US Government negotiates with Taliban

[Llamalandia]

The president signed a statement suggesting that the law itself was an illegal interference with executive power. If the law is illegal, he has no reason to obey it.

It really isn't up to him to decide that. We gave GWB shit about all his signing statements that essentially said his administration didn't have to obey any laws they didn't like, I would have preferred Obama not do the same thing.

Plus even signing statements don't let you just totally disregard the law, a veto does that by refusing to make the law a law. But a signing statement can only be used very narrowly adn can't contradict the broad spirit of the law in question.

[The UK in Exile]

The president signed a statement suggesting that the law itself was an illegal interference with executive power. If the law is illegal, he has no reason to obey it.

It really isn't up to him to decide that. We gave GWB shit about all his signing statements that essentially said his administration didn't have to obey any laws they didn't like, I would have preferred Obama not do the same thing.

No, but you don't want him to veto the defence budget and you don't want a absolutely massive and partisan Supreme Court battle over a potentially irrelevant clause. Which leaves doing nothing when we had something we needed to do or doing something you'd rather he didn't.

[Llamalandia]

It really isn't up to him to decide that. We gave GWB shit about all his signing statements that essentially said his administration didn't have to obey any laws they didn't like, I would have preferred Obama not do the same thing.

No, but you don't want him to veto the defence budget and you don't want a absolutely massive and partisan Supreme Court battle over a potentially irrelevant clause. Which leaves doing nothing when we had something we needed to do or doing something you'd rather he didn't.

What we needed to do was investigate first to make sure, bringing Bergdahl back was even worth it. I mean if he was found to be a deserter, we could have just written him off, but to my knowledge no formal inquiries of much depth have been made yet.

[Geilinor]

No, but you don't want him to veto the defence budget and you don't want a absolutely massive and partisan Supreme Court battle over a potentially irrelevant clause. Which leaves doing nothing when we had something we needed to do or doing something you'd rather he didn't.

What we needed to do was investigate first to make sure, bringing Bergdahl back was even worth it. I mean if he was found to be a deserter, we could have just written him off, but to my knowledge no formal inquiries of much depth have been made yet.

If he was a deserter, he should have been brought back and tried under US law. Leaving deserters with the Taliban is not a solution nor an appropriate punishment.

[The UK in Exile]

No, but you don't want him to veto the defence budget and you don't want a absolutely massive and partisan Supreme Court battle over a potentially irrelevant clause. Which leaves doing nothing when we had something we needed to do or doing something you'd rather he didn't.

What we needed to do was investigate first to make sure, bringing Bergdahl back was even worth it. I mean if he was found to be a deserter, we could have just written him off, but to my knowledge no formal inquiries of much depth have been made yet.

What in depth formal inquiries would they conduct exactly when they can't get their hands on him? It's perfectly simple, he's a US soldier. He might have walked away, he might not. But if he did he is Uncle Sam's to punish and the punishment for desertion isn't that you don't have to come back. It's that they bring you back and then they punish you.

[Flarbinia]

This "exchange" proves every point I've made about Obama when I discuss politics, and frankly, anyone who voted for him was a fool to put an incompetent fool in charge of our once glorious country. Ever since he got elected in 2008, we have seen nothing but economic turmoil, unnecessary penny-pinching, and failed policies. Now, he has cast America's reputation to the wind and invited every threat to our national security into our borders. Apparently, Obama has forgotten the Government's stance on Terrorism and acted like the elitist phony we all know and hate. Release a murderer from prison, and he will kill again. Once these terrorists get back home, they will commit more acts of terrorism and the political backlash will affect our nation as a whole.

[Geilinor]

anyone who voted for him was a fool to put an incompetent fool in charge of our once glorious country.

Sounds like 2000 and 2004.

[European Socialist Republic]

This "exchange" proves every point I've made about Obama when I discuss politics, and frankly, anyone who voted for him was a fool to put an incompetent fool in charge of our once glorious country. Ever since he got elected in 2008, we have seen nothing but economic turmoil, unnecessary penny-pinching, and failed policies. Now, he has cast America's reputation to the wind and invited every threat to our national security into our borders. Apparently, Obama has forgotten the Government's stance on Terrorism and acted like the elitist phony we all know and hate. Release a murderer from prison, and he will kill again. Once these terrorists get back home, they will commit more acts of terrorism and the political backlash will affect our nation as a whole.

Rights, because that only started once Obama became president...

[L Ron Cupboard]

If they have managed to convince one of the Taliban to work for them, this is a good way to get them back in place to be a useful spy, while looking like your actual objective is to just get the American prisoner back.

[Flarbinia]

George W. Bush's policies prevented Al Qaeda from blowing our country to smithereens, but liberals continue to act like the current president is the messiah and that George W. Bush was the worst president in history. Obama has proven that he is the only president who is worse than Jimmy Carter because his policies are the only ones that can actually cause the economy to collapse. Anyone who says that any citizen who voted for Bush is a fool should not be allowed to comment on other people's replies because they obviously can't avoid being a troll on the forum.

[Alcase]

anyone who voted for him was a fool to put an incompetent fool in charge of our once glorious country.

Sounds like 2000 and 2004.

[The UK in Exile]

George W. Bush's policies prevented Al Qaeda from blowing our country to smithereens, but liberals continue to act like the current president is the messiah and that George W. Bush was the worst president in history. Obama has proven that he is the only president who is worse than Jimmy Carter because his policies are the only ones that can actually cause the economy to collapse. Anyone who says that any citizen who voted for Bush is a fool should not be allowed to comment on other people's replies because they obviously can't avoid being a troll on the forum.

9/11 was what? a blip?

[MERIZoC]

Question: what reason has Obama provided for not giving the 30 days notice to congress?

[The UK in Exile]

Question: what reason has Obama provided for not giving the 30 days notice to congress?

Its a silly rule and he said so at the time.

I think he dressed it up in more legal language than that. But thats what it pretty much boils down to.

[The Batorys]

Terrorists =/= Conventional military

You knew exactly what he meant by "fight fair". Stop trying to twist his words just to make yourself look clever.

His words hardly needed twisting. "Fair fight" and war don't go together anymore. The Taliban uses tried and true tactics of warfare every nation state engages in. Moreover, he (and you, by extension), in pronouncing the Taliban a stateless organization forgets that the Taliban was in charge of Afghanistan for quite a while. They are, in effect, a government in exile that wages war in the way they can.

You and I seldom agree on things, but here my thoughts are exactly the same.

I find the Taliban abhorrent... but they are not a terrorist organization. They were the government of Afghanistan (or at least the southern and central portion) for several years. They are fighting largely to reclaim that position.

The US, through Qatar, did not negotiate with terrorists. The US negotiated with a deposed government.

[The Batorys]

His words hardly needed twisting. "Fair fight" and war don't go together anymore. The Taliban uses tried and true tactics of warfare every nation state engages in. Moreover, he (and you, by extension), in pronouncing the Taliban a stateless organization forgets that the Taliban was in charge of Afghanistan for quite a while. They are, in effect, a government in exile that wages war in the way they can.

That would be true, if they hadn't conducted joint operation with and sought refuge among and aided and abetted al quaeda. The ally of a terrorist is a terrorist.

So the USA is a terrorist organization, then? Because we've aided and abetted terrorists. Including the Afghan Mujahadin, in the 1980s.

[The Batorys]

THE.

TALIBAN.

ARE NOT.

TERRORISTS.

If you don't believe me, check The List: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._State_Department_list_of_Foreign_Terrorist_Organizations#Groups_designated_as_Foreign_Terrorist_Organizations

Yes, yes I know I walked into that one, that's only because Obama doesn't want to put them on the list though of course. Plus the Taliban doesn't really exist anymore anyway, so these guys are really just regular unlawful enemy combatants at this point, either that or they are themselves basically al quaeda.

Bush didn't put them on for the eight years he was president, either.

And no, while the two organizations are allied, they are not the same, nor do they have the same goals. The Taliban is an Afghan organization that seeks to reclaim its former position as the government of Afghanistan. Al Qaeda is a largely Arab organization that seeks to oppose the United States of America, and the West in general, everywhere in the middle east and Islamic world.

[The Serbian Empire]

That would be true, if they hadn't conducted joint operation with and sought refuge among and aided and abetted al quaeda. The ally of a terrorist is a terrorist.

So the USA is a terrorist organization, then? Because we've aided and abetted terrorists. Including the Afghan Mujahadin, in the 1980s.

Note, the enemy of the Mujahadin was the USSR who was also an enemy of the US. In that case, the Mujahadin may have been considered as the better of two evils to Ronald Reagan who was strongly anti-communist.

[The Batorys]

a. The Taliban is not a terrorist organization. For like the ninth time. Look it up. GIYF.

2. I fervently hope you never, ever are in any position of responsibility, in the US or any other nation. Risk nuclear winter, not to mention kill millions of innocents, to show the world you sure swing a big dick. Reality is not NationStates or Duke Nukem.

Look, how many times have afghanistan been causing the world problems? You said it yourself it's the "graveyard of empires".

We should take care of the problem once and for all. I mean, after all all those terrorists we killed, yeah, they got families, with sons who are going to want revenge for their parents deaths, (not too mention all the families of the victims of collateral damage) when they grow up they're going to be terrorists who come and attack us too. Let's nip this problem in the bud here and now.

Are you now arguing that we kill everyone in Afghanistan?

Because it looks like you're advocating genocide. That would be pretty trollish. Am I misinterpreting what you're saying?

[The Serbian Empire]

Question: what reason has Obama provided for not giving the 30 days notice to congress?

Apparently, he probably doesn't want it to be revealed that he did this to cover up the VA mess.

[MERIZoC]

Question: what reason has Obama provided for not giving the 30 days notice to congress?

Apparently, he probably doesn't want it to be revealed that he did this to cover up the VA mess.

You have "apparently" and "probably" in the same sentence. Not to mention that it doesn't make sense in the first place.

[The Batorys]

Oh god Jon Stewart's take on how much this has been overblown by Faux News is brilliant.

Remind me again why Jon Stewart is ever relevant?

The same reasons that A Modest Proposal was relevant to the issues of its day.

[The Batorys]

It was one bit. The show has much less to do with Hannity.

Eh, well, don't really watch it that much anyway.

Yeah, it's pretty obvious that you don't.

[The Batorys]

I'd bet that his SAT scores are higher than you'd ever get. 1580 out of 1600.

Significantly higher than Bill Clinton's incidentally.

But if you want to become a straw-man then just keep posting, I guess.

O'Reilly's written several New York Times bestsellers and has a successful show on a major news network. I mean, you may not like O'Reilly but you don't get to be that successful by being a moron.

Sure you can.

Fifty Shades of Grey is also a New York Times bestseller.

Sarah Palin's book probably sold well, too.

There are different kinds of intelligence. Someone may be brilliant at selling themselves, but still be a complete nincompoop in other areas.

[The Batorys]

Oh please. By this logic, Paris Hilton is a Rhodes Scholar.

He writes intelligent books and mocks leftists on a daily basis. He's no Paris Hilton.

If by "mocks leftists" you mean "spouts an unending stream of logical fallacies," sure.