US Government negotiates with Taliban

[Llamalandia]

it doesn't need to prevent it but it definitely discourages it.

imagine if the FBI had an official policy that said instead ''if someone is kidnapped across federal lines, let the person go... we'll pay the ransom, just let the person go. Let him/her go and we will forget about this.''

See how that might incentivize kidnapping?

That arguments void, Terrorist will take any chance they get to kidnap anyways!

Not necessarily, there's actually a book on terrorist psychology, (can't recall the title at the moment) which in fact makes a convincing argument that, because terrorists often have rather limited resources both material, personnel wise, and less tangibly (things like morale and public support) that they actually tend to make choices of how to deploy these resources based on what gives them the greatest return on investment. If they know we are willing to make a deal for hostages, then they will often shift their strategy and tactics more towards hostage taking. That's not to say they aren't sometimes just oppurtunistic as well and grab somebody just cause they can, but given how hard it is to keep a prisoner, (feeding them, keeping them healthy etc etc) they will often forgo doing so if they stand to gain nothing.

[Distruzio]

As loyal as he deserves, I suppose. Are you ever going to answer our questions?

What's your questions?

Why is the President's middle name important?

[Viritica]

I feel deeply sorry for the soldier, but he isn't worth five senior Taliban commanders. Taliban commanders who will almost certainly return to terrorist activity and slaughter more people.

Or, having seen that negotiation can get them stuff they want, they'll go to the negotiating table and not slaughter people.

Also, fun fact: the poor soldier was only captured because he walked away from his post.

Wow, that makes it way better to not care about him.

And I would love for Afghanistan to be peaceful. But I don't want it to become even more of a festering shithole lead by the Taliban.

Just like Northern Ireland! Oh...wait...

---

If he did in fact walk away (which has yet to be determined in all honesty) then he is a traitor not a soldier and it's perfectly acceptable to leave him behind as he left all his fellow soldiers behind by deserting.

Going AWOL makes one a traitor now?

You're a hopelessly naive optimist. You think they're going to thrown down their arms and be friends with us simply because we gave them five of their guys? They're Islamic fundamentalists. They hate us. They want Afghanistan to be governed under strict interpretation of Sharia law.

Another fun fact for you: like al-Qaeda they've killed more Muslims than Americans.

I'm not saying we shouldn't care about him. I'm just saying he isn't worth five senior Taliban commanders. Commanders who will almost certainly return to terrorist activity. And if you think they won't then you're even more of a naive optimist than I thought. If they want to negotiate then fine. Give them one of their unimportant grunts in exchange for our soldier.

Northern Ireland =/= Afghanistan

But, hey, Iraq's government is completely stable! Oh... wait...

You know, if we actually cared for human life we wouldn't let these guys go free. I guarantee you they'll kill a lot more than one guy.

[Draica]

What's your questions?

Why is the President's middle name important?

It isn't. But it also isn't bad to use it.

[Viritica]

I feel deeply sorry for the soldier, but he isn't worth five senior Taliban commanders. Taliban commanders who will almost certainly return to terrorist activity and slaughter more people.

Also, fun fact: the poor soldier was only captured because he walked away from his post.

And I would love for Afghanistan to be peaceful. But I don't want it to become even more of a festering shithole lead by the Taliban.

it would not be better to let our guy die in captivity. if the price is 5 men who have been out of the fight for a dozen years, its a great price to pay.

And it isn't worth it.

[Imperializt Russia]

Except as you can see, thats all bollocks. Heroin production under the occupation has been consistently higher than just leaving them to their own fucking devices. And of course the taliban never attacked us.

You mean to say that when we turned up with soldiers and they couldn't lie about what they were illegally growing anymore, we found more drugs?
Fucking shocking man.

Dude, they're not walking up to fucking farmers saying "dude, what're you growing?"
http://www.unodc.org/documents/crop-mon ... t_2012.pdf

So was 90% of the American population.

I thought it was only 72% at best, which declined to under fifty by mid 2004

source: http://www.pewresearch.org/2008/03/19/p ... -20032008/

When "Shock and Awe w00t USA" turned into "bloody occupation and insurgency"?
Gee, fucking surprise. Welcome to the post-Vietnam world.

Your thinking of the Mujahideen, not the Taliban.

Which Bin Laden later joined restructured and renamed the Taliban. I dislike debating with Americans on their history because you go for the pro-American white washing of history. You didn't lose the Vietnam war, you merely withdrew your forces and left the South to fall to the communist North.

A) the Taliban existed pre-Osama, much like the Nazi party existed pre-Hitler. Osama radicalised it further, yes. Much like Hitler turbocharged the Nazis.
B) that is actually exactly what happened in Vietnam. US troops won consistently on the ground, Tet almost destroyed the NVA and associated forces, but anti-war politics killed the war and forces withdrew.

Your own point was that the destruction of the poppies was a key element in destroying the taliban.

Yes, it was and is a key element of destroying the Taliban.
If I want to bring down Mcdonalds, I could decide to up and start killing lots of cows.
But once mcdonalds is gone, I don't necessarily have to give much of a shit about killing cows anymore.
Nor do I have to care that "Oh noes, there are still cows left" if the burger prices substantially increase and cripple mcdonalds.

It was a key strategy in destroying the Taliban. Prior to 2005, the British MoD wanted British troops in Helmand to destroy opium production without having fired a shot. Nearly ten years on, we're nearly five hundred troops dead and billions of pounds in armaments expended and opium destruction has been abandoned. In fact, the last three (or five, I can't remember) years, we've mostly left opium destruction down to the Afghans themselves.

Turns out destroying villager's only income and making them cultivate other plants that they make nearly no money from, makes you pretty disliked.

Ah... so poppy farmers equal terrorists. Got it.

Still confused here. I must've missed the article explaining how farming creates terrorism.

It's more that the drug trade does. You can't sell opium legitimately really, so you have to deal with criminals.
Terrorism and organized crime are good bedfellows. One funds the other.

Farmers in Afghanistan, Columbia and diamond miners in Africa are nothing to do with the organisations they sell to and in many cases, are figuratively or literally enslaved by. Hint, they're enslaved in those cases.
In the other cases - there's no money in honest work for them. In fact, in some places in Afghanistan where farmers were encouraged to grow alternative crops, they were encouraged to switch back to Opium by ISAF because the farmers were unable to survive on their new incomes.

Its 23 villages that were visited in 2008.

For the the entire of afghanistan.

23 villages is no small fry here when you consider we're dealing with a relatively small organization who's most successful attack basically involved about a dozen guys.

23 villages apparently control 1570 square kilometres of poppy field, according to the UNODC report.

Twenty-fucking three, Ostro.
Now consider the rest of Afghanistan.

[Distruzio]

Why is the President's middle name important?

It isn't. But it also isn't bad to use it.

Then why emphasize it? When you do so, you automatically alienate your arguments from any reasonable consideration.

[Farnhamia]

Why is the President's middle name important?

It isn't. But it also isn't bad to use it.

No, I suppose not, although it generally isn't used with this President. Anyway, President Obama's middle name is not the topic and I wonder if opium growing in Afghanistan is all that relevant to the subject of the circumstances surrounding Sgt. Bergdahl's release.

[Valaran]

It isn't. But it also isn't bad to use it.

No, I suppose not, although it generally isn't used with this President. Anyway, President Obama's middle name is not the topic and I wonder if opium growing in Afghanistan is all that relevant to the subject of the circumstances surrounding Sgt. Bergdahl's release.

Yeah, | joined late. How did we get onto that?

[Farnhamia]

No, I suppose not, although it generally isn't used with this President. Anyway, President Obama's middle name is not the topic and I wonder if opium growing in Afghanistan is all that relevant to the subject of the circumstances surrounding Sgt. Bergdahl's release.

Yeah, | joined late. How did we get onto that?

Don't know, I'm a stranger here myself.

[Draica]

It isn't. But it also isn't bad to use it.

Then why emphasize it? When you do so, you automatically alienate your arguments from any reasonable consideration.

Ok, so since using someone's middle name is bad, I won't use his middle name anymore. I'l call him President Obama, does that satisfy you?

[Valaran]

Yeah, | joined late. How did we get onto that?

Don't know, I'm a stranger here myself.

Oh well.
So, since we are this stage, what is your opinion on the soldier and the law break?
(i.e. time to start a new argument )

[Priory Academy USSR]

I'd have thought they could have negotiated a better deal than 5 for 1, but at least the guy is free now.

[Imperializt Russia]

Yeah, | joined late. How did we get onto that?

Don't know, I'm a stranger here myself.

It's a discussion that stemmed from the discussion on whether five commanders for one American prisoner were "worth it". Then onto the apparent power of the Taliban. And then some people's apparent misconceptions of it.

[Farnhamia]

Don't know, I'm a stranger here myself.

Oh well.
So, since we are this stage, what is your opinion on the soldier and the law break?
(i.e. time to start a new argument )

I wasn't aware of Bergdahl's desertion until just today. That's what it is, too, so despite the welcome he's received I expect he'll be leaving the Armed Forces shortly and that under a cloud. I would rather the President had given the 30-day notice as required but as someone around here said, we dno't know all the circumstances. Could be the Taliban said, "And this week or we chop off his head." I don't know. Had Congress not whimped out on closing Gitmo and bringing the prisoners to the US for trial, we might not be facing this question.

[Valaran]

Don't know, I'm a stranger here myself.

It's a discussion that stemmed from the discussion on whether five commanders for one American prisoner were "worth it". Then onto the apparent power of the Taliban. And then some people's apparent misconceptions of it.

Thanks. Nice to know how this digressed.

[Valaran]

Oh well.
So, since we are this stage, what is your opinion on the soldier and the law break?
(i.e. time to start a new argument )

I wasn't aware of Bergdahl's desertion until just today. That's what it is, too, so despite the welcome he's received I expect he'll be leaving the Armed Forces shortly and that under a cloud. I would rather the President had given the 30-day notice as required but as someone around here said, we dno't know all the circumstances. Could be the Taliban said, "And this week or we chop off his head." I don't know. Had Congress not whimped out on closing Gitmo and bringing the prisoners to the US for trial, we might not be facing this question.

Can it be true? Are we in perfect agreement, on the internet, about Obama, and Afghanistan? Is that even possible?


But yeah, you basically just summed my viewpoint as well.
(I agree with everything, even down to Gitmo)

[Farnhamia]

I wasn't aware of Bergdahl's desertion until just today. That's what it is, too, so despite the welcome he's received I expect he'll be leaving the Armed Forces shortly and that under a cloud. I would rather the President had given the 30-day notice as required but as someone around here said, we dno't know all the circumstances. Could be the Taliban said, "And this week or we chop off his head." I don't know. Had Congress not whimped out on closing Gitmo and bringing the prisoners to the US for trial, we might not be facing this question.

Can it be true? Are we in perfect agreement, on the internet, about Obama, and Afghanistan? Is that even possible?


But yeah, you basically just summed my viewpoint as well.
(I agree with everything, even down to Gitmo)

And you posted that at 11:11! Well, my time, anyway.

[Valaran]

Can it be true? Are we in perfect agreement, on the internet, about Obama, and Afghanistan? Is that even possible?


But yeah, you basically just summed my viewpoint as well.
(I agree with everything, even down to Gitmo)

And you posted that at 11:11! Well, my time, anyway.

This day is just full of miraculous coincidences.

[New Colorado Republic]

Release 5 terrorists in exchange for 1 American? The US government should know the Taliban cannot be reasoned with. Torture was beanned in exchange for "negotiation" AKA basically surrendering.

[Imperializt Russia]

Can it be true? Are we in perfect agreement, on the internet, about Obama, and Afghanistan? Is that even possible?


But yeah, you basically just summed my viewpoint as well.
(I agree with everything, even down to Gitmo)

And you posted that at 11:11! Well, my time, anyway.

You posted that at 6:16pm, my time.

Ergo, you must be bride of Satan, and I'm going to request [violet] DOS you for the good of humanity.
plz dont kill me lucifer

[The New Lowlands]

Release 5 terrorists in exchange for 1 American? The US government should know the Taliban cannot be reasoned with. Torture was beanned in exchange for "negotiation" AKA basically surrendering.

Getting soldiers home is surrendering?

[Valaran]

Release 5 terrorists in exchange for 1 American? The US government should know the Taliban cannot be reasoned with. Torture was beanned in exchange for "negotiation" AKA basically surrendering.

Just a quick question. Do you know what the Taliban actually is?

[Farnhamia]

And you posted that at 11:11! Well, my time, anyway.

You posted that at 6:16pm, my time.

Ergo, you must be bride of Satan, and I'm going to request [violet] DOS you for the good of humanity.
plz dont kill me lucifer

I can DOS myself now that I'm a Game Mod.

[Ashmoria]

According to Harvard professor and CNN legal analyst Jeffrey Toobin.

telling a surprised Wolf Blitzer that Preident Barack Obama “clearly broke the law” by failing to provide Congress 30-days notice before releasing five high-level Taliban prisoners from the Guantanamo Bay detention facility.

“You’ve looked at the law, you’ve looked at the signing statement, you’ve gone through it,” Blitzer asked Toobin. “Did the president break the law?

“Oh, I think he clearly broke the law,” Toobin replied. “The law says 30 days’ notice. He didn’t give 30 days’ notice.”

“Now it’s true he issued a signing statement,” the law professor continued, “but signing statements are not law — it’s the president’s opinion about what the law should mean. Now, it may be that the law is unconstitutional, a violation of his power as commander-in-chief, but no court has held that. The law is on the books and he didn’t follow it.”

http://dailycaller.com/2014/06/02/pro-obama-harvard-professor-president-clearly-broke-the-law-with-gitmo-prisoner-transfer/

Pretty surprising accusation, and coming from a Harvard law professor it seems credible. Especially since the man is (was?) pro-Obama.

I think this will just be swept under the rug and ignored, since the Prez is too big to fail, but what say you, NSG?

what do you think could be done?

maybe now the republicans will drop Benghazi and take up the new cause of impeaching the president over the rescue of sgt bergdahl.