Is this administration exchanging terrorist prisoners for hostages?

[#98QBKiller]

Here are some FACTS for you to chew on: Unemployment has gotten worse since the fella YOU VOTED FOR became "president." People and businesses are still not getting loans since the fella YOU VOTED FOR became "president." Jobs have gone away since this guy became "president."

Fact: the national unemployment rate has risen every month since April of 2008, way before Obama was even elected.

Fact: The Obama Administration and economists warned that the recession would not stop until the end of 2009.

He and his pals in Congress QUADRUPLED the National Deficit since he became "president, " on a scheme that has NO TRACK RECORD of ever really fixing an economy.

I guess you can come up with those stats if you believe that Bush recorded everything into his budget that Obama has. And I guess you can forget that bailout money has to be paid back with interest, and I guess you can forget that businesses are already paying up for their TARP.

Hey, how is the STIMULUS working out for you?

Most stimulus money hasn't been spent yet.

Wants some more FACTS? Oh, and the tired argument of "but he inherited a big mess from Bush," is not going to work anymore. He promised the moon, and he cannot deliver.

Did he or didn't he? That's a yes or no question BTW.

Once you answer yes, tell me what President or Administration could fix this mess in 5 months? It's going to take his entire term before things are running smoothly again and that's exactly what he promised. I don't remember this nonsense about the moon.

[LaxBuddy21]

Did he or didn't he? That's a yes or no question BTW.

Once you answer yes, tell me what President or Administration could fix this mess in 5 months? It's going to take his entire term before things are running smoothly again and that's exactly what he promised. I don't remember this nonsense about the moon.

Sorry, I give the president a lot of slack because I know the mess he was getting into but he did promise the moon. That is how he got elected by promising all these things that people believed were going to happen. He has failed on so many promises so far its not funny. Fortunately, I did not believe a word that was coming out of his mouth and knew that he would never be able to deliver what he was promising. Because of that, overall I think he is doing a decent job so far (minus a few points). But to say that he did not promise the moon during his campaign is naive.

[Bang]

The other option could be a military coup perhaps, ala the movie "Seven Days in May," with Kirk Douglas and Burt Lancaster. You may be surprised to know that Americans DIDN'T vote for America to give up Democracy in favor of Socialism and Communism. It's been 6 months, and this Obama Presidency has made America WORSE.....a lot WORSE, and there is no relief in sight. People and businesses still are not getting loans, and jobs are getting harder and harder to find. The Dems have the White House AND the CONGRESS! Where are the jobs, Dems? Where? Where is the STIMULUS for the PEOPLE?

40 months and count.......

A coup, eh?

6 months in and you want a military coup?

:hysterical:

Seriously, you should take this act on the road.

or at least so far as to lay down in the middle of one.

~Bang

[skinfan133]

I agree with that, but it seems to me that nations are trying to negotiate peace treaties with terrorists constantly... especially if we include the Palestine/Israeli conflict. People are often bartering or urging others to barter peace for this or that. When the U.S. negotiated with Arafat that was us negotiating with terrorists for peace or a return of hostages, etc.

I don't think the terrorist component is key here and sometimes I think the definition of a terrorist is blurred. There are certainly nations that I consider terrorist nations. Yet there are also groups with a nation that are terrorist independent of the wishes of its citizens or governments.

We seem to drop and add that terrorist label at our convenience sometimes. As we did when we trained and supplied the terrorists in Afghanistan to make life miserable for the Soviets.

absolutely, we have a double standard when we negotiate with certain groups and fund others.

my comments were mostly directed at JMS for his shaky grasp of American history (however obscure the topic may be).

[Bang]

War is the ultimate negotiation tool. Unless you can force unconditional surrender on an enemy, you will negotiate for peace, or you will continue fighting until one or the other of you unconditionally surrenders.

If during the pursuance of war you must negotiate with the enemy to bring about peace, occasionally that means a prisoner exchange. POWs are almost all guilty of murdering someone. It depends on the perspective you choose to look at war. It doesn't make much sense to say your men are soldiers, but the enemy's are murderers. Both kill in the pursuit of their objectives.

I note that the article mentions this terrorist we let go was in exchange for British soldiers. Could be they asked us for help in this matter?

As usual, I'm sure there's much more to this than what is on the surface, but the surface is the only place you see the ripples.

~Bang

[skinfan133]

Wrong.

The first "barbary war" of 1801-1805 Jefferson actually Invaded them while negotiating a treaty, and abruptly withdrew support for the Invasion ( 3-4 marines and an former diplomatic console) when the treaty was signed. Jefferson ended up paying the Barbary pirates more than they were actually asking! Our "Invasion" failed. We paid off the Barbary Pirates.

You are thinking of the second Barbary war a decade latter. ( 1815)

I honestly think you're trying to remember something you heard a long time ago and are making up the other half as you go. That's just not right. see my first post.

[Madison Redskin]

Care to explain what you mean by this?

You don't want to hear the answer. When you hear someone say they want the President to die, you know you've either walked into a (a) looney bin or ( a crowd of far right-wing conservatives. I think the latter should be put into the former.

[#98QBKiller]

You don't want to hear the answer. When you hear people talking about hoping the President dies, you know you've either walked into a (a) looney bin or ( a crowd of far right-wing conservatives. I think the latter should be put into the former.

It's pretty ****ing sad IMO. People can't let go of their Michael Moore/Rush Limbaugh politics long enough to realize that as an American you should never wish that on your Commander in Chief. As much beef as I had with the way that the Bush Administration ran things I'd never wish that on the President of the United States.

[Heisenberg]

Would be nice if someone paid him a visit for that remark.

I have a feeling he would soil himself.

[Bang]

Would be nice if someone paid him a visit for that remark.

I have a feeling he would soil himself.

Could be someone did. They tend to not take threats on the President lightly, regardless of context or source.

~Bang

[#98QBKiller]

Would be nice if someone paid him a visit for that remark.

I have a feeling he would soil himself.

I'd love for that to happen and I agree with Bang, that's not something to be taken lightly and they sure don't take it lightly.

[Madison Redskin]

Threats to the President should be referred to your local field office, http://www.secretservice.gov/field_offices.shtml

Just sayin'

[Predicto]

War is the ultimate negotiation tool. Unless you can force unconditional surrender on an enemy, you will negotiate for peace, or you will continue fighting until one or the other of you unconditionally surrenders.

If during the pursuance of war you must negotiate with the enemy to bring about peace, occasionally that means a prisoner exchange. POWs are almost all guilty of murdering someone. It depends on the perspective you choose to look at war. It doesn't make much sense to say your men are soldiers, but the enemy's are murderers. Both kill in the pursuit of their objectives.

I note that the article mentions this terrorist we let go was in exchange for British soldiers. Could be they asked us for help in this matter?

As usual, I'm sure there's much more to this than what is on the surface, but the surface is the only place you see the ripples.

~Bang

And of course, you must also consider the source of the analysis. Andrew C. McCarthy of the National Review. He is not exactly considered an unbiased observer.

[JMS]

your grasp of the Barbary Wars is shaky.

I'm your huckleberry..

the first barbary war eneded in a treaty with stipulations for a prisoner exchange. the US government paid the difference in the number of prisoners (like a hundred people or something) in dollars to the Bashaw. it was not tribute.

Actually you are wrong again. We were paying the Barbary pirates tribute before, durring, and after the first Barbary war 1801-1805.... $80,000 before. Then we paid $200,0000 during the war ( actually beginning of the war ).... Then we paid after the war was concluded. It wasn't until 1815 in the second Barbary war that we stopped paying Tribute, which was paid in addition to ransom.

http://memory.loc.gov/ammem/collections/jefferson_papers/mtjprece.html

After the United States won its independence in the treaty of 1783, it had to protect its own commerce against dangers such as the Barbary pirates. As early as 1784 Congress followed the tradition of the European shipping powers and appropriated $80,000 as tribute to the Barbary states,

In fact, it was not until the second war with Algiers, in 1815, that naval victories by Commodores William Bainbridge and Stephen Decatur led to treaties ending all tribute payments by the United States.

The Jefferson administration argued the 60,000 pounds was ransom for the 300 sailors to end the first Barbary War, was not Tribute, but ransom. That goes along with the 20,000 the pasha had already extorted out of our squadron of naval vessels when they arrested and ransomed the American Admiral to begin the war.

What I was talking about was the Tribute which we paid before and after the first barbary war, not the ransom for our admiral $200,000 or the ransom for our 300 sailors $60k.

the treaty was a direct result of the invasion in which the Marines owned the barbary forces.

All four of the Marines which took part in the invasion of the Barbary coast under Captain William Eaton, "owned" the barbary forces of thousands? You should read the story of Willima Eaton... He basically financed the invasion on his own and almost pulled it off with fewer than a handfull of Marines, until Tobias Lear ( Jefferson's henchman ) sabatoged him and got all naval support removed from the expidition.

secondly, the barbary pirates were not terrorists. international criminals yes, but terrorists no. they had what can be described as a loose confederacy and diplomatic ties with other nations.

Protection racket

treaties are not negotions, they are the end agreement. a peace treaty is not negotiating with terrorists.

It is whan you are paying for peace, against a group of extortionists who are threatening your ships with destruction if you don't pay them.

[JMS]

I honestly think you're trying to remember something you heard a long time ago and are making up the other half as you go. That's just not right. see my first post.

No it's perfectly correct. Here is what happenned.

We were paying tribute to the Barbary pirates before and after the first Barbary war. Our console to the Barbary parates was a John Adams appointee named William Eaton. Eaton was one of the great American rockheads of history.

So the Barbary pirates raid Sardinia off the coast of Italy looking for slaves/ prisoners to ransom. And they capture the young Royal Anna Maria Porcile and take her back to be held for ransom. Her despirate family travel to Trippoli to pay the ransom, but can't raise the cash because of the Napolionic wars and the general termoil in Europe. The Great European powers turn them down for credit. So her families last shot is a newly independent republic of the United States, and our counsol Capt William Eaton; who is so outraged by the ransom, that he puts up a United States Note in exchange for the young royal.... After six months the family of the young royal still can't pay, so the debt becomes delinquant and the US is now on the hook for the money. When word get's back to the United States John Adams is no longer in office Jefferson is, and Jefferson is like "You did What?"

So in an effort to collect the debt the Pasha of Trippoli, arrests the United States Commodore Richard Morris Feb 1803, and holds him until Eaton's debt is paid. The floatila of three heavily armed United States ships pay the $20,000 ransom and agree's to remove Eaton as Console.

Eaton is taken home in disgrace and the Pasha now with a wet beak is looking for more US Shipping. When the USS Philidelphia runs aground in Trippoli Oct 1803, her crew is enslaved and Jefferson is enraged.

Now Jefferson needs a man with military experience who knows Trippoli to invade Trippoli. The only man who fits that build is Captain of the Revolutionary Army William Eaton, recently console to Trippoli. Jefferson asks Eaton's advice, and Eaton formulates a plan to remove the Pasha on a shoe string budget. Eaton agrees to return to Trippoli and implement his plan.

Eaton is dispatched with a hand full of promises, a single ship for support, and four marines. Eaton's plan is to find the former Pasha of Trippoli Hamet Karamanli, raise an army on a shoe string mostly on promises and his own charisma and depose the new Pasha of Trippoli who is causeing all the trouble. Which Eaton pretty much does... raising the army and invading..

Problem is Jefferson also dispatches Tobias Lear, behind Eaton's back to negotiate a peace treaty with the Pasha because he never expects Eaton to suceed. Lear is one of the truely unscroupulous men in American History. He had leveraged his place as keeper of George Washington's private secretary and Keeper of GW's papers after Washingtons death, into political capital; destroying sensitive unflattering letters Washington wrote about politically powerful people like Jefferson, in exchange for favors. Lear ended up negotiating a generous new treaty with the now motivated Pasha and yanked all of Eaton's military support, After Eaton had invaded and had some sucess with his mercenary army which was basically created on Eaton's credit and bluff.

[JMS]

I'd appreciate some links with your rebuttals.

I put links with most of my points.

What exactly did I say that was "wrong?" We crushed the Barbary threat.

Actually you said the Marines crushed the barbary threat. Which was wrong. There weren't many Marines in the First Barbary war. It's also factually incorrect to say we crushed anybody in that war. Jefferson (Tobias Lear) pulled the carpet out from Under Captain William Eaton after the first battle after they captured one city.

Then we started paying them again.

In our nascency, we realized very early that negotiating might not protect our interests. Can't fault Jefferson (a diplomat at heart) for negotiating with puppets of a foreign government regardless of how crass.

Negotiating extortion payments.. Hell yes you can fault Jefferson for

1. Double dealing behind the back of his military commanders.
   
2. Being an idiot and snuffing out what might have been a pretty serious military victory for a young country on the eve of sucess.
   
3. For not recognizing William Eaton's gifts and instead siding with a dishonest, disreputable, scoundral in Tobias Lear.
   
4. For not providing Eaton with the materials he needed to carry out his plan and forcing him to finance most of it himself, to his economic detriment.
   
5. Finally for paying extortion to terrorists in echange for safe passage; something the United States didn't enjoy for very long from the Barbary Piirates. Requiring us to return to the battle in 1815 for the second Barbary war.
   

Eventually, though, Americans felt humiliated paying off a bunch of knife-sucking thugs in blousy pants. That’s what led to the Barbary Wars, first in 1801 when Jefferson became president, and again in 1815, when James Madison sent the United States Navy to shell the Barbary Coast. The battles became the stuff of legend — “the shores of Tripoli” in the Marine Hymn — and were critical in developing the nation’s young Navy.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/12/weekinreview/12gettleman.html

What lead to the first barbary war was Captain William Eaton signing a letter of credit for the family of a young royal who was kidnaped from Sardinia by the pirates. And Jefferson crawfishing on the Debt. That caused the Barbary pirates to capture and ransom our comador, capture and ransom American crews, and the subsequent invasion of their terriroty by the largely mercenary army lead by the same Captain William Eaton.

I'm simply advocating for lessons learned.

It's classic to change the subject after loosing the argument. Fact is Jefferson and Adam's before him were dealing and negotiationg with terrorists. Folks who were using violence to extortion money from world trading powers.

[Koolblue13]

...yeah, for a socialistic terror-tolerating society. America's ****ed... Need impeachment... or the other fabulous option

FWIW, when I read this, I though "revolution" not assassination.

[Madison Redskin]

FWIW, when I read this, I though "revolution" not assassination.

Either way, it's not good. Praying for our democratically elected government to be overthrown or our democratically elected President's death puts you in line with the Timothy McVeighs, not the Thomas Jeffersons, of the world. Sadly, that kind of sentiment is becoming quite common amongst the members of the far right....who suffer from paranoid delusions.

[Bliz]

FWIW, when I read this, I though "revolution" not assassination.

So maybe he only advocates violent overthrow of our democratically elected government, instead of assassination of the president?

well that's a relief.

[Henry]

FWIW, when I read this, I though "revolution" not assassination.

I'm pretty sure the First Amendment doesn't cover either.

[Mark The Homer]

It's breaking my heart to see this administration tear down this country block by block.

HOPE!! CHANGE!!

...yeah, for a socialistic terror-tolerating society. America's ****ed... Need impeachment... or the other fabulous option

Honejc - you've been here less than a month and this is at least the second time I've had to engage you - and I don't even know about the other staff.

Clean this post up or you're going to be taking a long vacation.

[Koolblue13]

I'm pretty sure the First Amendment doesn't cover either.

I am a free man. The First Amendment covers what the government is allowed to do. I can say or think whatever I want.

When the gov't starts telling me I can't and make laws that over steps it's bounds (patriot act), then I, as a free man and an American, can call for revolution until I am blue in the face. Just like you're free to tell me I am crazy.

our democratically elected government,

our democratically elected government

our democratically elected President's.

Oh, buzz words. So much fun.

in line with the Timothy McVeighs, not the Thomas Jeffersons, of the world

That comment is so wrong on so many levels.

that kind of sentiment is becoming quite common amongst the members of the far right....who suffer from paranoid delusions.

And then the ever popular partisan cheap shot, that not only adds intelligence and validity to any conversation, but is so effective at really letting folks know that different views mean you're crazy.

[Mordac]

Yeah, I don't think "not negotiating with terrorists" has ever been any kind of official policy. Certainly, if we had an Obama speech or policy position against it, and then actual proof of this going on with his sanction, then you could go after him for hypocrisy, but this sounds like standard operating procedure for the U.S. for decades now.

[Monte51Coleman]

Honejc - you've been here less than a month and this is at least the second time I've had to engage you - and I don't even know about the other staff.

Clean this post up or you're going to be taking a long vacation.

I'm very surprised it's only the second time.

This reminds me of one of the lines in Dos Equis 'the most interesting man in the world' ads:

He is opposed to cruelty to animals, but isn't against a stern warning.

[Madison Redskin]

And then the ever popular partisan cheap shot, that not only adds intelligence and validity to any conversation, but is so effective at really letting folks know that different views mean you're crazy.

Four years ago, when Michael Moore came out with Fahrenheit 9/11, I was railing against people like him on the far left. It just so happens that a Dem is in office now, so the wingnuts from the right are out in full force and the ones on the left aren't. And, I never said anyone who holds a different point of view is crazy. I said members of the far right, who comprise a very small but vocal minority of the right, are nuts.