US Government negotiates with Taliban

[The Serbian Empire]

Damn, bringing a bad reputation to Juggalos again...

How so because I dont believe in negotiating with terrorist?

More for killing them on live TV.

[Juggalo land]

How so because I dont believe in negotiating with terrorist?

More for killing them on live TV.

It would send a strong message against them tho.

[Kelinfort]

More for killing them on live TV.

It would send a strong message against them tho.

No...it would inspire others. We've killed hundreds of thousands, why hasn't it worked yet?

[Antarticaria]

It would send a strong message against them tho.

No...it would inspire others. We've killed hundreds of thousands, why hasn't it worked yet?

Just because it pisses off more of em doesnt mean we stand by and be shot at.

*edit* and I dont agree with killing them on TV.

[Kelinfort]

No...it would inspire others. We've killed hundreds of thousands, why hasn't it worked yet?

Just because it pisses off more of em doesnt mean we stand by and be shot at.

*edit* and I dont agree with killing them on TV.

Then why are you responding to my post? Read my other posts, if you have any questions on what I said.

[The Serbian Empire]

More for killing them on live TV.

It would send a strong message against them tho.

Afghanistan's poor enough that most people haven't seen a TV in their life.

[Llamalandia]

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.

No but not should we give our enemy a moral victory by negotiating with them nor should we trade prisoners. Hey if we get him back and can try and imprison him for life found guilty great, if not that's ok too. Keep in mind if this were a real good il fashioned declared war like ww1 or ww2 his commanding officer could've held a general courts martial in theatre and carried out a death sentence. Desertion is among the gravest if crimes that any soldier can commit.

[Lalaki]

I think this is a very good thing.

Remember, if we hadn't gone there in the first place (and I mean way before 2001) they wouldn't be bothering us.

[Llamalandia]

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.

In an actual declared war the punishment for desertion can include the death penalty, given that his deserting his post and now what I've heard is that Taliban attacks were more successful post his capture for a while (suggesting he may have shared info) I wouldn't say such a punish if it could be imposed would entirely inappropriate either.

[Llamalandia]

I think this is a very good thing.

Remember, if we hadn't gone there in the first place (and I mean way before 2001) they wouldn't be bothering us.

Umm the fuck. What exactly did we do that justifies 9/11 again? Oh that's right nothing.

[Getrektistan]

I think this is a very good thing.

Remember, if we hadn't gone there in the first place (and I mean way before 2001) they wouldn't be bothering us.

Umm the fuck. What exactly did we do that justifies 9/11 again? Oh that's right nothing.

Nothing can justify 9/11, but they sure as hell didn't do it out of nowhere. We've had a strong influence in the Middle East for quite a while.

[Antarticaria]

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.

In an actual declared war the punishment for desertion can include the death penalty, given that his deserting his post and now what I've heard is that Taliban attacks were more successful post his capture for a while (suggesting he may have shared info) I wouldn't say such a punish if it could be imposed would entirely inappropriate either.

Ahem two things.
What has happened is not confirmed and is pending a case, I would suggest on waiting before speaking this mans sentence.



On a side note not to you. I love how people comment and are to chicken to put their lives out themselves. Yup thats right I called alot of people out.

[Lalaki]

I think this is a very good thing.

Remember, if we hadn't gone there in the first place (and I mean way before 2001) they wouldn't be bothering us.

Umm the fuck. What exactly did we do that justifies 9/11 again? Oh that's right nothing.

Please understand, I do not think 9/11 was justified at all. Any loss of human life like that is reprehensible. But it stands that we had hostile activities going on in the Middle East before that day. Decades before.

[Ashmoria]

no

my idea is "genocide is bad"

Then how do you propose we handle terrorist groups?

with the same multi-faceted approach we use now. some military, some outreach, some "don't be a dick"

[Llamalandia]

Umm the fuck. What exactly did we do that justifies 9/11 again? Oh that's right nothing.

Nothing can justify 9/11, but they sure as hell didn't do it out of nowhere. We've had a strong influence in the Middle East for quite a while.

Sure so in fact they like have messed with us and we would still have had to go to war post 9/11 and presumably we'd still be in this same situation. I miss the point of the comment that was made.

[Antarticaria]

Then how do you propose we handle terrorist groups?

with the same multi-faceted approach we use now. some military, some outreach, some "don't be a dick"

I concur, nothing can be handled with just a single answer.

[Getrektistan]

Nothing can justify 9/11, but they sure as hell didn't do it out of nowhere. We've had a strong influence in the Middle East for quite a while.

Sure so in fact they like have messed with us and we would still have had to go to war post 9/11 and presumably we'd still be in this same situation. I miss the point of the comment that was made.

I mean, nobody said 9/11 was justified, so I assumed you were talking about what motivated Al-Qaeda instead of what justified their actions. The point is that Lalaki said we pissed them off by being so involved in the region, and I was supporting his true claim.

[Llamalandia]

Umm the fuck. What exactly did we do that justifies 9/11 again? Oh that's right nothing.

Please understand, I do not think 9/11 was justified at all. Any loss of human life like that is reprehensible. But it stands that we had hostile activities going on in the Middle East before that day. Decades before.

Ok but the only thing we ever did was help the afghans and hell even helped been laden contribute to beating the soviets. I mean I would think they would be grateful for that after all the afghans hated the Soviet Union. I mean I know bin laden was being a "pissy little bitch" about the Saudis asking the USA to liberate Kuwait from Iraq when he wanted to do it himself but so what? That doesn't justify anything either. Sure we're we along with the Brits helping warp Iran and Iraq kinda, though the British started all that crap to begin with, even so so what?

I mean I have no objection to trying to understand an enemies goals and motivations but it didn't seem like your comment was really in that spirit.

[Llamalandia]

Sure so in fact they like have messed with us and we would still have had to go to war post 9/11 and presumably we'd still be in this same situation. I miss the point of the comment that was made.

I mean, nobody said 9/11 was justified, so I assumed you were talking about what motivated Al-Qaeda instead of what justified their actions. The point is that Lalaki said we pissed them off by being so involved in the region, and I was supporting his true claim.

Yes but that still kinda sounds as if you're all saying oh well we set foot on sacred Islamic soil we shouldn't done that. We had every right to involved in helping liberate Kuwait from Iraq, plus we hadn't done anything else most normal countries don't do. I mean the Iranians started it by their illegal hostage taking (not counting our earlier meddling with Persia which was really Britain fault because they set up a situation they could no longer control) in the 1980s. The us apologizes when wrong but the us has nothing to apologize for here.

[Lalaki]

Please understand, I do not think 9/11 was justified at all. Any loss of human life like that is reprehensible. But it stands that we had hostile activities going on in the Middle East before that day. Decades before.

Ok but the only thing we ever did was help the afghans and hell even helped been laden contribute to beating the soviets. I mean I would think they would be grateful for that after all the afghans hated the Soviet Union. I mean I know bin laden was being a "pissy little bitch" about the Saudis asking the USA to liberate Kuwait from Iraq when he wanted to do it himself but so what? That doesn't justify anything either. Sure we're we along with the Brits helping warp Iran and Iraq kinda, though the British started all that crap to begin with, even so so what?

I mean I have no objection to trying to understand an enemies goals and motivations but it didn't seem like your comment was really in that spirit.

The fighters we formerly supported were opposed to our support of Israel. I'm not saying it was right for them to turn on us, but we need to be smart. In the end, it's not always about being right, but about being peaceful.

[Getrektistan]

I mean, nobody said 9/11 was justified, so I assumed you were talking about what motivated Al-Qaeda instead of what justified their actions. The point is that Lalaki said we pissed them off by being so involved in the region, and I was supporting his true claim.

Yes but that still kinda sounds as if you're all saying oh well we set foot on sacred Islamic soil we shouldn't done that.

I'm not saying that and I'm sorry it sounded that way.

We had every right to involved in helping liberate Kuwait from Iraq, plus we hadn't done anything else most normal countries don't do.

Well, we were a bit more involved than other countries, but I take your point.

I mean the Iranians started it by their illegal hostage taking (not counting our earlier meddling with Persia which was really Britain fault because they set up a situation they could no longer control) in the 1980s. The us apologizes when wrong but the us has nothing to apologize for here.

I think the main problem isn't whether or not we do the right thing, it's whether or not we respect the sovereignty of other countries. If another country tried to depose our government because of, say, our barbaric prison system, I wouldn't disagree with their cause, but I'd be livid that our sovereignty was violated, and other countries feel the same way when they feel like their sovereignty, as a state or as a people, is violated, so while their actions were far from justified, they aren't unexpected, and we should be more careful in the future (within reason, of course).

[Dragonia Re Xzua]

Like I stated earlier, unless this deserter has VERY VALUABLE information, the trade should not have been made. Please tell me when 1 deserter = 5 Taliban commanders. I am going to take a shot in the dark and say at least 1/3 of the posters in this thread will say that equation is logical (what has the education system come to?) /thread

[Hollorous]

I mean, nobody said 9/11 was justified, so I assumed you were talking about what motivated Al-Qaeda instead of what justified their actions. The point is that Lalaki said we pissed them off by being so involved in the region, and I was supporting his true claim.

Yes but that still kinda sounds as if you're all saying oh well we set foot on sacred Islamic soil we shouldn't done that. We had every right to involved in helping liberate Kuwait from Iraq, plus we hadn't done anything else most normal countries don't do. I mean the Iranians started it by their illegal hostage taking (not counting our earlier meddling with Persia which was really Britain fault because they set up a situation they could no longer control) in the 1980s. The us apologizes when wrong but the us has nothing to apologize for here.

The Iranians started it by taking hostages? You mean the United States funding/training SAVAK, the Shah's police force that were well known for their brutality on the Iranian population, wasn't the start of something? You don't think the average Iranian circa 1979 didn't have a legitimate reason to think ill of the United States government?

[Getrektistan]

Yes but that still kinda sounds as if you're all saying oh well we set foot on sacred Islamic soil we shouldn't done that. We had every right to involved in helping liberate Kuwait from Iraq, plus we hadn't done anything else most normal countries don't do. I mean the Iranians started it by their illegal hostage taking (not counting our earlier meddling with Persia which was really Britain fault because they set up a situation they could no longer control) in the 1980s. The us apologizes when wrong but the us has nothing to apologize for here.

The Iranians started it by taking hostages? You mean the United States funding/training SAVAK, the Shah's police force that were well known for their brutality on the Iranian population, wasn't the start of something? You don't think the average Iranian circa 1979 didn't have a legitimate reason to think ill of the United States government?

^This is all very true, we're hardly blameless in the current state of affairs in the Middle East. Hell, even if the Shah's regime was nice and friendly (which it really wasn't), we would still be in hot water for overthrowing a democratically elected leader.

[Llamalandia]

Ok but the only thing we ever did was help the afghans and hell even helped been laden contribute to beating the soviets. I mean I would think they would be grateful for that after all the afghans hated the Soviet Union. I mean I know bin laden was being a "pissy little bitch" about the Saudis asking the USA to liberate Kuwait from Iraq when he wanted to do it himself but so what? That doesn't justify anything either. Sure we're we along with the Brits helping warp Iran and Iraq kinda, though the British started all that crap to begin with, even so so what?

I mean I have no objection to trying to understand an enemies goals and motivations but it didn't seem like your comment was really in that spirit.

The fighters we formerly supported were opposed to our support of Israel. I'm not saying it was right for them to turn on us, but we need to be smart. In the end, it's not always about being right, but about being peaceful.

The peaceful thing to do would have been to stayed out of ww1 or to have limited our involvement in ww2 only to the pacific theatre, but that wouldn't have been the right thing to do. This is the problem we start valuing peace but at what price? Should we allow Iran to wipe Israel off the map (and yes I know there's arguments about the translation of what Ahmadinejad meant by that)? What about just massed forced deportation?

The point is that while Israel is by no means perfect we have to stand on principle or we don't really deserve the peace.