• Please keep all posts on the Rittenhouse verdict here: Rittenhouse Verdict. Note the moderator warnings in the thread. The thread will be heavily moderated with a zero tolerance policy for any baiting, flaming, trolling or other rule breaks. Stick to the topic and not the other posters. Thank you.
  • This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Obama Puts Off Drawdown of U.S. Troops in Afghanistan

ipsofacto

Banned
Joined
Jun 30, 2016
Messages
732
Reaction score
161
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed

joG

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 27, 2013
Messages
43,839
Reaction score
9,638
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Independent
WASHINGTON — President Obama said on Wednesday that he would leave 8,400 American troops in Afghanistan until the end of his term, further slowing the drawdown in a 14-year war that Mr. Obama had pledged to end but now seems likely to grind on indefinitely. The New York Times - Breaking News, World News & Multimedia


Proof there is no difference between the two parties.

It is a pity Obama so utterly wasted the situation he inherited.
 

ipsofacto

Banned
Joined
Jun 30, 2016
Messages
732
Reaction score
161
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
It could mean that he smoked a joint while the situation was unfolding. LOL.


I've noticed that conservatives like to post "LOL." Again, not sure why.
 

joG

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 27, 2013
Messages
43,839
Reaction score
9,638
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Independent
Not sure what "wasted the situation" means.

The international community was ready to accept a reorganization of global security. Obama totally blew it.
 

Sherman123

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 5, 2012
Messages
7,774
Reaction score
3,791
Location
Northeast US
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
WASHINGTON — President Obama said on Wednesday that he would leave 8,400 American troops in Afghanistan until the end of his term, further slowing the drawdown in a 14-year war that Mr. Obama had pledged to end but now seems likely to grind on indefinitely. The New York Times - Breaking News, World News & Multimedia


Proof there is no difference between the two parties.

I'm very glad he's agreed to the slowdown which will preserve the situation for the next President to try and reverse the damage.
 

ipsofacto

Banned
Joined
Jun 30, 2016
Messages
732
Reaction score
161
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
I'm very glad he's agreed to the slowdown which will preserve the situation for the next President to try and reverse the damage.


When did Afghanistan become a US territory? What's that occupation supposed to accomplish?
 

Sherman123

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 5, 2012
Messages
7,774
Reaction score
3,791
Location
Northeast US
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
When did Afghanistan become a US territory? What's that occupation supposed to accomplish?

Why would that matter at all? Its also laughable to call an 8,000 strong presence an occupation. We're there at the invitation of the Afghan government with the goal of rolling back the Islamist tide that threatens the people of Afghanistan and the rest of the international community. Further it serves our strategic interests by implanting a US ally with basing rights in the heart of Central Asia. This fulfills both primary prongs of our imperial mission: liberalizing conflict & hard strategic advantages.
 

ipsofacto

Banned
Joined
Jun 30, 2016
Messages
732
Reaction score
161
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Why would that matter at all? Its also laughable to call an 8,000 strong presence an occupation. We're there at the invitation of the Afghan government with the goal of rolling back the Islamist tide that threatens the people of Afghanistan and the rest of the international community. Further it serves our strategic interests by implanting a US ally with basing rights in the heart of Central Asia. This fulfills both primary prongs of our imperial mission: liberalizing conflict & hard strategic advantages.

What you call it if 8400 Russian troops were in the US?
 

Sherman123

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 5, 2012
Messages
7,774
Reaction score
3,791
Location
Northeast US
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
What you call it if 8400 Russian troops were in the US?

If they were there with our permission I would call them our allies. Further, unless you've forgotten, ISAF has a UNSC mandate.
 

ipsofacto

Banned
Joined
Jun 30, 2016
Messages
732
Reaction score
161
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
If they were there with our permission I would call them our allies. Further, unless you've forgotten, ISAF has a UNSC mandate.


Under what circumstances in any historical period would foreign troops killing the people of the country be considered an ally?
 

Sherman123

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 5, 2012
Messages
7,774
Reaction score
3,791
Location
Northeast US
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Under what circumstances in any historical period would foreign troops killing the people of the country be considered an ally?

Innumerable circumstances, for example when those foreign troops are helping to put down an insurgency. I mean are you being serious? I feel like there are some books you might like to review before continuing this conversation.
 

ipsofacto

Banned
Joined
Jun 30, 2016
Messages
732
Reaction score
161
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Innumerable circumstances, for example when those foreign troops are helping to put down an insurgency. I mean are you being serious? I feel like there are some books you might like to review before continuing this conversation.

I am not interested in ad hominem attacks. If you have nothing else to say, we're done.
 

jimbo

DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 30, 2011
Messages
19,078
Reaction score
6,745
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
When did Afghanistan become a US territory? What's that occupation supposed to accomplish?

You'll have to ask Obama that question. It appears to be his troop reduction slowdown.
 

ipsofacto

Banned
Joined
Jun 30, 2016
Messages
732
Reaction score
161
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
You'll have to ask Obama that question. It appears to be his troop reduction slowdown.


“The security situation remains precarious,” Mr. Obama said.... That justifies a continuing 14 year war. God forbid any nation is precarious.
 

Abbazorkzog

Zapatista Libertarian
Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 20, 2014
Messages
12,199
Reaction score
4,079
Location
#TrumpWasAnInsideJob
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Centrist
Obama has been rapidly deteriorating in mental stability it would seem the closer Hillary got to power over these past few weeks.
 

ipsofacto

Banned
Joined
Jun 30, 2016
Messages
732
Reaction score
161
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Obama has been rapidly deteriorating in mental stability it would seem the closer Hillary got to power over these past few weeks.

Ok, and how is that related to Obama leaving troops in Afghanistan?
 

joG

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 27, 2013
Messages
43,839
Reaction score
9,638
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Independent
Not sure what "wasted the situation" means.

In the wake of Iraq2 the UN had started to shift towards guaranteeing personal instead of solely national security. This was an important achievement less noticed by the general public, as it was the first step and one deemed necessary to installing a global security system to prevent the multi-polar world from producing a major war, which seems inevitable, if progress continues along the its development path of the last 40 years.
 

Tigerace117

DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 30, 2016
Messages
42,837
Reaction score
11,463
Location
Chicago
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
WASHINGTON — President Obama said on Wednesday that he would leave 8,400 American troops in Afghanistan until the end of his term, further slowing the drawdown in a 14-year war that Mr. Obama had pledged to end but now seems likely to grind on indefinitely. The New York Times - Breaking News, World News & Multimedia


Proof there is no difference between the two parties.

Good. Last thing we need is to have to go back into Afghanistan a couple years down the road. Best to make sure the job's done
 

DaveFagan

Iconoclast
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 20, 2011
Messages
10,090
Reaction score
5,056
Location
wny
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Conservative
Good. Last thing we need is to have to go back into Afghanistan a couple years down the road. Best to make sure the job's done

One must approach this logically. In 2002, the Taliban controlled Afghanistan and annual Opium production was 272 tons that year. The Taliban discouraged Opium production. The USA has been in charge/control since 2003 and Opium production has increased to 11,000 tons per year or 40 times as much Opium is now produced under USA tutelage. Heroin is made from Opium. The USA says the Taliban is the Opium dealing agent, but the USA has been in charge since 2003, ergo someone is lying. Now the CIA controls many of the forces in Afghanistan and the CIA has a Congressionally documented history of dealing drugs to create autonomous, self funding operations. This was revealed during Iran Contra hearings with Oliver North's testimony. Perhaps the truth could be that the Opium economy would be threatened if the USA pulls out. After all, it has been our occupation of Afghanistan that is coincident with the booming Opium trade. While this trade was developing, the USA/AMA (American Medical Association) OKs the use of Opiates for pain killer therapy. This had always been discouraged in the past because of the addictive nature of Opiates. Perhaps Big Pharma at the CORPORATE level has rented enough politicians to expand its' business in this manner. Perhaps if we remove our troops the Taliban will get Opium production back to the 272 ton per year level and that could hurt Big CORPORATE, or not? There are many natural resources in Afghanistan and if you don't control the ground, you won't get the Natural Resources. You understand, I'm sure, like our Oil under that Iraqi and Libyan and Syrian sand. Don't forget the pipelines while you have the old cerebellum in high gear. This couldn't be more Imperialism and resource acquisition for USA Big Corporate, or could it?
 

Tigerace117

DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 30, 2016
Messages
42,837
Reaction score
11,463
Location
Chicago
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
One must approach this logically. In 2002, the Taliban controlled Afghanistan and annual Opium production was 272 tons that year. The Taliban discouraged Opium production. The USA has been in charge/control since 2003 and Opium production has increased to 11,000 tons per year or 40 times as much Opium is now produced under USA tutelage. Heroin is made from Opium. The USA says the Taliban is the Opium dealing agent, but the USA has been in charge since 2003, ergo someone is lying. Now the CIA controls many of the forces in Afghanistan and the CIA has a Congressionally documented history of dealing drugs to create autonomous, self funding operations. This was revealed during Iran Contra hearings with Oliver North's testimony. Perhaps the truth could be that the Opium economy would be threatened if the USA pulls out. After all, it has been our occupation of Afghanistan that is coincident with the booming Opium trade. While this trade was developing, the USA/AMA (American Medical Association) OKs the use of Opiates for pain killer therapy. This had always been discouraged in the past because of the addictive nature of Opiates. Perhaps Big Pharma at the CORPORATE level has rented enough politicians to expand its' business in this manner. Perhaps if we remove our troops the Taliban will get Opium production back to the 272 ton per year level and that could hurt Big CORPORATE, or not? There are many natural resources in Afghanistan and if you don't control the ground, you won't get the Natural Resources. You understand, I'm sure, like our Oil under that Iraqi and Libyan and Syrian sand. Don't forget the pipelines while you have the old cerebellum in high gear. This couldn't be more Imperialism and resource acquisition for USA Big Corporate, or could it?

Your posts would be a lot more readable if you actually put some space in between thoughts. Or at least this one would.

The funny thing is that the Taliban, who you claimed discouraged opium growing, have been running what amounts to a protection racket protecting said opium fields for several years. The US has been in control of the country, it's true; but the US isn't all seeing. The Taliban easily was able to covertly process their poison of choice covertly.

Afghanistan is one of the most remote countries on the planet. Lots of places to hide.

Not even going into the "it's all about the oil" shtick. I've pointed out that we don't even get most of our oil from the ME, and we have a gas station masquerading as a country, aka Saudi Arabia, to hook us up.
 

Ikari

Moderator
DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 8, 2006
Messages
82,338
Reaction score
50,770
Location
Colorado
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Left
WASHINGTON — President Obama said on Wednesday that he would leave 8,400 American troops in Afghanistan until the end of his term, further slowing the drawdown in a 14-year war that Mr. Obama had pledged to end but now seems likely to grind on indefinitely. The New York Times - Breaking News, World News & Multimedia


Proof there is no difference between the two parties.

He was never going to end our Infinity War, Hillary won't either. It's good for business.
 
Top Bottom