Debate over American POW exchanged for 5 Taliban prisoners

Status
Not open for further replies.
What if he was a member of your family? You would want them to do ANYTHING to bring him back.
 
Steinhauer said:
The released US Soldier's dad is a Muslim and praised his son for pressuring the White House into releasing prisoners from Gitmo....
Click to expand...
When did the dad convert? According to the Rolling Stone's piece the parents were devout Calvinists. (Of course, that could change.)
 
Beowulf said:
What if he was a member of your family? You would want them to do ANYTHING to bring him back.
Click to expand...
Possibly. But the President is not a member of his family. He's responsible for the well-being of our whole nation. He's the one who approved the trade.
 
Reba said:
Possibly. But the President is not a member of his family. He's responsible for the well-being of our whole nation. He's the one who approved the trade.
Click to expand...

Good for him. :)
 
Jiro said:
the OAF article is as accurate as the onion.
Click to expand...

The new media is not allow to report what is really going on , we never get all the facts . If people think the government is going to tell us everything that happening they're in for a big surprise . It's does not matter who reporting the news b/c the government control all of the news media.



http://www.wired.com/2013/10/obama-nixon-media-war/
 
Foxrac said:
US shouldn't start war in Afghanistan at beginning. :roll:

Same with Iraq as well.
Click to expand...

I disagree with part of this. We were attacked by a country who's "guest" was playing a role, even if only financially, to the ruling party. That made him, I believe, an acting part of the ruling government. I see no reason for us as a country to not address that threat.

I will agree, however, that the war in Iraq was not needed to solve that threat, in my opinion.

On topic: It seems to me we solved two problems: What to do with detainees after a war has ended and what to do about American citizens being held captive(for whatever reason).

The bigger issue here is whether we should set a precedent of no release for POWs. If we want to have those types of rules, we need to accept the fact that our POWs will never come home as well. Are we OK with having those types of rules? I don't think those veteran, "Bring our POW's home" flags are going away anytime soon.

We only had one POW and we couldn't pick and choose who gets released. And, if we could, should we?

For those arguing that those detainees will be recycled, that is an issue for the other side as well. It has been an issue since the first tribes on this planet.
 
Steinhauer said:
That article verifies yet another talking point from the OAF editorial I linked to.
Click to expand...

Sorry, I don't trust OAF because it is satirical news so time to move on about OAF crap.
 
Reba said:
When did the dad convert? According to the Rolling Stone's piece the parents were devout Calvinists. (Of course, that could change.)
Click to expand...

OAF claimed that they are satirical and humorous news, that why about father's religion is not true.
 
VacationGuy234 said:
. . . The bigger issue here is whether we should set a precedent of no release for POWs. If we want to have those types of rules, we need to accept the fact that our POWs will never come home as well. Are we OK with having those types of rules? I don't think those veteran, "Bring our POW's home" flags are going away anytime soon....
Click to expand...
There is no rule against prisoner exchange, per se. We are allowed to arrange prisoner exchanges with enemy governments. We aren't allowed to arrange exchanges with terrorist groups.
 
VacationGuy234 said:
I disagree with part of this. We were attacked by a country who's "guest" was playing a role, even if only financially, to the ruling party. That made him, I believe, an acting part of the ruling government. I see no reason for us as a country to not address that threat.

I will agree, however, that the war in Iraq was not needed to solve that threat, in my opinion.

On topic: It seems to me we solved two problems: What to do with detainees after a war has ended and what to do about American citizens being held captive(for whatever reason).

The bigger issue here is whether we should set a precedent of no release for POWs. If we want to have those types of rules, we need to accept the fact that our POWs will never come home as well. Are we OK with having those types of rules? I don't think those veteran, "Bring our POW's home" flags are going away anytime soon.

We only had one POW and we couldn't pick and choose who gets released. And, if we could, should we?

For those arguing that those detainees will be recycled, that is an issue for the other side as well. It has been an issue since the first tribes on this planet.
Click to expand...

The war with Afghanistan will not make Al Qaeda and Taliban go away and there are many extremists to join so could throw Afghanistan into civil war again.

If Afghanistan goes into civil war so I'm against ALL military action (beside air bombing and missile strikes) and just let them to screw up and if China or Russia want to intervene, that's fine with me but it will not solve anything.
 
Just a little info for those who aren't familiar with military pay:

POW's continue to be paid while they're in captivity. That pay includes increases when they get promoted (which they do get promoted while in captivity, in accordance with their time in service). They also get per diem (50%) each month for their "quarters" in captivity. If the POW has dependents, they continue to get their share of the income each month thru the standard allotment. If there are no dependents, the money is held in an account until the POW is released. Then the former POW gets a lump sum payment.
 
Reba said:
There is no rule against prisoner exchange, per se. We are allowed to arrange prisoner exchanges with enemy governments. We aren't allowed to arrange exchanges with terrorist groups.
Click to expand...

I thought the Taliban had a government? I mean, didn't they rule Afghanistan from 1996 to 2001, when we illegally invaded?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top