23
23
0
I did not write this article though I agree with many points. I will discuss/debate but, please do not personally attack me. Again, I did not write the article.
By Salil Puri
With the Army’s announcement today that Bowe Bergdahl will be charged with desertion, soldiers all over were elated. At the same time, many troops, veterans, and politicians seized on these charges to once again attack the President over the negotiation and trade of five Afghan Taliban prisoners for Bergdahl. They are all wrong. You might be too. Now, many of you are already probably angry, maybe even starting to foam at the mouth. I understand that. Take a deep breath, and try to second guess yourself. Think about why you might be wrong. Think of it as an exercise in critical thinking. Consider, for just one moment, that there might be factors you aren’t aware of, or that hadn’t been presented to you before. Let’s walk down that road for a moment, shall we?
First, the President did not trade Bergdahl, E-5 type (he won’t be honored here by reference to his rank) for five terrorists. He was exchanged for five prisoners of the recognized and deposed Afghan government. Neither Clinton, Bush, or Obama ever had the Afghan Taliban labeled as a Foreign Terrorist Organization. They were a government that both Clinton and Bush recognized, and even provided foreign aid to, before 9/11. We exchanged Redcoats for prisoners during the Revolution, Nazis for POWs in WWII, and Viet Cong for GI’s in Vietnam. Prisoner exchanges are a legal and robust part of American military history.
Secondly, it is a sacred responsibility for the President to recover captured troops. It doesn’t matter that Bergdahl is a shitbag, it doesn’t matter that he deserted. What matters is that he was an enlisted man in the US Army, and an American. How many Afghan lives do you think are worth an American service-member’s?
Now, many people who are certain he deserted are saying the President shouldn’t have traded for Bergdahl because Bergdahl deserted. Many of these people despise the President with a deep-rooted partisan loathing. Some of those people might even be reading this right now. So, take a moment, think about what you’ve been arguing. You want to give the President, a man you despise, carte blanche to abdicate his duty towards men and women in uniform, based on allegations? Really? Follow that rabbit hole down for a minute, and see where it leads.
A soldier, or perhaps a diplomat, or maybe an intelligence officer, gets abducted overseas. Maybe this individual has some public or private disagreement with some high ranking member of the Executive Office. Perhaps if enough people are convinced the abductee is traitorous, he is labeled an Enemy of the State. So then we don’t demand the President do everything he can to recover this individual? Are you comfortable with that? Probably not, but that’s exactly what many people are advocating the President should have done. What about you?
So let’s talk about allegations. Allegations are not charges. Charges are not convictions. I am 99.5% convinced that Bergdahl deserted his post. But neither my opinion nor yours matters one whit, because all of us who wear the uniform swore an oath to defend the US Constitution. That beloved document speaks to a concept known as Due Process. Within UCMJ, Bergdahl is guaranteed that due process, just like everyone else in uniform. Are we a nation of laws, or a nation of men, where rights are tossed out because the man in question isn’t winning any popularity contests?
Bergdhal is one of ours. He’s an American soldier. He has a history of mental illness, and the Army enlisted him despite his rejection by the US Coast Guard. Mentally ill people often do irrational things. That doesn’t excuse his behavior, and he will be tried in a Court Martial. If convicted, he will likely be stripped of his rank, forfeit pay, and hopefully spend a long time in prison. I bear not ounce ounce of sympathy for Bergdahl. Nor do I ask you to. I merely ask that you recognize that he is a uniformed soldier who has been accused of a grave crime, and it is up to us, America, and the United States Army, to charge, try, convict, and punish him. That’s our right, our responsibility, not the Haqqani Network’s.
Now, if you’re still angry with me, the floor is yours.
Salil Puri is an NCO and member of the Psychological Operations regiment. With an undergraduate degree in four disciplines, psychology, history, government, and Middle Eastern Studies, and an MA in security policy, Mr. Puri applies his military and academic background to solving world problems and making people angry, as he assuredly just did. A consultant with the Culper Group, he can be reached via [login to see] . The opinions expressed here are his alone, not the Army’s not the Culper Group’s, not The Rhino Den’s, just his.
http://rhinoden.rangerup.com/why-youre-wrong-about-the-president-and-bergdahl/
By Salil Puri
With the Army’s announcement today that Bowe Bergdahl will be charged with desertion, soldiers all over were elated. At the same time, many troops, veterans, and politicians seized on these charges to once again attack the President over the negotiation and trade of five Afghan Taliban prisoners for Bergdahl. They are all wrong. You might be too. Now, many of you are already probably angry, maybe even starting to foam at the mouth. I understand that. Take a deep breath, and try to second guess yourself. Think about why you might be wrong. Think of it as an exercise in critical thinking. Consider, for just one moment, that there might be factors you aren’t aware of, or that hadn’t been presented to you before. Let’s walk down that road for a moment, shall we?
First, the President did not trade Bergdahl, E-5 type (he won’t be honored here by reference to his rank) for five terrorists. He was exchanged for five prisoners of the recognized and deposed Afghan government. Neither Clinton, Bush, or Obama ever had the Afghan Taliban labeled as a Foreign Terrorist Organization. They were a government that both Clinton and Bush recognized, and even provided foreign aid to, before 9/11. We exchanged Redcoats for prisoners during the Revolution, Nazis for POWs in WWII, and Viet Cong for GI’s in Vietnam. Prisoner exchanges are a legal and robust part of American military history.
Secondly, it is a sacred responsibility for the President to recover captured troops. It doesn’t matter that Bergdahl is a shitbag, it doesn’t matter that he deserted. What matters is that he was an enlisted man in the US Army, and an American. How many Afghan lives do you think are worth an American service-member’s?
Now, many people who are certain he deserted are saying the President shouldn’t have traded for Bergdahl because Bergdahl deserted. Many of these people despise the President with a deep-rooted partisan loathing. Some of those people might even be reading this right now. So, take a moment, think about what you’ve been arguing. You want to give the President, a man you despise, carte blanche to abdicate his duty towards men and women in uniform, based on allegations? Really? Follow that rabbit hole down for a minute, and see where it leads.
A soldier, or perhaps a diplomat, or maybe an intelligence officer, gets abducted overseas. Maybe this individual has some public or private disagreement with some high ranking member of the Executive Office. Perhaps if enough people are convinced the abductee is traitorous, he is labeled an Enemy of the State. So then we don’t demand the President do everything he can to recover this individual? Are you comfortable with that? Probably not, but that’s exactly what many people are advocating the President should have done. What about you?
So let’s talk about allegations. Allegations are not charges. Charges are not convictions. I am 99.5% convinced that Bergdahl deserted his post. But neither my opinion nor yours matters one whit, because all of us who wear the uniform swore an oath to defend the US Constitution. That beloved document speaks to a concept known as Due Process. Within UCMJ, Bergdahl is guaranteed that due process, just like everyone else in uniform. Are we a nation of laws, or a nation of men, where rights are tossed out because the man in question isn’t winning any popularity contests?
Bergdhal is one of ours. He’s an American soldier. He has a history of mental illness, and the Army enlisted him despite his rejection by the US Coast Guard. Mentally ill people often do irrational things. That doesn’t excuse his behavior, and he will be tried in a Court Martial. If convicted, he will likely be stripped of his rank, forfeit pay, and hopefully spend a long time in prison. I bear not ounce ounce of sympathy for Bergdahl. Nor do I ask you to. I merely ask that you recognize that he is a uniformed soldier who has been accused of a grave crime, and it is up to us, America, and the United States Army, to charge, try, convict, and punish him. That’s our right, our responsibility, not the Haqqani Network’s.
Now, if you’re still angry with me, the floor is yours.
Salil Puri is an NCO and member of the Psychological Operations regiment. With an undergraduate degree in four disciplines, psychology, history, government, and Middle Eastern Studies, and an MA in security policy, Mr. Puri applies his military and academic background to solving world problems and making people angry, as he assuredly just did. A consultant with the Culper Group, he can be reached via [login to see] . The opinions expressed here are his alone, not the Army’s not the Culper Group’s, not The Rhino Den’s, just his.
http://rhinoden.rangerup.com/why-youre-wrong-about-the-president-and-bergdahl/
Bergdahl
Desertion
Edited >1 y ago
Posted >1 y ago
Responses: 39
16
16
0
There is an emotional response that doesn't change with Bergdahl's return after the exchange, doesn't change with his being charged and doesn't change even if, as the author asks, I conduct this exercise in critical thinking.
Having a soldier taken from your unit is the worse feeling imaginable. I would offer it is worse then the feeling of losing a soldier because of the sense of urgency you have to do everything with in your (the individual and the unit) power to recover the soldier back to safety, knowing the entire time that most of these situations end in the death of the captive, often with the loss of other lives in the process.
I would dispute the inference that this was a sensible trade. There was enough information that this person left voluntarily and having served in that specific area of that country, there was plenty of open source information that he was not only there voluntarily, he was thought to have helped the enemy influencers in that area with their efforts against the Afghan and coalition security forces.
The one criticism of our administration would be that we gave too much for too little. I do not know, and because of the process used I am not sure who knows, but what deals were rejected before we agreed to the 5 for 1 trade which occurred.
In the end, while it is a thought-provoking piece, I do not think it will do more than that. What Bergdahl is accused of doing is a terrible, terrible act and I empathize with the members of his storied unit as they share their stories and emit strong, negative emotion towards him. I do not need to rethink my feelings on this, nor will I implore others to either. Uncharacteristically, I will smile when he is convicted, hopefully incarcerated for a long, long time.
Having a soldier taken from your unit is the worse feeling imaginable. I would offer it is worse then the feeling of losing a soldier because of the sense of urgency you have to do everything with in your (the individual and the unit) power to recover the soldier back to safety, knowing the entire time that most of these situations end in the death of the captive, often with the loss of other lives in the process.
I would dispute the inference that this was a sensible trade. There was enough information that this person left voluntarily and having served in that specific area of that country, there was plenty of open source information that he was not only there voluntarily, he was thought to have helped the enemy influencers in that area with their efforts against the Afghan and coalition security forces.
The one criticism of our administration would be that we gave too much for too little. I do not know, and because of the process used I am not sure who knows, but what deals were rejected before we agreed to the 5 for 1 trade which occurred.
In the end, while it is a thought-provoking piece, I do not think it will do more than that. What Bergdahl is accused of doing is a terrible, terrible act and I empathize with the members of his storied unit as they share their stories and emit strong, negative emotion towards him. I do not need to rethink my feelings on this, nor will I implore others to either. Uncharacteristically, I will smile when he is convicted, hopefully incarcerated for a long, long time.
(16)
(0)
1LT William Clardy
He didn't skip any ranks, PFC Don Palumbo. It's part of the administrative protocol for soldiers who are held as P.O.W.s -- they are automatically promoted alongside their peers, so that they don't suffer the additional indignity upon their return of being the most senior junior-ranking member of their unit. Bergdahl could not be charged or tried in absentia, so he had to be classified as a P.O.W., not an arrestee.
Kind of grates on you when you think about it, doesn't it? The only way to end the bureaucratic charade was to court martial him, and the only way to do that required negotiating his release.
Kind of grates on you when you think about it, doesn't it? The only way to end the bureaucratic charade was to court martial him, and the only way to do that required negotiating his release.
(0)
(0)
PFC Don Palumbo
1LT William Clardy - Personally I think its stupid. But what IS ,IS. Nothing like the Army I was in 1958-1962. He would have been taken out and shot back then. No crying liberals in those days. Good luck with your career LT. And many thanks for serving our country. I salute you Sir.
(0)
(0)
1LT William Clardy
He couldn't have been taken out and shot until after he was repatriated, PFC Don Palumbo.
In all fairness, the bias in the regulations to treat soldiers who are MIA or captured by the enemy is much better than presuming that they deserted -- it is the case way more often than not. And I confess to preferring that trials in absentia remain a no-no because they void the right to confront one's accusers.
Thanks for the kind wishes, as well, but my career ended during the last millennium. But this retired lieutenant will gladly return the salute of a retired PFC. ;-)
In all fairness, the bias in the regulations to treat soldiers who are MIA or captured by the enemy is much better than presuming that they deserted -- it is the case way more often than not. And I confess to preferring that trials in absentia remain a no-no because they void the right to confront one's accusers.
Thanks for the kind wishes, as well, but my career ended during the last millennium. But this retired lieutenant will gladly return the salute of a retired PFC. ;-)
(0)
(0)
PFC Don Palumbo
Hi Lt, Its nice to know that you retired. I assume honorably. I hope you are enjoying your retirement. As to Bergdahl, I believe that he left a note when he took off. I believe the note said he was leaving. I don't know about you, but I believe that is desertion in the face of the enemy. Thanks for your salute Lt. By the way I'm 100% disabled, I guess that makes me retired.
(0)
(0)
11
11
0
I appreciate the different perspective --- not that it changed mine --- thanks for sharing!
(11)
(0)
8
8
0
For starters, I'm a big fan of the RhinoDen articles.
I think Mr. Puri provides a logical, unemotional argument to a situation that has obviously become very emotionally charged. At the end of the day, Bergdahl was still an American servicemember being held overseas after we sent him there. We had an obligation to return him home, just as we have an obligation to provide him due process.
I think Mr. Puri provides a logical, unemotional argument to a situation that has obviously become very emotionally charged. At the end of the day, Bergdahl was still an American servicemember being held overseas after we sent him there. We had an obligation to return him home, just as we have an obligation to provide him due process.
(8)
(0)
5
5
0
Thanks for posting this CSM (Join to see). I think if another member who wasn't as respected tried to post this it would have been a disaster. When the media gets a whiff of something controversial, they plaster it all over the media and it gets tried in the courts of public opinion. People have to have their day in court, regardless of what we know, what we think we know, and how we feel. That being said, I'm dying to see what his defense will be.
(5)
(0)
CSM (Join to see)
SFC Mark Merino
Completely agree with you, I am also interested in the defense as well as the prosecution. Looks like some of the defense has "leaked" already...I am feeling a strong behavioral health defense in the making.
Completely agree with you, I am also interested in the defense as well as the prosecution. Looks like some of the defense has "leaked" already...I am feeling a strong behavioral health defense in the making.
(1)
(0)
5
5
0
I think we all need to take a step back and evaluate our collective responses to this entire situation. While I'm happy to see charges finally leveled against Bergdhal, I think it is just as important that we remain respectful to Due Process. There are a lot of things we as the general public do not know or totally understand yet. And while you don't have to agree with the trade that eventually brought him back under US control, as the article states, trading of people for our own has happened in every conflict we ever been a part of. While I don't fully agree with it or the way it went down, it is something that has been done in the past and you'll never see a "like for like" trade of prisoners. Keep in mind, its like when sport teams trade players, you aren't going to trade your starting QB and expect to get the other teams starting QB, most of the time you get some 1st or 2nd string player and a draft pick.
(5)
(0)
(1)
(0)
CSM (Join to see)
SGT Ben Keen
Nice comparison to the sports team. Personally, I think he definitely needed to be recovered but, I think it was a poor trade by the general manager.
Nice comparison to the sports team. Personally, I think he definitely needed to be recovered but, I think it was a poor trade by the general manager.
(2)
(0)
SGT Ben Keen
I fully agree with you CSM (Join to see), sometimes the GM does what he think is best based on the field reports but when the player reports to practice, the team quickly learns the stats are a little misleading.
(1)
(0)
4
4
0
I still think we should wait for the Military Court to do it's job. I will not post my personal opinion until Court is over.
(4)
(0)
CPT (Join to see)
SGM Mikel Dawson, I respect and agree with that decision. I too have many personal opinions about this case (I only share them privately with family) but I will not discuss this in depth publicly. I have trust and confidence in the military justice system and I will let that process pass judgement before I join the mob and pass judgement and sentencing in the kangaroo court of public opinion.
(2)
(0)
LTC (Join to see)
I can definitely agree with that. The courts need to decide. My only comment would be that we as Soldiers agree to follow orders and do things we do not necessarily want to do, that is part of the job. We also, as adults and Americans, have to be willing to accept the consequences of our decisions, be the positive or negative consequences. He made a choice and has to accept what comes of that choice. When the court makes its choice the rest of us will have to accept that as well.
(0)
(0)
4
4
0
First trading a soldier for prisoners I can agree with HOWEVER we traded the equivalent of 5 generals for a private. We should have not agreed to them there are hundreds of others we could have looked at. Would you free Charles Manson? Hitler or Jack the Ripper?
I hear we negotiated, who did? Did congress approve of this where they notified.
Regardless of the rank we don't give the enemy a trade that benefits them and not 5 times.
I hear we negotiated, who did? Did congress approve of this where they notified.
Regardless of the rank we don't give the enemy a trade that benefits them and not 5 times.
(4)
(0)
PO1 Glenn Boucher
100% agree. I could see a 1 for 1 exchange but a 5 for 1 in the enemies favor? Not friggin equal by any means. Some people on other sites keep bringing up other prisoner exchanges, like those spies traded for other spies, prisoner exchanges from previous wars, yes they were done but it was equal trades. I give you 10 captured soldiers and you give me 10 soldiers of equal value back. I don't give you 10 officers for 10 enlisted in return.
(1)
(0)
(0)
(0)
4
4
0
As much as I would selfishly like to see him be the exception, I agree pretty much entirely with sgt puri. Emotion makes me want the rash decision. But realistically, I think it is not only a better choice, but the ethically right choice, to see due process take its course. To not respect it is no different than his actions in my point of view.
Great find CSM (Join to see) . Thanks for sharing it.
Great find CSM (Join to see) . Thanks for sharing it.
(4)
(0)
SSG (Join to see)
To add...the due process is what we fight for everyday. Personal opinions and professionalism are two different things.
(2)
(0)
SGT (Join to see)
SSG (Join to see), exactly. At the end of the day, I think the right thing is going to happen. Instead of speculation (of which I'm guilty since I think it's pretty straightforward based on what I've read and been told by someone who helped search for him), this allows the world to hear everything and see how, if any (which I know is unlikely but still possible), the perception changes after the evidence from both sides is presented. And honestly, in our day to day lives, I hope that most of us choose to lead by example. What better way for our nation to show one of the unique aspects of a free nation than by giving him a fair day in court? We want Afghanistan and Iraq to choose a "free" government, and this is one of the few examples that they can see and say "Wow this is different, but not necessarily bad". Instead of forcing our way on them and making them resent us, why not lead from the front?
(2)
(0)
CSM (Join to see)
SGT (Join to see)
The only thing that making an emotionally charged opinion without all the facts does is, leave you disappointed in the outcome. There is a lot of legal stuff that is going to be brought up by the prosecution and defense. Military lawyers are actually very good at what they do, this is a high profile case and will make a name for lawyers on both sides, remember they still get OERs just like any other officer. I am sure there will be plenty of civilian representation on both sides as well.
We will see what happens. I am predicting a disappointing verdict to what most people, especially Soldiers are expecting.
The only thing that making an emotionally charged opinion without all the facts does is, leave you disappointed in the outcome. There is a lot of legal stuff that is going to be brought up by the prosecution and defense. Military lawyers are actually very good at what they do, this is a high profile case and will make a name for lawyers on both sides, remember they still get OERs just like any other officer. I am sure there will be plenty of civilian representation on both sides as well.
We will see what happens. I am predicting a disappointing verdict to what most people, especially Soldiers are expecting.
(1)
(0)
PO1 Glenn Boucher
The biggest negative in this situation I can see is that there is far too much political pandering going on. I have the utmost faith in our military justice system, I have seen it at work and it is in my opinion, far superior to any civilian judicial system.
I just hope that the judge does not feel any political heat from his superiors but I am pretty sure he will.
I won't get mad at the defense attorney, its his job to get the best possible outcome for his client, I am pretty sure he will bring up all kinds of meaningless crap to muddy the waters and try to instill doubt into the judges and juries minds.
I am fairly confident that the right decision will be reached in this case.
I just hope that the judge does not feel any political heat from his superiors but I am pretty sure he will.
I won't get mad at the defense attorney, its his job to get the best possible outcome for his client, I am pretty sure he will bring up all kinds of meaningless crap to muddy the waters and try to instill doubt into the judges and juries minds.
I am fairly confident that the right decision will be reached in this case.
(0)
(0)
4
4
0
It certainly is a different perspective. Unfortunatley it is off the mark. The writer seems to be hanging his hat on the FTO status of the Taliban in Afghanistan. A few facts:
The Taliban is not on the FTO list but they were added to the list of Specially Designated Global Terrorists (SDGT) by executive order in July of 2002. We are also offering 10 million for the capture of Mullah Omar as part of the rewards for justice program which fights international terrorism. The National Counterterrorism Center also lists “Taliban Presence in Afghanistan” on its global map of “Terrorist Groups.” It's sister groups, The Haqqani Network and the Pakistan Taliban are both on the FTO. It is believed the Haqqani network was holding Bergdahl for most of the time he was being held.
We are not under any obligation to bring deserters home. They make a decision to desert, it is on them. If we can reasonably get them and bring them back for trial, we should. This deal was beyond the pale and politically motivated. He makes a comparison to an operator being abducted overseas. That is an apples and oranges comparison.
Then, there are lines like this in the article: "So let’s talk about allegations. Allegations are not charges. Charges are not convictions. I am 99.5% convinced that Bergdahl deserted his post".
This article is a slippery attempt at sophistry and disimulation to defend a blatent move, outside of the law, by this administration. We negotiated for the release of 5 known terrorists commanders for an Army PFC deserter.
The Taliban is not on the FTO list but they were added to the list of Specially Designated Global Terrorists (SDGT) by executive order in July of 2002. We are also offering 10 million for the capture of Mullah Omar as part of the rewards for justice program which fights international terrorism. The National Counterterrorism Center also lists “Taliban Presence in Afghanistan” on its global map of “Terrorist Groups.” It's sister groups, The Haqqani Network and the Pakistan Taliban are both on the FTO. It is believed the Haqqani network was holding Bergdahl for most of the time he was being held.
We are not under any obligation to bring deserters home. They make a decision to desert, it is on them. If we can reasonably get them and bring them back for trial, we should. This deal was beyond the pale and politically motivated. He makes a comparison to an operator being abducted overseas. That is an apples and oranges comparison.
Then, there are lines like this in the article: "So let’s talk about allegations. Allegations are not charges. Charges are not convictions. I am 99.5% convinced that Bergdahl deserted his post".
This article is a slippery attempt at sophistry and disimulation to defend a blatent move, outside of the law, by this administration. We negotiated for the release of 5 known terrorists commanders for an Army PFC deserter.
(4)
(0)
CSM (Join to see)
Cpl Jeff N.
I always enjoy reading your comments. Always well thought out and factual, not to mention straight to the point.
I agree with you that the author probably pushed the "legitimate" government a little too far. With that said, we have recognized the shadow government in Afghanistan since the onset of conflict. Hell, the majority of Afghans recognize it. We have been dealing/negotiating with shadow Governors both militarily and politically for years. Every Soldier in my battalion knew the name of the shadow Governor of the Arghandab District and what he looked like if we had a current picture. So, while I agree with you on the legitimacy, the government in question is real.
Good comment thanks!
I always enjoy reading your comments. Always well thought out and factual, not to mention straight to the point.
I agree with you that the author probably pushed the "legitimate" government a little too far. With that said, we have recognized the shadow government in Afghanistan since the onset of conflict. Hell, the majority of Afghans recognize it. We have been dealing/negotiating with shadow Governors both militarily and politically for years. Every Soldier in my battalion knew the name of the shadow Governor of the Arghandab District and what he looked like if we had a current picture. So, while I agree with you on the legitimacy, the government in question is real.
Good comment thanks!
(0)
(0)
4
4
0
Authors first point, yes it is, but show me one time in American history where we traded the equivalent of 5 GOs for someone that was a PFC at time of capture?
Second point, yes it. Regardless of his deserted status he needed to be recovered, he is still an American solider, and it would be the only way to properly punish or clear him for the alleged crime of desertion. Go back to point one for why how "we" did it is improper.
Point three, see response to point two.
Second point, yes it. Regardless of his deserted status he needed to be recovered, he is still an American solider, and it would be the only way to properly punish or clear him for the alleged crime of desertion. Go back to point one for why how "we" did it is improper.
Point three, see response to point two.
(4)
(0)
1LT William Clardy
Uh, TSgt Joshua Copeland, I think you either made a typo. Just because your mom is a Marine doesn't mean your "other" is (unless you married a girl just like dear old Mom).
Or maybe PO3 (Join to see) pegged it: bromance is in the air and you have some nefarious desire to replace Homefront 6 with SGT(P) (Join to see)...
Or maybe PO3 (Join to see) pegged it: bromance is in the air and you have some nefarious desire to replace Homefront 6 with SGT(P) (Join to see)...
(0)
(0)
1LT William Clardy
TSgt Joshua Copeland, I don't think that the Taliban even *have* the equivalent of 5 general officers. I believe a more accurate description would be 5 company-grade (*maybe* field-grade, but I doubt it) officers.
I'm not arguing about whether it was a good trade, just trying to make sure we calibrate the scale right.
I'm not arguing about whether it was a good trade, just trying to make sure we calibrate the scale right.
(1)
(0)
TSgt Joshua Copeland
1LT William Clardy, I was relaying what has been reported, even if it is 5 SNCOs it still is not really not an equal trade.
Thanks for the typo correction. I love my wife, I haven't spoken to my mother in 7 years
Thanks for the typo correction. I love my wife, I haven't spoken to my mother in 7 years
(0)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google