IGX

OK. I periodically put up "Bring Him Back!" memes on FB as he was an American soldier in Tatooine, amongst the Jawas and the Army was saying he was a POW. Did not hear anything other than a murmer of chatter about anything wrong on his part.

So when he get's released and on a few pages I like you start hearing "Deserter" and "Traitor" I was taken aback and adopted an attitude of wait and see as an Operator I know had said something to that effect.

A day later that same Operator said he talked to people involved and the guy is a fucking deserting, converted Jawa fuck. OK I trust this dude, solid fucker.

Then we start having guys who served with him say this on TF. We have family of people who died or were crippled looking for him and a SEAL who was looking for him.

And it seems the Army made a bunch of the guys sign a shut up order about this.

President Obsama broke a law he signed in this deal, but Osama, a shit bag POTUS can break law where Nixon, a decent one (but a lying asshole, like Obsama) better step down or get impeached.

Now if he was not a deserter, I could see giving up some Jihadis for him, Obsama wants to unass the place, even more blood was shed there under him than under Bush, so fuck it, give them the Rags. (Even better if we find out a few years later they shoved RFI's in them , tracked and monitored them and then targeted them for assassination.)

But for a deserter? Shit, should have told the Taliban "Keep him, use him for a cumdumpster for all we care, your people will die in Cuba.

So I know what Shaf thinks, let's have a grand Ol' I.G. discussion about this shit.

Really love to hear the opinions of our Vets, especially of the wars of the last decade but I bet Troy will have an interesting perspective, or play the role of Devil's Advocate like no one else here can.

The only reason To bring him back that makes sense is for a trial with a great likelihood of execution.

Do you? I think we, as a nation, don't fucking make deals with terrorists. Not for me, my kids, the fucking president, or baby Jesus himself. On top of that, history clearly indicates that reprisals for terrorist actions serve as a preventative. But the trend on these reprisals have be specific for the act, not a "holy shit, we're going to invade your countries based on sketchy reasonings and never fucking leave." It should be "You motherfuckers, we know where your training bases and people are, and now say hello to my little drones...eye for an eye....3 terrorists dead for each victim" sort of things.

Let's take Iraq for example.

Iraq has a fuck ton of oil. That oil should have been the United State's oil and it's allies oil by right of might.

The corruption of our leaders is why it's not.

Hard to know what the deal is when the guy is completely unavailable. Had he turned into an enemy mouthpiece like this asshole, then fuck that guy. But we don't know much. Could be he walked off due to mental illness caused by events related to his service.

Given a lack of crystal clear evidence that he'd gone over to the enemy, it's probably a bad idea to pick and choose which servicemen you bring home.

Shafpocalypse Now wrote:Let's take Iraq for example.

Iraq has a fuck ton of oil. That oil should have been the United State's oil and it's allies oil by right of might.

Well shit, search this forum, I only have said that a fucking thousand times.



Now as far as sketchy evidence, most of the fucking world thought Saddam had WMDs, he had a history and he was stymieing inspections and everyone misses that we did have a Cease Fire Agreement, it;s great reading, where it state that if inspectors are fucked with, the US reserves the right to restart hostilities and take the country over.

I mean, did you need a court case or some lawyer esque shit like that?

I do know Rumsfeld never planned for anything to go wrong after the invasions and under strength MPs and other types you want to occupy and a bunch of other dumbshit (and the whole not making them pay for the whole thing with their oil.) but going in was right when you look at our hisroty with him and shit he did with others. He was real close to nukes in 91 and there was a real fear, not just Dick Lick Cheney's but one expressed by Trooper that not knowing what he had, he' could do a lot of harm to forces in Afghanistan and that shit was not worth risking and he also thought Iran was next.

There were lines of trucks going out of Iraq into Syria leading up to the invassion. Just because you never caught Dr. Feelgood selling shit does not mean he was not. It's not a court for your own citizen.

Shit if your girl would not let you in her room when you suspected something was up, would you not walk on in and see for yourself?

But we went off to Iraq here.

Shafpocalypse Now wrote:The corruption of our leaders is why it's not.

I'm willing to say that is a strong possibility.

Shafpocalypse Now wrote:Do you? I think we, as a nation, don't fucking make deals with terrorists. Not for me, my kids, the fucking president, or baby Jesus himself. On top of that, history clearly indicates that reprisals for terrorist actions serve as a preventative. But the trend on these reprisals have be specific for the act, not a "holy shit, we're going to invade your countries based on sketchy reasonings and never fucking leave." It should be "You motherfuckers, we know where your training bases and people are, and now say hello to my little drones...eye for an eye....3 terrorists dead for each victim" sort of things.

Yeah, I addressed that part I don't agree with. I'd rather we be more a viking about this kind of thing. Send our guys in, fuck shit up, kill a lot of fucks and then leave them to sit in the wreckage instead of rebuilding them.

We should only rebuild them if you are willing to do to that country (or the area of it a group controls) about what was done to Germany and Japan. meaning everything ruined, and a fuck load of dead people and the rest needing the basics of survival, particularly for their kids and not being able to get that with out us.

Kind of why Rand Paul not being near my way on foreign policy does not bother me. (I think so much more of what he is about is what we fucking need for the mess at home.)

We get hit or they attempt to hit with him in charge and I think he'd be inclined to hit them fucking brutally hard and won't sit there and rebuild shit.

We make deals with terrorists all the time. Sometimes we hire them as the farm team.

milosz wrote:We make deals with terrorists all the time. Sometimes we hire them as the farm team.

DARTH wrote:

Shafpocalypse Now wrote:The corruption of our leaders is why it's not.

I'm willing to say that is a strong possibility.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Eci77PJACCs[/youtube]

Turdacious wrote:

DARTH wrote:

Shafpocalypse Now wrote:The corruption of our leaders is why it's not.

I'm willing to say that is a strong possibility.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Eci77PJACCs[/youtube]

Nay nay nay. When Obama does it, it's not evil like when Dubya did it. From Jay Carney today:

Q On the issue of those signing statements, the President said, when he was first running for President, that he thought restraint needed to be used with signing statements. Is this an example of presidential restraint?

MR. CARNEY: I appreciate the way you phrased that question, because it’s often misreported that he somehow took a position against all signing statements, which was never the case, as a senator and candidate. He made clear that there were times when it would be appropriate, but that the authority to issue signing statements should not be overused or abused, and that a President should exercise restraint.

And I think if you look at his record in office -- now five and a half years in office -- you’ll see that restraint demonstrated. But there will be and have been circumstances when signing statements are necessary, because of the President’s view and the executive branch’s view of the constitutional issues involved in a particular legislation. And with regard to this specific situation, within the NDAA bill, that was already addressed within a signing statement.