Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

General Discussion

TwilightGardener

(46,416 posts)

16. We are trying to limit their movements (asking Turkey to better secure borders, for example)

Reply to DirkGently (Reply #15)

Sat Sep 13, 2014, 03:48 PM

Sep 2014

and we're looking to cut funding and black markets that support them. We are also pushing political reconciliation with the new government. But that wouldn't solve the immediate problem of, say, the Mosul dam, the Baghdad Green Zone, the Haditha dam, Erbil, Yazidis, Turkmen Shia, etc. For that, you need some military action.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

28 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Wasn't Bergdahl release secured by paying a ransom to Terrorists? [View all] Savannahmann Sep 2014 OP

No. JoePhilly Sep 2014 #1

+1000 Shankapotomus Sep 2014 #17

Yup. Agschmid Sep 2014 #27

In many ways IS is more like the Taliban than it is like AQ. morningfog Sep 2014 #2

they wanted $132 million for mr. foley. a prisoner exchange probably didn't exist for isis. spanone Sep 2014 #3

Bergdahl = property of US Government, abducted in combat zone by hostile forces TwilightGardener Sep 2014 #4

ie political interest just like the oil. liberal_at_heart Sep 2014 #5

I think the Obama administration definitely wanted all hostages back, military, civilian, TwilightGardener Sep 2014 #6

Then why not do the same thing for the journalist that they did for Bergdahl? liberal_at_heart Sep 2014 #7

How could they? They are entirely different circumstances. TwilightGardener Sep 2014 #8

They could have payed the money or they could have sent a team into to rescue him. liberal_at_heart Sep 2014 #9

THEY SENT IN SPECIAL FORCES TO RESCUE THEM!!!! TwilightGardener Sep 2014 #10

Who says they would be able too? Agschmid Sep 2014 #28

A prisoner exchange is not a ransom. Spider Jerusalem Sep 2014 #11

True, confusing definitions is what Fox News does....as in when is a war a "war".... Fred Sanders Sep 2014 #14

Isn't it? Savannahmann Sep 2014 #18

No, it's not. Spider Jerusalem Sep 2014 #19

But we already did. Savannahmann Sep 2014 #20

Prisoner exchange is not ransom. Spider Jerusalem Sep 2014 #21

No, the Taliban is not a terrorist organization according to the State Department SickOfTheOnePct Sep 2014 #25

So if you follow the "prisoners = currency" model like the Israelis do Blue_Tires Sep 2014 #23

it's part of what muddies the policy, in addition to the fact that corp exec use insurance and nashville_brook Sep 2014 #12

Diplomatic solution? What diplomatic solution would there possibly be to the immediate TwilightGardener Sep 2014 #13

As you keep saying, $$ is the problem. DirkGently Sep 2014 #15

We are trying to limit their movements (asking Turkey to better secure borders, for example) TwilightGardener Sep 2014 #16

Your welcome to your war. GeorgeGist Sep 2014 #22

It's not "my war" or anything I want. I just don't know what the alternative is TwilightGardener Sep 2014 #24

No. Those prisoners had been slated for release Ilsa Sep 2014 #26