by then. Political hack on top of being a bad administrator.