HOME | DD
Orion--13 — Surrender
by-sa
Published: 2014-06-08 18:01:38 +0000 UTC; Views: 1197; Favourites: 10; Downloads: 2
Redirect to original
Description
Just a quick demotivational I made illustrating some of the comments that I've heard and read.Orion
Related content
Comments: 61
I fail to see how a prisoner exchange is a surrender. If anything, the Taliban got screwed since the prisoners were going to be released later this year anyway. Well, that and this: i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2014/0…
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
You forgot damn near every war that France was involved in, zing!
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
LOL! If I recall they even lost their own civil war...
Orion
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
Don't forget when John McCain was traded back from north Vietnam or George bush releasing 500 Gitmo detainees
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Well, arguably the North Vietnamese DID garner a surrender from the United States due to Congress (and a very loud public movement).
Can you point to any of George Bush's releasee's being as bad as these five? And there was significant complaint about many of the folks he released; Many of whom quickly returned to combat and significant terror work.
Orion
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Not to mention that McCain was known by his captors as the songbird.
Yes, bush released about five hundred guys, let 911 happen through sheer stupidity and negligence and admitted getting Osama wasn't a big deal.
Obama released five guys already scheduled to he released for two years and killed Osama. You have a strange definition of surrender.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
Kamackazi has been sucking Obama's dick a little too much lately.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
THERE's an image I didn't need...*(gack)*
Orion
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
So it's guilty until proven innocent unless you are standing your ground shooting a 2nd Amendment whacko in a fast food joint. Im not sure whats being surrendered.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
I believe the implication was that when one side in war unilaterally pays the other side reparations and returns the prisoners to the other side, it's indicative that you're surrendering.
Orion
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
So Reagan surrendered to the Iranians?
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
While I disagree with the swap, I can't help but wonder what would've happened had Obama stuck to his guns and Bergdahl was executed...
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
I'm confused (easy to do!) - Obama stick to his guns about what? And Bergdahl was going to be executed? By who?
Orion
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Well I mean if there was an ultimatum basically saying "Give us our guys or we kill this one." or something, I haven't read much on it since really it didn't seem like much to me, just politics as usual. But what I mean is, let's say hypothetically that we heard news that Bergdahl had been executed before we even heard that he was a deserter and stuff, what do you think the public's views on the Obama administration would be?
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
He's been suspected to be a deserter since shortly after he left; Pretty much everyone in the military knew that.
It appears that he was in no danger at all since it certainly seems like he's been helping them since he left...
Orion
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Just humor me though. Let's assume that he was just another dead US soldier.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Ah, so, we're imagining we knew nothing about the circumstances of his capture and he was simply executed because Obama refused to deal (Remember, Congress nixed this deal some time ago; The President's in a bit of hot water for violating the law about notification on the trade now, as well as for ignoring their previous denial).
I would think people would be more angry at the Taliban for executing a prisoner. At least anyone in the military would be or anyone who knows anything about the military. That's very not-cricket.
Orion
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
But since when are the President's critics sensible? Like... I remember when the whole fear of defaulting on our debt was the big worry and many such as Sarah Palin were saying that it'd be impeachable if he didn't use the 14th Amendment yet it'd be impeachable if he invoked the 14th Amendment. But to be fair, while what the President did was wrong in the eyes of the law, let's not forget Reagan did something quite similar with Iran-Contra.
In any case, I think what annoys me is that I don't know the details Obama had at his desk when he made the choice.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
I didn't see why as a matter of policy that the swap really had to be made, since in 6 months everybody on both sides would be sent home anyway. But evidently the whole thing turned out to be less about foreign policy or GWOT policy or basic anti-terrorist policy. To me anyway the whole thing was more or less all about the policy of diverting attention from the VA scandal and sucky economy 5 months out from the elections. But apparently some ob Obummer's boot-licking subordinates didn't do the research, or they would never had tried a high-visibility PR stunt that blew up in their faces. (Talidad at the mike there didn't help things much either.)
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Well, you have to admit the dense-pack scandal defense works well.
Who remembers Fast and Furious, or the IRS-political targeting, or Benghazi, or a dozen other criminal scandals now? 
Orion
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
That's true, the "oooh shin" deflection defense had worked for them for 5 years....up until now. Then again, I suspect a lot of people out there do remember all the scandals, and they way they were deflected or swept aside, without being publicly disproved. It will come back to haunt a lot of Democrats in the future, which is why a lot of 'em are running for Congress apart from the Obama record this year....
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Here's an interesting article on exactly that by a former US Diplomat:
pjmedia.com/richardfernandez/2…
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Yeah, I had read that, I know Mr. Fernandez, he is a smart guy.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
I don't think a prisoner swap is the same as surrendering to the Taliban.
👍: 0 ⏩: 2
Not really a surrender but another example of the incompetence of Obama.
👍: 0 ⏩: 2
Not sure how that's incompetence either 
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
One possible deserter for 5 high ranking leaders of the Taliban is a bad trade and Obama broke the law my not informing Congress.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
The deserter thing I haven't seen confirmed yet through reputable channels. Personally, no matter how disillusioned I am with the Afghanistan mission and the US right now, desertion wouldn't be on my list of ways out. We all know the Taliban aren't exactly going to comply with the Geneva Convention on prisoners. I'm sure Bergdahl knew that as well.
Furthermore, with the war winding down, prisoners of war were going to be released. It is very unfortunate that the Taliban members captured won't go to court in the Hague, but I find it unlikely that they will do any more harm.
👍: 0 ⏩: 2
Just a quick note:
Every single one of the soldiers he served with have stated he deserted, eye witness accounts say he made a beeline for Al Qaeda.
Second, the Taliban and other terrorist organizations have not agreed to end hostilities, only we have, the 5 that we have released have already expressed interest in attacking Americans again.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
I doubt that statement based on the fact that the US hasn't been fighting Al Qaeda in A-Stan.
Also, the Taliban haven't agreed to end hostilities, they've agreed to negotiations.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
Terrorists are not prisoners of war, and a large number of released terrorists return to terrorist activity.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
And this is why you are not in charge of these sorts of operations. Such ideological purity doesn't work in real international affairs.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Obama's incompetence does not work very well, but he needed a new scandal so people would forget his last one.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
If that were really his plan, he's really far better at three dimensional chess that I gave him credit, and far worse at politics than I thought. No one in the centre, much less the left, has felt he's had a major scandal. I think the left dislikes him because he isn't progressive enough and the centre is just sort of disappointed at the overall lack of progress over the last few years.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
His scandals would of gotten most Presidents impeached but the media helps him keep things covered up.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Name one scandal. A real on. On the level of Nixon.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Bad policy isn't impeachable.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
I'm not currently under the impression that there was a cover-up. Not by the President or the admin itself. Even then, I can think of plenty of worse situations, where we know presidents have covered things up, that didn't lead to anything impeachable.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
President Obama's bogus assertion of executive privilege to thwart Congress' investigation into Fast and Furious, after he claimed he new nothing about it.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
He's sending prisoners back into the same area America's drones are patrolling, they'll be too busy looking over their shoulders to do anything.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
You seriously believe that these 5 top Taliban commanders, with strong ties to al Queda are going to be worried about being drone-zapped? Especially too worried about it to do anything?
Have you read their records?
Orion
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Considering the number of how high ranking Al-Queda officials that keep dying, they should be.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Should and will are two very different things, especially for followers of a faith that holds dying in battle to be an instant ticket to Paradise.
Orion
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Well if they don't concern themselves then they're going to get turned into paste.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Now, I could live with that.
Orion
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
I believe they're referring to allowing Mr Bergdhal's Arabic remarks, and the President's seeming enjoyment of them, as well as the apparent imbalance in trading a treasonous deserter for five top commanders. My impression was that they saw it very much as a defeated government returning their prisoners for nothing.
Orion
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
| Next =>