TexasCHLforum.com

The Annoyed Man

dale blanker wrote:
The Annoyed Man wrote: When my dad was in Marine Corps OCS in 1943, one of the things they told him in a leadership class was that, when you have to mak a decision under fire, any decision is better than no decision. You can recover from a bad decision, but no decision just gets everyone killed. Real leaders don't do what Obama has done with regard to the Iran deal.
Ah, a little off topic but we do have something in common...
I have a brother that joined the Marines in '46 and I joined the Marines in '53. He stayed in 21 years (3 was enough for me) and retired as a captain after going up through the enlisted ranks with many missions during the Korean Conflict and then warrant officer and finally OCS. When I was 16 I enjoyed visiting him at Quantico and driving his car on and off the base and being saluted every time I passed through the gate. Of course the officer tags on the car were being saluted and not me but my driving was making it happen.

Had the same experience in the 1960s, driving onto Pendleton to surf at San Onofre Surf Club, where we were members. Dad was a 2nd Lt at Iwo (where he was wounded in Cushman's Pocket), mustered out as a 1st Lt, and made Captain in the reserves for a while. Whenever we'd drive onto the base from the north entrance on PCH, he'd show his old ID card and the guard would snap to attention and salute. My dad had long hair and a beard at the time, and the surf van was full of his hippie sons. I always wondered if that rubbed the gate guards the wrong way, but I also really appreciated that so many years after his war, they still showed him that respect. I never served, but I have had a fond spot in my heart for the USMC ever since.

The Annoyed Man

dale blanker wrote:You may be right about the US whitewashing the boat event, but so what?
....

Ending on a positive note..!

Also trying to end on a positive note, but to your "so what?" question, I have to answer it. I intensely dislike being lied to by my government, whatever the reason......that's what. We've had a century of that kind of crapulence, and the reason they get away with it is because very few people care enough any longer to demand accountability from their government, or to do anything about it when their demand for accountability is not met.

The reason it is important to me specifically in this case is that, so long as the president (any president) does not have to admit that he made a bad deal, then he doesn't have to alter course and try to rectify the wrong.....and he can kick the can down the road to the next president. Why? Because he doesn't love the country enough to do the right thing. Real leaders don't do that.

When my dad was in Marine Corps OCS in 1943, one of the things they told him in a leadership class was that, when you have to mak a decision under fire, any decision is better than no decision. You can recover from a bad decision, but no decision just gets everyone killed. Real leaders don't do what Obama has done with regard to the Iran deal.

When a president refuses to accept responsibility for his past decisions, and refuses to take steps to recover from those bad decisions, he leaves his nation leaderless and pinned down in the middle of the geopolitical "battlefield". It's inexcusable. I want to know WHAT he is going to do to correct the grievous error he made in making the Iran nuclear deal. That's why "so what" isn't an attitude I'm prepared to accept from my gov't. We all deserve better than the shuck and jive we've been getting. All of us, including you, deserve better than that.

The Annoyed Man

dale blanker wrote:Nope, I'm not defending anyone (and what I believe about Hillary or Obama is not relevant here). But I do get tired of seeing quick negative perspectives on things that don't have a complete answer: "Let's find a conspiracy or ulterior motive every chance we get!"

Things like the government sending the boats to Iranian waters to be captured and the crews belittled... give me a break. Some people will believe anything. Of course anyone is free to express an opinion here just as I am free to disagree. I never subscribed to the theory that someone sent those boats to be captured, and I did not say so in my previous posts. What I DID say is that I believe the administration is trying to whitewash Iran's role in the capture of the boats because of the sensitive political nature of the deeply unpopular deal that Obama struck with Iran. If they are demonstrated to be no better than Barbary pirates (very plausible) then it casts Boy Wonder's negotiating bona fides in a very bad light......as in "he is a naive idiot." But that is not a conspiracy theory. Rather, it is just one more positive affirmation in a LONG list of such positive affirmations of Obama's very poor grasp of geopolitics.

On Bergdahl: obviously the guy has some mental problems but there may be mitigating circumstances that should be taken into account. We don't know if drugs were involved or lousy judgement or PTSD or just plain stupidity or cowardice or depression or some combination of these. What I believe is that he should be court martialed and it's going to happen. Susan Rice was too quick to say that Bergdahl served with honor and distinction without knowing more but she did clarify somewhat. Big deal. The point is that he is an American, he did enlist, he did serve, and he deserves fair treatment under military law. And I have listed several possible scenarios might explain his behavior - including a previously-stated complete willingness on my part to accept the possibility of mental illness - which vary in plausibility. Like VMI77 said, we are not a court of law here. We are discussing, and among the topics is discussion of speculation. If it makes you feel any better, I'll say that I am speculating that Bergdahl is guilty. And, yes, he did enlist. But, another branch of the service (CG) bounced him out of basic for psychological reasons in 2006......which says something about the Army's selection processes in 2008 as much as it does anything else. Perhaps after 7 years of continuous war in two fronts, the Army was having stop-loss problems, and had lowered its standards a tad to cast a bigger net for recruits? I don't know and have never claimed to know. But it does beg a question.... did the Army accept Bergdahl knowing about his past history, or did Bergdahl conceal it from recruiters when he enlisted? Again, just spit-ballin'.......... He does deserve fair treatment in court. Military court. But even though I am merely in the court of public opinion, I believe that I am treating him fairly as well.

The Annoyed Man

dale blanker wrote:
The Annoyed Man wrote: Dale, dude, turn up the gain on your sarcasm-radar. It seems to missing some things........

To your point #1, I did not say that Bergdahl served with honor and distinction. You're not picking up on my deliberately intended sarcasm above. The sarcasm was in mockingly quoting Susan Rice, White House National Security Advisor, who justified the prisoner swap for Bergdahl by saying that he had served with honor and distinction - a damned lie.
Sure, I was being sarcastic too. Or do you have exclusive rights to it???
You seem to have more insight about Bergdahl's experience, quality of service, problems, mental health, etc. and this is my point exactly! You may be right - it sure seems that way - but we don't have the full story yet. Maybe after the court martial we will enough information to make an informed conclusion. Meanwhile back to my point, we can fool ourselves into believing whatever we please, but don't do it without the facts and common sense. [Common sense in this case is just remembering that everyone is presumed innocent until proven guilty. Sound familiar?]

I hope if ever I get caught and have to stand trial that you are NOT on my jury.

Yes, I have exclusive right to sarcasm. Everybody here knows it, and don't you forget it.

Is there some possibility of Bergdahl's innocence? Sure. There's some small possibility. But for that standard to be met, it would have to be some kind of (extremely hard to believe) wild tale of derring-do, CIA-like fieldcraft, etc., etc., etc., for his complete lack of guilt to be proven. I simply find it very hard to believe. No, I'm not the wisest man on the planet, but I do seek after wisdom and clarity daily, and the good Lord has allowed me to walk this planet for 63 years now. I have tried to use my time to become an observer of human nature......which rarely fails to reward my belief in its fundamental inability to seek anything beyond immediate self-gratification (which explains Obama's election). I am naturally pessimistic, but remain hopefully optimistic that I will occasionally meet men (and women) who will delightfully disappoint my expectations of crapulence, and when I meet such people, they become my friends for life. It's not a large circle, but it is a rich and deep one, and it even allows for much grace and forgiveness if a friend gets in trouble. If you are in my circle of friends and you get in trouble, I will stick by you, EVEN IF I know you to be guilty as hades. I have a close friend.....my very first friend in Texas.... who is at this very moment facing a significant probability of federal prison time in the near future for a crime related to an addiction of his, who completely confesses his guilt, accepts that he must walk through this fire, is cooperating 100% with both the prosecution and his defense, and has sincerely turned to Christ for help in walking this path he must walk. I am right there with him, alongside, encouraging him daily, praying with him, and committing (along with my wife) to support his wife and kids in any way they need support while he is in prison.....even as some in his extended family have completely abandoned him.

This is the filter through which I observe the actions of people like Bergdahl. If I think you're a lying fool who refuses to face up to your guilt and accept its consequences, God help you. You'll get no sympathy from me. If you are guilty, admit your guilt, and accept its consequences, you'll receive grace from me. Bergdahl's own version of the story, which comes from HIS lips in recent interviews given to the media, is so improbable that I have very little difficulty rejecting it as anything but self-serving lies. So yeah, it's probably better for Bergdahl if I'm not on his jury.

By the way, there is a very good book that might interest you, in which the weeks-into-months long search for Bergdahl after his disappearance in Paktia province is mentioned peripheral to a story about the troubled COPs in the Nuristan province of Afghanistan on the Afghanistan/Pakistan border, where Bergdahl disappeared. It is written by Jake Tapper, and it is called "The Outpost: An Untold Story of American Valor", and it tells the history of COP Keating, as a microcosm of everything that was wrong with how the administration AND the pentagon mismanaged the war for the "hearts and minds" of the Afghani population, and just how valiantly the guys with boots on the ground struggled to fulfill a mission that was often poorly defined, badly prosecuted, and inadequately supplied. As one of the reviewers on Amazon.com wrote:

I was with 1st ID 6/4 Cav at COP Keating/OP Fritschie. Jake Tapper's book does great justice for my unit, for an amazing man--Captain Robert J. Yllescas, and for the rest of the officers who were in charge. I was very impressed with how in-depth Jake went into his coverage of our story, and with how well it was written. Like the title of the review reads, I spent a year at Keating/Fritschie, and even I was learning new details while reading the book--because Jake took his time and got the real stories. Smiles and cries, that about sums up my experience reading it. Anyone who wants to understand what true sacrifice is should read this book. Jake, thank you for telling our story to the world! I cannot thank you enough man. Thank you all, read our story, share it with your friends and family.

When Bergdahl disappeared, the limited in-country air assets were tied up in the search for him, . Soldiers from various units in the region were tasked with trying to find him. In that process, they took casualties..... casualties which arguably may not have happened if Bergdahl had not deserted his post - something which even HE admits that he did.
Jake Tapper writes that both the tactical and strategic considerations required that the Combat Outposts in Nuristan be closed because they were unsustainable. He says:

Other considerations would further impede the plan to close the outposts. On June 30, Private First Class Bowe Bergdahl angrily left his base in Paktika Province and was captured by insurgents, prompting a substantial push of planes, helicopters, and surveillance drones to the area in an effort to find him— which proved futile. Shortly thereafter came a major U.S. initiative up in northern Nuristan, at Barg-e-Matal. These two developments would effectively tie up the air assets that would be needed to shut down Combat Outpost Keating and the other remote camps.

Tapper, Jake (2012-11-13). The Outpost: An Untold Story of American Valor (p. 447). Little, Brown and Company. Kindle Edition.

On October 10, 2009, General McCrystal ordered Major General Guy Swan III to write up a report on what had gone wrong at COP Keating....."wrong" being an attack by over 300 Taliban on the 50 or so men manning the COP, which resulted in 8 American KIA (and TWO Medals of Honor awarded to Staff Sergeants Ty Carter and Clint Romesha) and numerous WIA at the camp on October 3rd, 2009. Quoting from the book:

Swan volunteered a recommendation that the “obviously indefensible or high risk COPs and OPs” should be closed. Brown had briefed McChrystal on brigade plans to shut down Combat Outposts Keating and Lowell as well as Observation Post Fritsche, the report acknowledged, but a number of other pressing matters had interrupted those plans, including the Afghan elections, the siege at Barg-e-Matal, and the search for MIA soldier Bowe Bergdahl.

Tapper, Jake (2012-11-13). The Outpost: An Untold Story of American Valor (p. 594). Little, Brown and Company. Kindle Edition.

The above referenced wiki page says:

Due to resources being diverted to find Bergdahl, the closing of Combat Outpost Keating was delayed, which may have led to eight American soldiers being killed on October 3, 2009, after 300 Taliban insurgents overran the base.

This version of events is rejected by the high level officers who were supposed to be in oversight of the the planning, deployment, and execution of the counterinsurgency efforts in Nuristan; but if you read Jake Tapper's book, you'll see there is a whole of of CYA going on at the top levels over what was incontrovertibly a failure of leadership, both military and civilian. It doesn't matter to the dead men whether those air assets were unavailable because Bush/Obama did not want to commit the resources, or because the generals were afraid to ask for them.........the assets were not there in sufficient quantity to prosecute the war. That is a fact. EVERYONE from the top down recognized fairly early on that the COP could not be adequately supported by air. It is a fact that 8 men were killed on 10/03/09 at COP Keating because (A) it was poorly located tactically, (B) relief in the form of a QRF and air-to-ground support was NOT available because much of those assets were tasked to looking for Bergdahl, the deserter.

MEN DIED directly because those air assets were unavailable; which would have arguably been available if Bergdahl had not turned up missing. ........And this is separate from the difficult-to-confirm claims by soldiers from his unit who say that six other soldiers from his battalion were killed while searching for him.

Bergdahl himself wrote in an email to his father:

“Life is way too short to care for the damnation of others, as well as to spend it helping fools with their ideas that are wrong. I have seen their ideas and I am ashamed to even be American.… I am sorry for everything here. These people need help, yet what they get is the most conceited country in the world telling them that they are nothing and they are stupid, that they have no idea how to live.”

So the fact of his desertion is beyond dispute since he himself says he deserted. Not guilty by reason of insanity? Possibly. I even alluded to his being nuttier than a fruitcake in my previous post. I think I'm actually being charitable by being willing to admit that he might be crazy enough to not be responsible for his own behavior. His wikipedia page says:

In 2006, Bergdahl entered basic training in the United States Coast Guard but was discharged after 26 days for psychological reasons and received an "uncharacterized discharge".[2] [My comment: Nobody is disputing this fact - TAM]

In 2008, Bergdahl enlisted in the United States Army and graduated from the infantry school at Fort Benning, Georgia.[1] He was then assigned to the 1st Battalion, 501st Infantry Regiment, 4th Brigade Combat Team, 25th Infantry Division, based at Fort Richardson, Alaska.[19]

According to a fellow soldier, Specialist Jason Fry, Bergdahl was a quiet loner. "He wasn't one of the troublemakers – he was focused and well-behaved." Bergdahl was isolated by choice from his fellow soldiers; for instance, instead of socializing with his comrades during Thanksgiving, he studied maps of Afghanistan. Bergdahl told Fry before their deployment to Afghanistan, "If this deployment is lame, I'm just going to walk off into the mountains of Pakistan."[1]

Bergdahl's unit was deployed to Afghanistan in May 2009.[20] His unit was sent to an outpost named Mest-Malak in Afghanistan to conduct counterinsurgency operations. Bergdahl began learning to speak Pashto, and according to Fry, Bergdahl "began to gravitate away from his unit", spending "more time with the Afghans than he did with his platoon". Bergdahl's father described his son to military investigators as "psychologically isolated".[1] [My comment: Nobody is disputing this fact - TAM]

The above wikipedia article appears to me to be remarkably unbiased, reporting all sides of the story. Cast in it the most favorable light possible, Bergdahl was disillusioned and thought it was the moral thing to do to walk away from his unit and merge with the Afghan people. Cast in a neutral light, Bergdahl is nuttier than an outhouse rat, and he wandered off into the night. Cast in the worst possible light, he was a coward and deserted his unit. In ALL THREE VERSIONS, no matter how you church it up, and no matter whether or not you actually sympathize with his actions, HE DESERTED HIS UNIT IN A COMBAT ZONE while, IN HIS OWN WRITTEN WORDS, making common cause with both the local people (understandable to anyone with a heart) AND the Taliban enemy (completely unforgivable). And now, maybe he regrets it.........kinda like Jane Fonda regrets the fact that Vietnam vets, and especially those who were POWs, almost universally despise her (except maybe for John Kerry) for making common cause with the nation's then enemy. You want me to view him favorably? Let him, like my friend mentioned above, confess without prevarication or any purpose of evasion that what he did was inexcusable. Let him accept his fate, like a real man, as a path that he must walk as a consequence of his actions, and seek to grow himself internally and spiritually, to come out the other end of that tunnel as a better man. Unless he can be proven in court to be crazy and therefore not responsible, and otherwise absent any evidence of confession and acceptance of accountability, I've got no use for the guy. We don't need people like that.

No, he hasn't had a trial yet. But I HAVE done my research.... From the get go. Nah.... you're right.....better for him not to have me on his jury.....

The Annoyed Man

dale blanker wrote:
The Annoyed Man wrote:
dale blanker wrote:
The Annoyed Man wrote:
powerboatr wrote:he is very right, I think a huge cadre of folks here agree in his summation. Most of us have stressed many of his points.
Thats what makes the the whole story so unbelievable as told by the whitehouse talking heads.

we just have to keep the pressure on
The White House's smoke-blower is working full time, just like when they tried to sell us the lie that Benghazi was because of an obscure video. And Bo Bergdahl served with distinction and honor. And unicorns are real........
Here's a quote from Neil deGrasse Tyson:
"Do whatever it takes to avoid fooling yourself into thinking something is true that is not, or that something is not true that is."
If more folks would follow this advise and stop looking for every opportunity to find a hidden agenda or some conspiracy I think we'd be better off... and maybe less annoyed(?)
I'm not seeing any hidden agenda or conspiracy. They are right out there in the open. You have to be blind to not see them. Sometimes I wish I were that blind. I would be far more optimistic about the future.
Well, you mention Benghazi and Bergdahl as examples of White House smoke-blowing. No doubt it happens but the occasions you cite don't support it... Why make it worse than it is?

1. On December 14, 2015, the U.S. Army announced that Bergdahl would be tried by general court-martial on charges of desertion and misbehavior before the enemy. Bergdahl may have previously served with honor as you state but deserting his post is the issue.

2. Expecting a full and accurate report on a tragedy in Libya 4 days after the event is extremely naive wouldn't you say? Heck, I've seen really simple local investigations take a whole lot longer.

Funny how we tend to believe what we want irrespective of the facts or common sense. Try doing what Tyson suggests: "avoid fooling yourself".
It works!

Dale, dude, turn up the gain on your sarcasm-radar. It seems to missing some things........

To your point #1, I did not say that Bergdahl served with honor and distinction. You're not picking up on my deliberately intended sarcasm above. The sarcasm was in mockingly quoting Susan Rice, White House National Security Advisor, who justified the prisoner swap for Bergdahl by saying that he had served with honor and distinction - a damned lie. http://www.breitbart.com/video/2015/03/ ... stinction/. He did not serve with honor and distinction. He was nuttier than a fruitcake, a whiner, uncooperative, insubordinate, and he deserted his post, defecting to the enemy........and then like a LOT of people who pull stunts like that - Lee Harvey Oswald comes to mind - decided that the place he defected to looked a lot greener to him when viewed from the American side of the fence than it did when he actually got there, and he wanted to come home....because having to hide under a burka when drones are overhead, and wearing man-jams all the time is hard. (That's sarcasm too, in case it goes unnoticed.....)

To your point #2, MULTIPLE witnesses heard Hillary Clinton later tell the family members of those killed, including at least one family member who wrote it all down contemporaneously so that he wouldn't forget any details he'd been told, that the attack on the consulate was the result of a crowd angered by an obscure video, when just a few days before and DURING the same night as the attack unfolded she told Chelsea Clinton (and what exactly is SHE doing in the loop, anyway?) that the attack was terrorism. So she told another damned lie when she new better. http://dailycaller.com/2015/10/22/hilla ... ned-video/.

At the time of Benghazi, Clinton was SecState.....the head of the State Dept, which is an arm of the administration which is directed from the White House.

At the time of the Bergdahl prisoner swap, Rice was Obama's National Security Advisor, working in the White House.

These are not conspiracies, they are FACTS. Furthermore, they are also on the long list of White House foreign policy failures - glaring examples of this administration's incompetence and fecklessness.

The Iran deal - regardless of whether or not these boats were hijacked by the Iranians - is a big steaming pile of poo. It is DEEPLY unpopular with voters - ACROSS PARTY LINES. As far as the boats go, you have to believe one of two things - either both boat crews were massively incompetent, OR, something fishy is going on. Personally, I have spent time on the sea in a small craft. Navigation is a basic and fundamental skill. You never send someone to sea in command of a boat of ANY size without having any navigation skills. Even if your GPS is kaput, you should still have a compass, and you should still know your heading before ever leaving port. If your motor is broken, this was a TWO-boat maneuver! Why didn't the working boat take the broken down boat under tow? That's WHY they send out small boats in pairs to cross large bodies of water. It is self-rescue.

Here are the possibilities:

(Unlikely) All member of both crews were complete incompetents, too stupid to consider using the working boat to tow the broken boat, or to radio any other U.S. naval traffic in the gulf for a rescue.
(Unlikely) All GPSs and Compasses AND radios on both boats were kaput, and all crew members were too stupid to consider taking the broken boat under tow and returning to the port of origin.
(VERY plausible) The Revolutionary Guard navy, which has a long history of behaving aggressively toward American shipping the gulf, including recently firing rockets across the bow within a 1,500 meters of an American ship (giving the excuse that it was a "military exercise") in international waters, possibly jammed the U.S. boats' GPS and radio receivers/transmitters, and possibly took them into custody in international waters when they realized that they had superior force....which is not usually the case.

I think it is something along the lines of "C". Now, how does the White House come into this? They cannot afford to have the Iranians make them look like chumps again to American voters. I don't think they deliberately "gave up" the boats to Iran. I don't see a plausible reason for why they would do that. What I DO see is a deep-seated need on the part of the administration to make sure that they don't look like chumps AGAIN.....because whatever face they put on it to the American public, THEY KNOW that they got taken for a ride by the Iranians in that deal. They just can't admit it. in for a penny, in for a pound, I guess. So when the Iranians acted like Barbary pirates, instead of pulling a Jefferson and sending big bad gunboats to make the point, the administration tried to put a good spin on it.

That's all it is. If they don't put a good spin on it by saying how simply marvelous and humane the Iranian "rescue" and treatment of the "guests" was, then the Iranians manage to make the White House look like even bigger chumps. That's why Kerry lied. It's not a conspiracy to commit a crime. It's a conspiracy to try and cover up more incompetence and fecklessness.

The Annoyed Man

dale blanker wrote:
The Annoyed Man wrote:
powerboatr wrote:he is very right, I think a huge cadre of folks here agree in his summation. Most of us have stressed many of his points.
Thats what makes the the whole story so unbelievable as told by the whitehouse talking heads.

we just have to keep the pressure on
The White House's smoke-blower is working full time, just like when they tried to sell us the lie that Benghazi was because of an obscure video. And Bo Bergdahl served with distinction and honor. And unicorns are real........
Here's a quote from Neil deGrasse Tyson:
"Do whatever it takes to avoid fooling yourself into thinking something is true that is not, or that something is not true that is."
If more folks would follow this advise and stop looking for every opportunity to find a hidden agenda or some conspiracy I think we'd be better off... and maybe less annoyed(?)

I'm not seeing any hidden agenda or conspiracy. They are right out there in the open. You have to be blind to not see them. Sometimes I wish I were that blind. I would be far more optimistic about the future.

The Annoyed Man

powerboatr wrote:he is very right, I think a huge cadre of folks here agree in his summation. Most of us have stressed many of his points.
Thats what makes the the whole story so unbelievable as told by the whitehouse talking heads.

we just have to keep the pressure on

The White House's smoke-blower is working full time, just like when they tried to sell us the lie that Benghazi was because of an obscure video. And Bo Bergdahl served with distinction and honor. And unicorns are real........

The Annoyed Man

See author Matthew Bracken's comment at the bottom of this blog post: http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/201 ... ments.html. His remarks include:

For an open-water transit between nations, the course is studied and planned in advance by the leaders of the Riverine Squadron, with specific attention given to staying wide and clear of any hostile nation's claimed territorial waters. The boats are given a complete mechanical check before departure, and they have sufficient fuel to accomplish their mission plus extra. If, for some unexplainable and rare circumstance one boat broke down, the other would tow it, that's why two boats go on these trips and not one! It's called "self-rescue" and it's SOP.

This entire situation is in my area of expertise. I can state with complete confidence that both Iran and our own State Department are lying. The boats did not enter Iranian waters. They were overtaken in international waters by Iranian patrol boats that were so superior in both speed and firepower that it became a "hands up!" situation, with automatic cannons in the 40mm to 76mm range pointed at them point-blank. Surrender, hands up, or be blown out of the water. I assume that the Iranians had an English speaker on a loudspeaker to make the demand. This takedown was no accident or coincidence, it was a planned slap across America's face.

Just watch. The released sailors will be ordered not to say a word about the incident, and the Iranians will have taken every GPS device, chart-plotter etc off the boats, so that we will not be able to prove where our boats were taken.

For those not familiar with Bracken, he served as a SEAL during the 1980s, and he travels the world over on his own sailboat. There isn't anything he doesn't know about sailing, transiting large bodies of water in small boats, riverine operations, and SOP for these kinds of operations. I have no problem believing this scenario he raises, particularly when the Iran-controlled Shia militias in Iraq kidnapped a bunch of Americans the other day. I'm betting they'll turn up in Iran, and held in exchange for the extortion of future concessions from the U.S.

He is also the author of one of my favorite "future dystopian America" trilogies - the "Enemies Foreign and Domestic" series - as well as an excellent book in the same genre called "Castigo Cay".

TexasCHLforum.com

Search found 8 matches

Re: 2 Navy Boats in Iranian Custody

Re: 2 Navy Boats in Iranian Custody

Re: 2 Navy Boats in Iranian Custody

Re: 2 Navy Boats in Iranian Custody

Re: 2 Navy Boats in Iranian Custody

Re: 2 Navy Boats in Iranian Custody

Re: 2 Navy Boats in Iranian Custody

Re: 2 Navy Boats in Iranian Custody