For those who defend Obama negotiating with the Taliban

[AUUSN 823]

Obama also appears to suffer from an intellectual confusion. He equates violence with war and diplomacy with civility/legality. But war is "simply a continuation of political intercourse, with the addition of other means" according to Carl von Clausewitz.

Obama failed to utilise indispensible US military strength to pursue tangible political objectives. His moving deadlines of 2011, 2014 and 2016 effectively neutralised the US military's gains.

If George W Bush represented US hubris and a "US-can-do-everything" mindset, Obama manifested US insecurities and a "US-can't-do-anything" inclination. His public pledges to give up "nation-building" in Afghanistan and his diplomatic zeal to chase the Taliban for negotiation appear to be manifestations of exhaustion and self-doubt.

http://m.aljazeera.com/story/2014688956937989

[TexasTiger 14,069]

Reading some of these posts, especially one about 911, by a particular person, my hope is that those of you that are defending this action by this president, are just arguing a different position just to be different. Are you really arguing for these KNOWN killers of your own fellow citizens?

Tex will defend Obama at any and ALL costs. In this thread he's posted the Taliban was just defending their territory against American invaders. Dude is unbelievable.

Since you are ignorant beyond words, I was pointing out a distinction between the goals of the Taliban and Al Qaeda. Most here on the right seem to think the Taliban planned 9/11. They're very bad characters, as are many folks we've negotiated with. They were bad characters when Reagan armed them and even welcomed them in the Oval Office. But y'all love Reagan anyway. I accept some of the blame for engaging in a discussion with you. I should know by now you can't fix stupid.

Way to show class. You, acting like an Auburn man? Laughable. Way to live below what you speak.

Spare me your hypocritical, one-sided critique.

We are all hypocritical bro. You posted in another thread about showing class and acting like an "Auburn man", and here you are showing zero class by berating another Auburn man. Just sayin'.

And you take no issue with what he said that I'm responding to because even your "sense of decency" is ideological.

I didn't say it bro..you did. You made a statement that implied the difference between AQ and the Taliban was significant and that theTaliban only killed Americans because we invaded their homeland. Never mind their well documented atrocities against humanity, its America's fault, right? Im not talking about foreign policies of 30 years ago. The thread is about the wisdom of a deal struck by negotiating with the Taliban for Bowe Bergdahl, a known deserter, and possibly a Taliban collaborator. Heres your cue to call me ignorant and beneath your vast intellect by screaming "it hasn't been proven that Bergdahl deserted" regardless of what those who fought side by side with him and those who were dispatched on search missions to recover him.

Context is clearly not your friend in this debate. Im just surprised you didn't blame everything on GWB. You do, however, seem a bit test. Is it possible you'd like to take your brilliant comments back? I highly doubt that given the positions you've consistently taken.

BTW, stay classy bro..stay classy.

The importance of context totally eludes you. It doesn't matter what I say because you'll distort it to suit your purposes. That's a skill, of sorts, so I suppose I'll grant you that. It doesn't lead to understanding, but it appears to make you feel better.

There's a key difference in the threat posed by a group that is focused on their home region versus a group with global aspirations that should be obvious to any sincere, thinking person not interested in distortion for political points. Both groups are fundamentalists that engage in atrocities. One targets Americans no matter where they are. If you don't see that as a key distinction I can't help you.

[AUUSN 823]

According to Judge Urbina's ruling, Kharikhwa "rose to the highest level of the Taliban and had close ties to Mullah Omar, who repeatedly appointed [Kharikwha] to sensitive, high-profile positions." Even "after the US-led invasion of Afghanistan, [Khairkhwa] remained within Mullah Omar's inner circle, despite the fact that Mullah Omar had limited his contacts to only his most trusted commanders."

Read more: http://www.longwarjournal.org/archives/2014/06/member_of_talibans_e.php?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter##ixzz343Rs2TPd

[cooltigger21 0]

There are two possible motives behind what Obama does. One is that he is just indifferent and incompetent. He along with a lot of leftist believe that the superpower status of America is a bad thing. We have used that power to bully the world. If we reduce our strength then the rest of the world will like us and not act bad. Part of it is his own narcissistic personality. He believes he can bring everyone together with the sheer force of his personality. Two is that he is at least sympathetic to the claims of the Islamic jihad is ts if not out right believing in their cause.

[TexasTiger 14,069]

Here's a response from a prominent thoughtful conservative:

The administration might have tried honesty here and said: Yes, we gave away five important combatants. But that’s what you do to redeem hostages. In such exchanges, the West always gives more than it gets for the simple reason that we value individual human life more than do the barbarians with whom we deal.

http://m.washingtonpost.com/opinions/charles-krauthammer-free-bowe-bergdahl-then-try-him/2014/06/05/6aae0e50-ecd4-11e3-9f5c-9075d5508f0a_story.html

Take the time to read it. Even the right wingers here should find something to agree with.

[icanthearyou 4,468]

Obama also appears to suffer from an intellectual confusion. He equates violence with war and diplomacy with civility/legality. But war is "simply a continuation of political intercourse, with the addition of other means" according to Carl von Clausewitz.

Obama failed to utilise indispensible US military strength to pursue tangible political objectives. His moving deadlines of 2011, 2014 and 2016 effectively neutralised the US military's gains.

If George W Bush represented US hubris and a "US-can-do-everything" mindset, Obama manifested US insecurities and a "US-can't-do-anything" inclination. His public pledges to give up "nation-building" in Afghanistan and his diplomatic zeal to chase the Taliban for negotiation appear to be manifestations of exhaustion and self-doubt.

http://m.aljazeera.c...014688956937989

Can you fight "limited" wars to achieve political objectives? Does that lead to politicians, rather than military men, dictating strategy? Is there any evidence which suggests using war as an extension of diplomacy can be effective (even with overwhelming military superiority)? Can/Should, war be waged with rules and lawyers?

[homersapien 12,172]

Reading some of these posts, especially one about 911, by a particular person, my hope is that those of you that are defending this action by this president, are just arguing a different position just to be different. Are you really arguing for these KNOWN killers of your own fellow citizens?

Tex will defend Obama at any and ALL costs. In this thread he's posted the Taliban was just defending their territory against American invaders. Dude is unbelievable.

Since you are ignorant beyond words, I was pointing out a distinction between the goals of the Taliban and Al Qaeda. Most here on the right seem to think the Taliban planned 9/11. They're very bad characters, as are many folks we've negotiated with. They were bad characters when Reagan armed them and even welcomed them in the Oval Office. But y'all love Reagan anyway. I accept some of the blame for engaging in a discussion with you. I should know by now you can't fix stupid.

Way to show class. You, acting like an Auburn man? Laughable. Way to live below what you speak.

Spare me your hypocritical, one-sided critique.

We are all hypocritical bro. You posted in another thread about showing class and acting like an "Auburn man", and here you are showing zero class by berating another Auburn man. Just sayin'.

And you take no issue with what he said that I'm responding to because even your "sense of decency" is ideological.

I didn't say it bro..you did. You made a statement that implied the difference between AQ and the Taliban was significant and that theTaliban only killed Americans because we invaded their homeland. Never mind their well documented atrocities against humanity, its America's fault, right? Im not talking about foreign policies of 30 years ago. The thread is about the wisdom of a deal struck by negotiating with the Taliban for Bowe Bergdahl, a known deserter, and possibly a Taliban collaborator. Heres your cue to call me ignorant and beneath your vast intellect by screaming "it hasn't been proven that Bergdahl deserted" regardless of what those who fought side by side with him and those who were dispatched on search missions to recover him.

Context is clearly not your friend in this debate. Im just surprised you didn't blame everything on GWB. You do, however, seem a bit test. Is it possible you'd like to take your brilliant comments back? I highly doubt that given the positions you've consistently taken.

BTW, stay classy bro..stay classy.

Maximum Irony Alert!

[autigeremt 7,131]

Here's a response from a prominent thoughtful conservative:

The administration might have tried honesty here and said: Yes, we gave away five important combatants. But that's what you do to redeem hostages. In such exchanges, the West always gives more than it gets for the simple reason that we value individual human life more than do the barbarians with whom we deal.

http://m.washingtonp...8f0a_story.html

Take the time to read it. Even the right wingers here should find something to agree with.

Not a right winger but a well written opinion.