US Government negotiates with Taliban

[The Nation of Ceneria]

The United States has long had a policy that there will be absolutely no negotiation with terrorists, much less prisoner exchanges. That this act by the Obama Administration breached that long-standing policy. I believe that the situation will go downhill from here now that the Taliban and other terrorist organizations realize that Obama will not stand behind his predecessors' declarations.

[Ashmoria]

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

luckily we don't let people die in captivity because they may turn out to have done something bad.

[Llamalandia]

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.

Yeah but the Brits basically dumped Iran on the us foreign policy plate in like the 50's when we had some disagreement about handling oil or some crap, I don't read a book on it once. Anyway pint is this the fault of imperial Britain they started the meddling and then left the us holding the bag, had we pulled out it would have only further destabilized the whole region, we were basically continuing in the stead of the benevolent British overlords.

[Ashmoria]

The United States has long had a policy that there will be absolutely no negotiation with terrorists, much less prisoner exchanges. That this act by the Obama Administration breached that long-standing policy. I believe that the situation will go downhill from here now that the Taliban and other terrorist organizations realize that Obama will not stand behind his predecessors' declarations.

we have done prisoner exchanges all through our history.

[The Tiger Kingdom]

The United States has long had a policy that there will be absolutely no negotiation with terrorists, much less prisoner exchanges. That this act by the Obama Administration breached that long-standing policy. I believe that the situation will go downhill from here now that the Taliban and other terrorist organizations realize that Obama will not stand behind his predecessors' declarations.

No, it didn't.
Seriously, the whole fucking "don't negotiate with terrorists" thing has been a joke for literally years. You know how many Taliban/al-Qaeda prisoners Bush and Cheney released? Over 500.

Bellinger (who, for the record, is actually an ex-Bush Administration lawyer) also noted that the Bush administration—you know, the one that never negotiated with terrorists—released more than 500 prisoners from Guantanamo, returning them to the region.

You know how long negotiations with the Taliban through the Afghan government have already been going on? For literally years - probably since Bush.
You don't gain anything by shutting yourself off from the other side.

[Llamalandia]

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

luckily we don't let people die in captivity because they may turn out to have done something bad.

The offense he's been accused of in normal war time carries a penalty of ip to death. It doesn't really matter to me too much how such a "sentence" were to be executed (assuming if course he's guilty. Plus as I said before there was no ticking clock on this thing, we had years to take care of this. We could have used that time to preliminarily investigate and draw conclusions about the likelihood of criminality on his part. At the vaery least maybe we could have out less effort into looking for him and then 6 men would still be alive (though I'm not sure on the timeline when that happened exactly).

[The Tiger Kingdom]

luckily we don't let people die in captivity because they may turn out to have done something bad.

The offense he's been accused of in normal war time carries a penalty of ip to death. It doesn't really matter to me too much how such a "sentence" were to be executed (assuming if course he's guilty. Plus as I said before there was no ticking clock on this thing, we had years to take care of this. We could have used that time to preliminarily investigate and draw conclusions about the likelihood of criminality on his part. At the vaery least maybe we could have out less effort into looking for him and then 6 men would still be alive (though I'm not sure on the timeline when that happened exactly).

What would have been the point of drawing conclusions before he could even speak in his own defense? So we could build a case for abandoning him?

[Getrektistan]

^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.

Yeah but the Brits basically dumped Iran on the us foreign policy plate in like the 50's when we had some disagreement about handling oil or some crap, I don't read a book on it once. Anyway pint is this the fault of imperial Britain they started the meddling and then left the us holding the bag, had we pulled out it would have only further destabilized the whole region, we were basically continuing in the stead of the benevolent British overlords.

Iran was much more stable before the Shah, Mosaddegh was elected democratically. Foreign imperialism isn't a justification for American imperialism.

[Llamalandia]

The offense he's been accused of in normal war time carries a penalty of ip to death. It doesn't really matter to me too much how such a "sentence" were to be executed (assuming if course he's guilty. Plus as I said before there was no ticking clock on this thing, we had years to take care of this. We could have used that time to preliminarily investigate and draw conclusions about the likelihood of criminality on his part. At the vaery least maybe we could have out less effort into looking for him and then 6 men would still be alive (though I'm not sure on the timeline when that happened exactly).

What would have been the point of drawing conclusions before he could even speak in his own defense? So we could build a case for abandoning him?

Well yeah sorta. I mean it sounds like basically everyone he's served with is saying the guy took off on his own, I can't recall hearing anyone other than a few politicians defending or praising him. It's a matter of priority. Sure do we want him back if he did desert? Of course! It's a matter of "how badly we want him" basically that's at issue. I mean I'd hate to be asked to try and risk my life saving a man if I knew or had significant probable cause to believe was a deserter.

[Hollorous]

^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.

Yeah but the Brits basically dumped Iran on the us foreign policy plate in like the 50's when we had some disagreement about handling oil or some crap, I don't read a book on it once. Anyway pint is this the fault of imperial Britain they started the meddling and then left the us holding the bag, had we pulled out it would have only further destabilized the whole region, we were basically continuing in the stead of the benevolent British overlords.

No, it wasn't stabilization. It was money. The Iranian government wanted to nationalize the country's oil, so to develop the nation's economy and get it less dependent on the west. The US & the UK (who benefited the most from Iran's oil privatization) bulked at that, replaced the Iranian government with one friendly to them, and laughed all the way to the bank while the Shah's government hunted down, tortured, and killed its dissidents. There's no justifying it in a moral sense, not even if the Soviets would've done the same thing.

Honestly, do you think the USA was taking orders from the UK in the 1950s? I would think that the resolution of the Suez Canal Crisis would've cancelled all doubts about that.

[Llamalandia]

Yeah but the Brits basically dumped Iran on the us foreign policy plate in like the 50's when we had some disagreement about handling oil or some crap, I don't read a book on it once. Anyway pint is this the fault of imperial Britain they started the meddling and then left the us holding the bag, had we pulled out it would have only further destabilized the whole region, we were basically continuing in the stead of the benevolent British overlords.

Iran was much more stable before the Shah, Mosaddegh was elected democratically. Foreign imperialism isn't a justification for American imperialism.

Was mossadegh a team player with the USA though and by that I largely mean was he willing to sell us oil? If not of course we aren't going to support him and will in fact likely need to work actively to "replace him".

[Llamalandia]

Yeah but the Brits basically dumped Iran on the us foreign policy plate in like the 50's when we had some disagreement about handling oil or some crap, I don't read a book on it once. Anyway pint is this the fault of imperial Britain they started the meddling and then left the us holding the bag, had we pulled out it would have only further destabilized the whole region, we were basically continuing in the stead of the benevolent British overlords.

No, it wasn't stabilization. It was money. The Iranian government wanted to nationalize the country's oil, so to develop the nation's economy and get it less dependent on the west. The US & the UK (who benefited the most from Iran's oil privatization) bulked at that, replaced the Iranian government with one friendly to them, and laughed all the way to the bank while the Shah's government hunted down, tortured, and killed its dissidents. There's no justifying it in a moral sense, not even if the Soviets would've done the same thing.

Honestly, do you think the USA was taking orders from the UK in the 1950s? I would think that the resolution of the Suez Canal Crisis would've cancelled all doubts about that.

That's the point though the us and Britain are at least silent partners with each other in managing Persia, we did something to annoy the Brits and they bailed and washed their hands of the whole thing leaving us to essentially manage this country we didn't want from the shadows.

[The Tiger Kingdom]

What would have been the point of drawing conclusions before he could even speak in his own defense? So we could build a case for abandoning him?

Well yeah sorta.

Wow.
Well, at least you're honest in that you want the US government to abandon US soldiers to terrorists indefinitely.
When did they change "POW/MIA: NEVER FORGET" to "POW/MIA: NEVER FORGET (UNLESS WE GET SOME REALLY JUICY HEARSAY ABOUT HOW YOU ACTUALLY WERE AN ASSHOLE)"?

I mean it sounds like basically everyone he's served with is saying the guy took off on his own, I can't recall hearing anyone other than a few politicians defending or praising him.

What the fuck would politicians know? Were they there? Did they know him?
You know he hasn't actually been...you know...convicted...or even formally ACCUSED of anything, right?

It's a matter of priority. Sure do we want him back if he did desert? Of course! It's a matter of "how badly we want him" basically that's at issue. I mean I'd hate to be asked to try and risk my life saving a man if I knew or had significant probable cause to believe was a deserter.

Nobody has proven anything yet. That's the point.
This is literally all supposition based on hearsay.

[The Batorys]

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.

We started the thing with Iran by deposing their democratically elected government and installing a brutal monarchy.

As for Iraq/Kuwait... we funded Saddam Hussein in the first place, and after the war, we maintained bases in the region that we'd previously not had.

Part of the problem is that in this region, the colonial period was not that long ago, and though we weren't involved, there is the perception in the region that our presence is a sort of colonialist incursion (due to us being westerners). This perception is flawed, but it still matters, and some of our actions accidentally reinforce that perception.

[Getrektistan]

Iran was much more stable before the Shah, Mosaddegh was elected democratically. Foreign imperialism isn't a justification for American imperialism.

Was mossadegh a team player with the USA though and by that I largely mean was be will go sell us oil? If not of course we aren't going to support him and will in fact likely need to work actively to "replace him".

I believe Mosaddegh was willing to provide us oil, yes, he simply nationalized a British oil company. But say I'm wrong and they were not willing to sell us oil. Why would that give us the right to overthrow their democratically elected (not to mention wildly popular) leader? Do you think the Cuban government has the right to overthrow President Obama?

[Llamalandia]

Well yeah sorta.

Wow.
Well, at least you're honest in that you want the US government to abandon US soldiers to terrorists indefinitely.
When did they change "POW/MIA: NEVER FORGET" to "POW/MIA: NEVER FORGET (UNLESS WE GET SOME REALLY JUICY HEARSAY ABOUT HOW YOU ACTUALLY WERE AN ASSHOLE)"?

I mean it sounds like basically everyone he's served with is saying the guy took off on his own, I can't recall hearing anyone other than a few politicians defending or praising him.

What the fuck would politicians know? Were they there? Did they know him?
You know he hasn't actually been...you know...convicted...or even formally ACCUSED of anything, right?

It's a matter of priority. Sure do we want him back if he did desert? Of course! It's a matter of "how badly we want him" basically that's at issue. I mean I'd hate to be asked to try and risk my life saving a man if I knew or had significant probable cause to believe was a deserter.

Nobody has proven anything yet. That's the point.
This is literally all supposition based on hearsay.

Right which is why Im saying there needs to be and should have already been an investigation launched. Plus it's the politician well mostly just obama (not even many dems) who are praising him. I mean he'll the pentagon breauracrats allowed him to be repeatedly promoted yet we've got the media launching a more I depth investigation than they have. Maybe some I the military should have asked about this guy before just blindly following the promotion timetable (which are technically suggestions not hard and fast rules).

[The Batorys]

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.

Iran is not going to destroy Israel.

The people who actually run Iran are not that stupid. They know that they'd be blown to smithereens if they did that.

Beyond which, they can't. Israel has the most powerful military in the region. Iran's military is... well... less up to date. Israel is a nuclear power. Iran isn't.

Israel can take care of itself. They're not helpless little children who need our protection. They've proven perfectly capable of defending themselves.

[Llamalandia]

Was mossadegh a team player with the USA though and by that I largely mean was be will go sell us oil? If not of course we aren't going to support him and will in fact likely need to work actively to "replace him".

I believe Mosaddegh was willing to provide us oil, yes, he simply nationalized a British oil company. But say I'm wrong and they were not willing to sell us oil. Why would that give us the right to overthrow their democratically elected (not to mention wildly popular) leader? Do you think the Cuban government has the right to overthrow President Obama?

Maybe it was the nationalization that pissed us off and I know that must have pissed of the Brits. Yeah you have to respect property rights. Can't go around seizing other people's companies even if they are on your soil. I think that violation is enough justification. Not to mention it sounds like something a pinko commie would do anyway so no wonder we jumped all over his ass.

[The Batorys]

The United States has long had a policy that there will be absolutely no negotiation with terrorists, much less prisoner exchanges. That this act by the Obama Administration breached that long-standing policy. I believe that the situation will go downhill from here now that the Taliban and other terrorist organizations realize that Obama will not stand behind his predecessors' declarations.

Again, the Taliban is a deposed government (albeit an evil one), not a terrorist organization.

This is no different from the US negotiating with the remnants of the Nazi government in Germany and the government of Japan at the end of WWII, or negotiating with our Vietnamese opponents in the Vietnam War, or North Korea and China to secure an armistice when we were embroiled in war on the Korean Peninsula. Or the Barbary Pirates, if you want to go back that far (who we did negotiate with). Or any other opponent we've ever fought.

[Llamalandia]

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.

We started the thing with Iran by deposing their democratically elected government and installing a brutal monarchy.

As for Iraq/Kuwait... we funded Saddam Hussein in the first place, and after the war, we maintained bases in the region that we'd previously not had.

Part of the problem is that in this region, the colonial period was not that long ago, and though we weren't involved, there is the perception in the region that our presence is a sort of colonialist incursion (due to us being westerners). This perception is flawed, but it still matters, and some of our actions accidentally reinforce that perception.

Ok so how do we get done what we need to in that region and at the same time dispell or at least not further reinforce these erroneous beliefs the locals have of us?

[The Tiger Kingdom]

Right which is why Im saying there needs to be and should have already been an investigation launched.

So...what? He should have been tried in absentia, based on the hearsay of a few of the people in his platoon, while being held prisoner by the Taliban?
Classy! That's like something straight out of the Stalin playbook. He's guilty of cowardice/desertion/whatever, by virtue of the fact that he got captured. Get the firing squad!

Plus it's the politician well mostly just obama (not even many dems) who are praising him.

Who cares? What does that change? Republicans are the ones shitting on him now, for the record. Each side is compelled, by definition, to hate everything the other side does, regardless of reason or logic.

I mean he'll the pentagon breauracrats allowed him to be repeatedly promoted yet we've got the media launching a more I depth investigation than they have.

Why does him being promoted matter? How do you know how intense the media is investigating relative to the Army?

Maybe some I the military should have asked about this guy before just blindly following the promotion timetable (which are technically suggestions not hard and fast rules).

Wow, if only you were running the military. You could teach those clowns a thing or two, that's for sure! I bet it never occurred to them to look into the sole US POW in the world for five years!

[Antarticaria]

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.

Iran is not going to destroy Israel.

The people who actually run Iran are not that stupid. They know that they'd be blown to smithereens if they did that.

Beyond which, they can't. Israel has the most powerful military in the region. Iran's military is... well... less up to date. Israel is a nuclear power. Iran isn't.

Israel can take care of itself. They're not helpless little children who need our protection. They've proven perfectly capable of defending themselves.

Agreed, Israel isnt no military chump and train them soldiers right. however we should still be good friends with them considering we have good relations. You dont just look at your friends and be like 'ohh hey sorry but I aint gonna help you.'

[Getrektistan]

I believe Mosaddegh was willing to provide us oil, yes, he simply nationalized a British oil company. But say I'm wrong and they were not willing to sell us oil. Why would that give us the right to overthrow their democratically elected (not to mention wildly popular) leader? Do you think the Cuban government has the right to overthrow President Obama?

Maybe it was the nationalization that pissed us off and I know that must have pissed of the Brits. Yeah you have to respect property rights. Can't go around seizing other people's companies even if they are on your soil. I think that violation is enough justification. Not to mention it sounds like something a pinko commie would do anyway so no wonder we jumped all over his ass.

So Iranians need to respect our money making machine, but we don't need to respect their right to choose how to live their lives? So your an opponent of democracy, then?

We started the thing with Iran by deposing their democratically elected government and installing a brutal monarchy.

As for Iraq/Kuwait... we funded Saddam Hussein in the first place, and after the war, we maintained bases in the region that we'd previously not had.

Part of the problem is that in this region, the colonial period was not that long ago, and though we weren't involved, there is the perception in the region that our presence is a sort of colonialist incursion (due to us being westerners). This perception is flawed, but it still matters, and some of our actions accidentally reinforce that perception.

Ok so how do we get done what we need to in that region and at the same time dispell or at least not further reinforce these erroneous beliefs the locals have of us?

By cooperating instead of mandating whenever possible.

[Llamalandia]

The United States has long had a policy that there will be absolutely no negotiation with terrorists, much less prisoner exchanges. That this act by the Obama Administration breached that long-standing policy. I believe that the situation will go downhill from here now that the Taliban and other terrorist organizations realize that Obama will not stand behind his predecessors' declarations.

Again, the Taliban is a deposed government (albeit an evil one), not a terrorist organization.

This is no different from the US negotiating with the remnants of the Nazi government in Germany and the government of Japan at the end of WWII, or negotiating with our Vietnamese opponents in the Vietnam War, or North Korea and China to secure an armistice when we were embroiled in war on the Korean Peninsula. Or the Barbary Pirates, if you want to go back that far (who we did negotiate with). Or any other opponent we've ever fought.

Yeah except when the nazis largely fell they pretty much stop fighting. They sure as hell didn't join up with seek refuge among or aid terrorist. I mean when we defeated Germany and Japan their commanders all transmitted the surrender and everyone (save a few Japanese on some remote islands) laid down their weapons. The Taliban has instead chose to disregard international law refuses to surrender despite being clearly strategically defeated and now engages in the same tactics as al quaeda. I'd pretty much say that makes them terrorists.

[The Tiger Kingdom]

Maybe it was the nationalization that pissed us off and I know that must have pissed of the Brits. Yeah you have to respect property rights. Can't go around seizing other people's companies even if they are on your soil. I think that violation is enough justification. Not to mention it sounds like something a pinko commie would do anyway so no wonder we jumped all over his ass.

So Iranians need to respect our money making machine, but we don't need to respect their right to choose how to live their lives? So your an opponent of democracy, then?

To be fair, we and the British honestly thought Mossadegh was about a week away from either handing the country over to Stalin, or pissing off Stalin to the point where the USSR would invade and seize all the oil.
It was a bit of a scary situation.