Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 Ahtman wrote:

 whembly wrote:

 Ahtman wrote:
All of which seems to argue that it isn't an election publicity stunt by the Obama administration.

What was the news prior to this?

Elections in India
Elections in Europe
FCC idiocy on Net Neutrality
Open Carry Shenanigans
VA Problems


The VA issues aren't new, and have been a problem going back multiple administrations, so not sure why it would be treated as just this ones. Oddly, even with this story there is still news happening, as well more on the older stories, so it isn't stopping people from discussing or seeing other news stories.

The VA problems.

Sining wrote:
As opposed to just killing them?

Right, it's better that they kept him alive instead of killing him. However now there may be in increase in number of attempts and their zeal in those attempts. Especially at a 5 important to 1 unimportant rate of exchange.

 whembly wrote:
The VA problems.

That seems to only work if you want to believe it, and are wearing political blinders of some sort. It hasn't changed the story about the VA either so it doesn't seem to have the virtue of deflecting anything. All you are really doing is saying that it is a conspiracy based on nothing more than there was a story about the VA and now there is another story, which isn't really all that convincing.

 Ahtman wrote:

 whembly wrote:
The VA problems.

That seems to only work if you want to believe it, and are wearing political blinders of some sort. It hasn't changed the story about the VA either so it doesn't seem to have the virtue of deflecting anything. All you are really doing is saying that it is a conspiracy based on nothing more than there was a story about the VA and now there is another story, which isn't really all that convincing.

All I'm saying was that it was an attempt to Wag the Dog.

The VA issue kept escalating (as it should) and the WH needed to get it off the burner somehow.

Just look at the two issues and think about it.

Do you read what you type Whembly, or do you just have an ad libs styled game?

The VA issue kept escalating (as it should) and the WH needed to get it off the burner somehow.

The VA has had problems for a long time, why would it now suddenly require such an odd story to try and counteract it? Especially since at best it also keeps the VA problems in the light as well since this guy will be dealing with the VA.

Just look at the two issues and think about it.

Which goes back to it being there only if that is what you want to see. If you actually think about it it doesn't work and it doesn't make sense.

 Kanluwen wrote:
Do you read what you type Whembly, or do you just have an ad libs styled game?

Yup.

Sarcasm... Yeppers.

Snarkiness... You betcha.

A game? Nah.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Ahtman wrote:

The VA issue kept escalating (as it should) and the WH needed to get it off the burner somehow.

The VA has had problems for a long time,

Agreed. I'd even say it isn't fair to "blame" Obama. The only thing that's remotely fair to criticise Obama is that he broke a campaign promise. Goodness sake, it was the Obama administration that increased VA $$$ by almost 80% since the start of his Presidency.

is that why would it now suddenly require such an odd story to try and counteract it? Especially since at best it also keeps the VA problems in the light as well since this guy will be dealing with the VA.

Eh... I truly believe the WH didn't expect this sort of backlash. I'd posit that they were hoping for a Hero's Welcome and high accolades for rescuing a hostage. (ie, deflect some of the VA issue, hence my Wag the Dog statement).

Israel does this exchange thing all the time. What is their track record with their enemies trying to capture vs kill Israeli soldiers?

The lack of caves full of soldiers and citizens from every nation on earth other than the US makes it appear that negotiating with terrorists doesn't change their agenda all that much.

 d-usa wrote:
The lack of caves full of soldiers and citizens from every nation on earth other than the US makes it appear that negotiating with terrorists doesn't change their agenda all that much.

I don't buy that really...

In my eyes... the biggest danger with this swap is that it could strengthen Taliban crew in Afgan/Pakistan.

Look what they did... they negotiated as equals with the US and apparently got the better deal.

But, really guys... isn't this the proverbial "Damned if you do, damned if you don't" thing?

The minute they touch Afghan soil they get a drone on their ass.

You can't kill them in Gitmo, so you get a soldier back and kill them as soon as they leave Qatar. It's a win-win.

Obama should have brought Senate and House Leaders in. Laid out the entire deal. Gag order them after meeting.

Just get rid of the Judicial Branch and the Executive Branch and go to the parliamentary system.

Nobody can do gak anyway unless the legislature gets to be involved and then nobody will do gak because the legislature is too busy pandering and arguing to actually do anything.

Why put in the effort then if the result going to be the same

 d-usa wrote:
Just get rid of the Judicial Branch and the Executive Branch and go to the parliamentary system.

Nobody can do gak anyway unless the legislature gets to be involved and then nobody will do gak because the legislature is too busy pandering and arguing to actually do anything.

The Star Wars Imperial Senate, in RealD, coming to a D.C. near you!

 Jihadin wrote:
Why put in the effort then if the result going to be the same

Because prior to this they had zero incentive to keep you alive.

Our government policy has been this: If you guys get your hands on Jihadin just go ahead and kill him. Be sure to film it and put in on the internet, that way his wife knows what happened to him. Parade his dead body around as well. We are going to kill you anyway so why bother keeping him alive if you can just kill him and get some good propaganda footage.

Because once you get past all the "we are tough on terrorists" and "we don't negotiate with evil because we are the good guys" bs that is nothing but pandering to people sitting on their ass at home that is all it is: A giant feth you to our soldiers. Because they know that the enemy has zero reason to keep them alive because they are not considered POWs by our own government.

You might be okay with knowing that your government cares so little about your life that they continue the official policy of "kill him, you get nothing", but I think it's bs.

They had plenty of incentive. Namely trying to be legitimate folks that follow the laws of warfare. If acting in accordance with those laws isn't enough incentive, there are bigger issues. You have to note that the Haqqani network uses kidnapping for ransom and for political purpose as a revenue stream and as a terror tactic.

If we really want to show how tough we are with terrorists. Next time they take a hostage and we find out where they are held, don't send in the SEALs. Just bomb the place into oblivion and kill the kidnappers and the hostage. That will show the bad guys how tough we are. AMIRITE!

 Easy E wrote:
If we really want to show how tough we are with terrorists. Next time they take a hostage and we find out where they are held, don't send in the SEALs. Just bomb the place into oblivion and kill the kidnappers and the hostage. That will show the bad guys how tough we are. AMIRITE!

I don't think I noticed anyone in this thread advocate for that position.

 CptJake wrote:
You have to note that the Haqqani network uses kidnapping for ransom and for political purpose as a revenue stream and as a terror tactic.

And American Soldiers are useless for that purpose. So just cut off their heads on camera and dumb the body somewhere.

That's the message we send with "we don't negotiate".

 d-usa wrote:

 CptJake wrote:
You have to note that the Haqqani network uses kidnapping for ransom and for political purpose as a revenue stream and as a terror tactic.

And American Soldiers are useless for that purpose. So just cut off their heads on camera and dumb the body somewhere.

That's the message we send with "we don't negotiate".

They had plenty of incentive. Namely trying to be legitimate folks that follow the laws of warfare. If acting in accordance with those laws isn't enough incentive, there are bigger issues.

Been quite a few soldiers captured and killed by insurgent forces. Mention awhile back on another thread that I would expect the same to happen to me.

 CptJake wrote:

 d-usa wrote:

 CptJake wrote:
You have to note that the Haqqani network uses kidnapping for ransom and for political purpose as a revenue stream and as a terror tactic.

And American Soldiers are useless for that purpose. So just cut off their heads on camera and dumb the body somewhere.

That's the message we send with "we don't negotiate".

They had plenty of incentive. Namely trying to be legitimate folks that follow the laws of warfare. If acting in accordance with those laws isn't enough incentive, there are bigger issues.

Is Gitmo a POW camp following the Geneva Convention for POWs?

 d-usa wrote:

 CptJake wrote:

 d-usa wrote:

 CptJake wrote:
You have to note that the Haqqani network uses kidnapping for ransom and for political purpose as a revenue stream and as a terror tactic.

And American Soldiers are useless for that purpose. So just cut off their heads on camera and dumb the body somewhere.

That's the message we send with "we don't negotiate".

They had plenty of incentive. Namely trying to be legitimate folks that follow the laws of warfare. If acting in accordance with those laws isn't enough incentive, there are bigger issues.

Is Gitmo a POW camp following the Geneva Convention for POWs?

Did any of the detainees there meet the legal criteria for POW status? (nope)

 CptJake wrote:

 d-usa wrote:

 CptJake wrote:

 d-usa wrote:

 CptJake wrote:
You have to note that the Haqqani network uses kidnapping for ransom and for political purpose as a revenue stream and as a terror tactic.

And American Soldiers are useless for that purpose. So just cut off their heads on camera and dumb the body somewhere.

That's the message we send with "we don't negotiate".

They had plenty of incentive. Namely trying to be legitimate folks that follow the laws of warfare. If acting in accordance with those laws isn't enough incentive, there are bigger issues.

Is Gitmo a POW camp following the Geneva Convention for POWs?

Did any of the detainees there meet the legal criteria for POW status? (nope)

Congratulations on holding two completely incompatible positions and somehow making them fit and work together in your head.

 d-usa wrote:

 CptJake wrote:

 d-usa wrote:

 CptJake wrote:

 d-usa wrote:

 CptJake wrote:
You have to note that the Haqqani network uses kidnapping for ransom and for political purpose as a revenue stream and as a terror tactic.

And American Soldiers are useless for that purpose. So just cut off their heads on camera and dumb the body somewhere.

That's the message we send with "we don't negotiate".

They had plenty of incentive. Namely trying to be legitimate folks that follow the laws of warfare. If acting in accordance with those laws isn't enough incentive, there are bigger issues.

Is Gitmo a POW camp following the Geneva Convention for POWs?

Did any of the detainees there meet the legal criteria for POW status? (nope)

Congratulations on holding two completely incompatible positions and somehow making them fit and work together in your head.

Asking folks to follow the law of war, and our troops being held to it don't seem completely incompatible at all. You are not a legal combatant? You are not given POW status. Not sure how that is hard to grasp. Our guys follow the rules or get punished.

 CptJake wrote:

You are not a legal combatant? You are not given POW status.

You are not a legal combatant? You are not given POW status because the laws of warfare don't apply.
Non-legal combatants capturing one of our guys? They should act like legitimate folks that follow the laws of warfare!

Legal Combatant
Unlawful Combatant
We had this discussion many times

Western thought process vs middle eastern thought process

 Jihadin wrote:
Legal Combatant
Unlawful Combatant
We had this discussion many times

Western thought process vs middle eastern thought process

So they are legal combatants when they capture our guys and unlawful combatant when we capture them?

Why should they have to follow the rules of warfare if they are not legal combatants?

What legal reason do they have for not killing our soldiers once they are captured?

 d-usa wrote:

 CptJake wrote:

You are not a legal combatant? You are not given POW status.

You are not a legal combatant? You are not given POW status because the laws of warfare don't apply.
Non-legal combatants capturing one of our guys? They should act like legitimate folks that follow the laws of warfare!

And our troops do. They don't interrogate then execute. They provide medical care. They give access to IRC, they allow a legal process to review status, and so on. We do act like legitimate folks and do follow the laws of war. The exceptions get punished when caught.

The bad guys, not so much.