HeloDude

Who's talking about isolationism (nice straw man)? There are plenty of ways to get oil besides via the Middle East, and who says we won't continue to get some of our oil from some of those nations in the future? As for the prices going up/being in fluctuation when a heavy oil producing country has problems, that's just life in a world market...definitely ways to get through it and survive.

Rainman?? I didn't know you flew C-17's haha

Sounds awfully similar to what one American soldier 'might' have did in Afghanistan...

Reminds me of a movie I saw once... https://youtube.com/watch?v=QJQ0EV4bWH0

I have a feeling that the VP only meant it will be one of the Administration's 'greatest achievements' if it doesn't get all fvcked up before the end of their time in office.

As in the Kurds claiming independence from the rest of Iraq?

You probably meant to say that you, as the Nav, would request to the AC, that he/she extends some special 'bro treatment' to Fed LE. Guess it would all have to depend on the request.

Dude, whatever--don't be such a wimp. You get all emotional because someone challenges your opinion. Don't respond to my posts if you don't want to have a discussion! By the way, did you finally watch the entire video?

That's totally cool that you want (and do) voluntarily answer their questions...not even saying I haven't and wouldn't continue to do so. But that's my choice, yours, and everyone else's choice (I thought you were pro-choice by the way?). Others, however, do believe being forced to answer is a violation of their Rights, regardless of whether or not you believe it is, and fortunately the courts agree. I totally support any private buisness being able to turn someone away for any reason, so if Chipotle wants to ban the open-carrying of rifles in their establishment then I have no problem with it...hell, I don't have to eat in that private establishment. I also don't consider those guys 'dicks', either, maybe not the classiest people, but I'm sure most are nice guys. I wouldn't choose to do it, but then again I also don't choose to have tattoos, purposely rip a huge fart in front of someone in line, or be rude to people. By the way, they (for the most part) choose to open carry their rifles in public places to make the point that Texas does not allow the open carry of pistols, but allows the open carry of rifles. Fortunately I think they are getting their message across. Sorry dude, don't believe you, in principle or reality. If so, you would staunchly disagree with the administration's policy on dealing with illegals already in the country (not talking about their number which includes catching people at the actual border). So unless you're going to reveal something new for us... They can (and do) catch illegals (at the border and who have been inside the country for years) without having to stop and question everyday people who are just going about their business/not doing anything wrong. I don't support a police state of being asked to 'show my papers' or 'answer their questions' on demand just because I am moving about and not breaking any laws. Our problem with illegals has nothing to do with these checkpoints. Nope, the courts have upheld that you do not have to answer the questions at these BP checkpoints...hence while after being harassed a few minutes, they are allowed to go on your way (watch the entire video). If soemone tells the BP agent 'Sir, I respectfully decline to answer that question', then unless that agent has probable cause to detain that individual, then that should be the end of it and the person should be allowed to go their way. It's not the people who are being dicks about it, it's the agents not letting them go when soemone has already refused to answer their request. To be fair, I don't believe it's necessarily the fault of the BP agents, themselves, per se...rather it's the policy and standards set forth by the bureaucrats who make the higher level policy and send it down to into the field. Just like I don't think it was a a few random field ATF agents who came up with the plan to allow 2000 firearms to be illegally sold to what everyone knew would eventually mean that most of the firearms would wind up in the hands of Mexican cartels.

So when you choose not to answer a question that you do not have to answer, you are being a 'dick'? Watch the entire video...you'll see that the people being stopped are not being disrespectful and that the agents are practicing intimidation/coercion, because if they weren't, they would allow the people to leave right away instead of going back and forth without allowing them to leave. If you can explain it any other way then I'd love to hear it. As for how you personally choose to respond to their question, that's your voluntary choice, others choose not to answer. That doesn't make you are any better or worse than the guys who refuse. By the way, just because you don't want to answer fed agents/LE when you are not required to, this does not mean you are 'shitting' on them. The agents' job is to ask the question and detain people when they have probable cause and go from there as necessary...some people just don't want to answer a question they don't have to, that's all. By the way, can you post your full name, SSN address, DOB, and bank account number? Or maybe you don't feel like giving out that information that you're not required to do so. It's called The Constitution, why don't you embrace it? The irony of all of this, nsplayr, is that you are against the deportation of those known to be here illegally, but think that people here legally exercising their Constitutional Rights are being 'dicks'. It's telling.

Excellent video depicting people exercising their Constituional Rights...educational as well (and funny at the very end!). I have no problems with people voluntarily choosing to answer questions, people just need to know that it's not required, regardless if agents attempt to intimidate or coerce you. (and for Prozac, no, I'm not PYB, nor even know who he is haha)

Just so I'm clear, is it safe to assume (I'm asking because I don't want to put words into your mouth if it is not correct) that you would have supported trading every Taliban member that we have captured for our one guy? If not, then please tell me how many you would have traded--we already know you're cool 5 of their top guys, so would you have supportd trading all of them and if not, why, and also what number between that maximum and the original 5 that you supported would you have traded? Would it have been smart for the British to have traded Rudolph Hess and other top Nazi officials for one captured British guy before the end of the war? And if not, then why not? As for the trials of people suspected of crimes, this is nothing new. What makes it so that the US can't have their trials in a military tribunal? Why does it have to go to a federal court? As for the guys who are not suspected of any crimes, then you release when the conflict has ended...sounds pretty standard to me. I guess they could release them to the Afghan people for them to have a trial--it's what Bush decided to do with Sadaam Hussein, for better our worse. That's my suggestion--what is yours?

Unless you're picking on the words 'war crimes' vs what I'm assuming is maybe something closer to 'crimes against humanity'? (if so, my apologies), then read the link: Or am I still missing something?

It's good to see that nsplayr is still defending the policies of the Obama administration no matter what. It's not like 2 of these guys were wanted by the UN for war crimes...oh wait... So yes, you have trials for them and the others for crimes, as necessary. This is what happens when you invade a country...if want to discuss the legitimacy of the invasion, then that's a separate and valid conversation, but definitely one worth having. https://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2014/05/31/us-pays-high-price-for-last-pow-in-afghanistan.html (I know...The Daily Beast is such a conservative website) I'm far from a historical/war scholar, but don't countries typically wait until the end of the war to release prisoners that are being held in prison? And if the war is so bad, then why are we waiting until the end of 2016 to have all the troops out?

Isn't that the point? But some civilian bosses do care about you...because if you are a good value in generating revenue, then those bosses don't want to lose you, and thus will at least care enough/do things for you outside of your paycheck to stay with the business. All situational dependent.

State Department doesn't seem as urgent in getting back the Marine Reservist who is being held in a Mexican prison...I'm sure there is someone in our custody who Mexico would like to have back? https://nation.foxnews.com/2014/06/03/if-us-can-spring-bergdahl-why-not-us-marine-reservist-mexico

Pimpin' ain't eazy, but...

Yep, they even give us green flight suits, colorful name patches with real wings on them, and other cool neato stuff! It's almost like we're real pilots and aircrew!...almost Ha! (it's fun being the red headed stepchildren sometimes)

Going with the FDE option?

Don't be giving us these lies...Susan Rice already said he served with 'honor and distinction'. And she's pretty smart--she was one of the first people to tell Americans that the Benghazi attacks were the result of a Youtube video.

I've read/watched quite a few reviews on them in the last year and they seem to be awesome for what they are (the select fire version also seems to woke well for the IDF). I've handled them at gun shows and I like the balance/feel to them. The only negative thing I've seen with the firearm is the trigger...but companies are already selling aftermarket drop-in triggers that seem to be a big improvement. Also, IIRC, people are getting about 2-2.5 MOA, but that should be sufficient for what it was designed to do. I've been considering one, especially since the price has come down a few hundred...what I would really want is one in .308, since the Kel Tec RFB seems to be crap. I suggest you buy the Tavor and let us know what you think!

The quote refers to the term constantly used by the 24 hours news media, hence the quote. Typically I don't refer to a Reaper as a 'drone'...af.mil media calls them an RPA, and that's what I call them as well. As for a SOFA, do you mean we only use assets in a country in which we have a SOFA? I wasn't aware we had a SOFA with Libya to perform such operations prior to 2011. Unless I'm missing something here as I only get my news from TV and open source news websites. Don't forget, I'm a rotorwing guy...I'm not that smart.

I think you need to read what you wrote: If people are 'going to stay in anyway' how are they trading control of their life away for the bonus? Aren't they trading control of their life already by choosing to continue to stay in, regardless of the bonus? A PCS comes with a 2 year commitment, transfer of Post 9-11 GI bill benefits to dependents (if done after initial commitments are met, which often happens to dudes waiting to have kids) has a 4 year commitment, a special school/crossflow comes with a commitment... I know what you are trying to say, but it doesn't make sense for people wanting to go to 20 or beyond. I agree that it may not be worth it for someone who is on the fence about what do when their original ADSC has expired.

Fuck the SOFA, who cares? Obama will send in 'drones' regardless if we have a SOFA or not. Here's what it comes down to--the administration knows that the Taliban will most likely regain (more) power in one form or another once we leave...they just don't want it to have an adverse affect on their popularity and upcoming elections. After this 'swap' if I were a Taliban fighter (or at least trying to think as a Taliban fighter thinks), my morale woud be much improved. The Taliban also knows what we're willing to trade...this swap set up something of an 'exchange rate'. You never know what something or someone is worth until the transaction actually occurs. I am more fearful for my brothers in harm's way than I was before this deal. And going off of Bergdahl's Dad's deleted tweet, I'm sure he's happy to have his son back, but disappointed that more detainees weren't released in the process. You can call that brash, but I'm strictly going off of be message he sent to the entire world off of the subject.

GOP was damn near powerless in 2009-2010, hence we got Obamacare without a single Republican vote, so it was all Dems keeping it open/not closing it in the beginning of the Obama administration. You are correct though, both parties want to keep it open because no one wants to be responsible for the potential crap storm that could come from closing it. This is what happens when the government gets as big as it is right now (it's been this way for a very long time)--politicians do not want to show real leadership and risk doing something so damaging that they'll lose power. Political power allows politicians of both parties to further their agenda, which is often more focused at home than abroad. To tie it back to this thread--so now that we got Bergdahl back, why not declare the Afghan War officially over/completed and start a rapid withdrawal? Why wait until 2016?