Negotiating With The Taliban.

[Jacob]

Dispassionately?  Anyway did you see the leftists objecting to Obama's unconstitutionality Yi?  Told you.

I really don't know what point you're making.  i was talking about Jacob describing Grabon and Speiss' reaction as "outrage."

I wasn't describing their reaction as outrage. I was describing GOP aligned media outrage as outrage.

[Jacob]

When people are overreacting, it does no harm to claim that they are overreacting.

When you see outrage when others dispassionately raise objections, you end up losing credibility.

I find that you tend to interpret my posts to ensure maximum credibility loss in your eyes. I'm surprised I have any left to lose at this point, to be honest.

[Razgovory]

Cause he doesn't give a shit about the UN

  What makes you say that?  I participated in the 1989 Odd Fellows UN Pilgrimage, which helped steer me toward pursuing a degree in International Relations.  As an Odd Fellow today I am active in helping today's high school students visit and learn about this vital international organization.

You should write you congressmen about the failure to pay dues.

[Admiral Yi]

I find that you tend to interpret my posts to ensure maximum credibility loss in your eyes. I'm surprised I have any left to lose at this point, to be honest.

You responded to comments by Grabon and Speiss concerning War Crimes indictments, which made no mention of GOP aligned media, with a claim of manufactured outrage, which also made no mention of GOP aligned media.  The natural response of a reader is going to be that you were accusing those two of manufactured outrage.  That seems to be the way your two interlocutors interpreted your comment.

If you're clarifying now that that's not what you intended, that's great, but don't be surprised if people misunderstand you.

And on that note, I'm not that impressed with "if crazy guys are ranting about Obama's decision then it must be OK" as a line of logic either.  Crazy guys rant about everything.  If we follow that logic then *nothing* Obama ever does is a mistake.

[Valmy]

Dispassionately?  Anyway did you see the leftists objecting to Obama's unconstitutionality Yi?  Told you.

I really don't know what point you're making.  i was talking about Jacob describing Grabon and Speiss' reaction as "outrage."

Just that in this country it is rarely dispassionately, we tend to run on outrage.

[Jacob]

You responded to comments by Grabon and Speiss concerning War Crimes indictments, which made no mention of GOP aligned media, with a claim of manufactured outrage, which also made no mention of GOP aligned media.  The natural response of a reader is going to be that you were accusing those two of manufactured outrage.  That seems to be the way your two interlocutors interpreted your comment.

It seems to me that we established that neither derspiess nor garbon are outraged about this, to our mutual satisfaction. Nothing else in our particular subset of the conversation was directed at any individual poster as far as I can see. That's all you reading between the lines and assuming it's all personal.

If you're clarifying now that that's not what you intended, that's great, but don't be surprised if people misunderstand you.

I am rarely surprised when you misunderstand me. It seems that you and I have a severe communication gap, which has manifested itself many times here. I could break down the specifics of this particular case, but I don't know if it would lead anywhere interesting or useful.

As for "people" - or in this case derspiess and garbon - I am content with how things have gone thus far.

And on that note, I'm not that impressed with "if crazy guys are ranting about Obama's decision then it must be OK" as a line of logic either.  Crazy guys rant about everything.  If we follow that logic then *nothing* Obama ever does is a mistake.

I agree. That is not an impressive line of logic.

[derspiess]

You don't strike me as being particularly odd.

I have a membership card to prove it.  Once I move up far enough in the Lodge I have plans to revitalize and modernize our military wing

[derspiess]

You should write you congressmen about the failure to pay dues.

Only so much I can do, man.  My support through Odd Fellows and my church (UNICEF) isn't enough for you?

[Viking]

And who wouldn't want to bask in the universal popularity that rivals that of Benjamin Netanyahu?

Who released over a 1000 Hamas prisoners for Shalit.

Well yes. However there was universal agreement that it was a necessary evil in israel. Everybody there has family in the army. Netanyahu gained political clout by getting Shalit released. He gained popularity.

[mongers]

"confidence building measure between US and taliban" ?

[CountDeMoney]

You should write you congressmen about the failure to pay dues.

Only so much I can do, man.  My support through Odd Fellows and my church (UNICEF) isn't enough for you?

Tell those UNICEF people to wipe that powdered milk off their faces, it's unsightly.  And flies on the eyelids make my nads climb up into my abdominal cavity.  Ick.

[Sheilbh]

Well yes. However there was universal agreement that it was a necessary evil in israel. Everybody there has family in the army. Netanyahu gained political clout by getting Shalit released. He gained popularity.

Absolutely.

I think there's three issues here. One is whether the negotiation should have taken place at all - should we negotiate with 'terrorists'? Which is a political judgement really. Though I would note that in the last 13 years Iraqi groups have earned around $40 million, Afghan groups $20 million and Somali pirate almost $200 million trading for hostages. Similarly as in the Shalit example the Israeli government won't negotiate with Hamas, but they did and released over a 1000 Hamas prisoners to get him back. Going back there's obviously Iran-contra and questions over the UK government and Megrahi. So I don't think we can credibly start talking by saying we 'don't negotiate with terrorists'. But whether we should and in what circumstances and at what price.

Second thing is whether he's a deserter or not. I think that should be established in the usual way by a trial. It isn't unheard of for people to leave base even in Afghanistan. Here's a story by a journalist embedded in Bergdahl's unit of walking with him to the nearby ANA base - this isn't the only suggestion he'd done it before:
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/jan/16/i-met-bowe-bergdahl-before-he-went-missing-afghanistan
http://www.armytimes.com/article/20140603/NEWS05/306030078/Sources-Bergdahl-may-walked-off-base-more-than-once
There's examples of soldiers who were killed off-base when they weren't meant to be there. Then of course there's the example of Robert Bales. It's not allowed but there's a big difference between him just wandering off for the night - as he'd done before - and deserting. Generally I think the best way to deal with that is through the normal process (though chances are he'll just be discharged as quietly as possible), as it is he's still just a US soldier who was 'missing-captured'.

Thirdly there's the stuff from his unit. This ties into the above and would be tested in a normal hearing for his 'desertion'. As it is I just think we shouldn't necessarily take soldiers' words for it. I think there'll be the same problems as with people in any institution (even on a tiny level like here) especially if they feel betrayed or if there's loss of life afterwards. There's enough cases - Danny Chen, Jill Metzger, Pat Tillman - to not give immediate credence to what his comrades think. Though it's worth investigating. Yes he wanted an AK and sent home his laptop. But there seems a tone that he shouldn't have been trying to learn Pushto or Dari and he shouldn't have been hanging around with local soldiers or drinking tea with village elders when something happened at the base, which I'm not convinced by.

At the minute I think there's a totally fair debate on whether there should've been a deal, but I think it's not quite right to be condemning him as a cowardly deserter when we simply don't know and that should be established. His comrades and him both deserve the benefit of the doubt. He may be, both stories could be true. But I think it's worth waiting for that to be established before we blame him for the deaths of lots of soldiers because that's a serious thing to say of a soldier even if it may turn out to be true.

I wonder if another issue is whether he should've been in the military at all. Reading about his background from an old article, he's not your image of a soldier. He was turned down by the Foreign Legion (who didn't want a home-schooled kid from Idaho). He seems like a very clever and serious guy but also quite intense,  naive and lonesome. Someone who was looking for meaning (and a bit of adventure). I wonder if it weren't for the wars and needing manpower if he'd have been accepted in the forces at all.

[Berkut]

When people are overreacting, it does no harm to claim that they are overreacting.

When you see outrage when others dispassionately raise objections, you end up losing credibility.

There is nothing dispassionate about the Republican response. It is just Benghazi II. Politics, politics, politics.

I don't even think the Republican Party can recall the idea of actual governance or leadership anymore - it simply isn't part of their operating procedures anymore.

[derspiess]

What about the Democrats criticizing the Administration on this?  Are they crazy nutzo rightwingers, etc.?

[PRC]

If a soldier fled an area during a hot and apparently failing action only to be captured by the enemy despite the outcome of the action... would that soldier be worthy of a prisoner swap down the road?