Looking like policy gonna change.

Why exchange prisoners?

Anyone have info on how important the terrorist is the Taliban wants?

Also, is the American prisoner a grunt or an Intel officer?

Nobody ever tried to deal with the NVA Gooks to release the Amercan POW.

How about Jane Fonda, oh wait, she just went to comfort the enemy and scorn the POWs.

Thats because they didnt give a crap about P.O.Ws.Good ole USA.

Butcrack is considering exchanging 4 terrorist Spitballs for one POW.

The biggest terrorists around are the American government! The people should stand up and be counted and kick them out!

i would do that exchange... then use a drone to waste all four soon as we have our person back....

lol, British invented terrorism...

Yeah, but all the signs point towards the CIA and your government being up to their necks in 9/11? How can a government that's meant to be running the country for them, then just attack them? The US backed Bin Laden, way back when he was fighting the Russians, in Afghanistan and it backfired on then in the end!

The priorities your policies are designed to preserve are more important than the policies themselves.

We call this "political reform".


On the subject matter as just a bloke's opinion, let's say Australian soldiers were being held? I'd want the primary focus of parliament getting them back. I believe cold war concepts of national security are in desperate need of political reform personally, so consider the current NATO-coalition concept of national security to rate second place to having POWs returned in a fake war. They're not POWs, they're foreign invaders according to the "insurgents" (read: locals), I don't think Geneva Convention is going to be observed.

And fair enough. The whole Middle Eastern affair should've been handled markedly differently since the 90s. The NATO beligerence just got worse since the Soviet collapse, how is that progressive?
The CIS/Kremlin is just as bad.

Maybe being the two nuclear superpowers of the world kind of drove both your national identities a little bit crazy.

I guess MI5 was involved in London bombings as well..

Hey,we're trying to keep the FBI involvement in Boston a secret.

Must be Muslims.

Anyway...if u go for it it would be seen as a compromise and not negotiation.

Ha Ha! Good point!

]

The US has had a historic policy of not negotiating with terrorists for a good reason. It provides an incentive to take hostages. This situation sets up a never ending loop of (for example) "We release one of your civilian women or children if you release five of our hard core killers."

Now, it is an exchange of one Sargent for several hard core terrorists.

Yeah...it indirectly promotes and encourage terrorism...still it remains just a compromise even if they call it as negotiation.

I could see sending them half of one of the Muslims for the American.

So four terrorist heads for an American, seems fair.