• 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!

Taliban greets Pentagon's withdrawal of troops from Afghanistan with cries

Trump is snatching defeat from the jaws of victory.

:D

Sent from Trump Plaza's basement using Putin's MacBook.
 
The Military commanders on the ground disagree......Looks to the US Allies like the US Military is cutting and Running

Which military commander on the ground is labeling this a cut and run?
 
Trump is snatching defeat from the jaws of victory.

:D

Sent from Trump Plaza's basement using Putin's MacBook.

We are on the cusp of victory in Afghanistan are we?
 
I thought in 2016 we were going to see the best ever plan to defeat the Taliban in Afghanistan? What happened? Where is it?

Now on to the matter at hand

Unless the US went genocidal, or went in with 500 000 soldiers (with an equivalent Marshal Plan), it was never going to "win" in Afghanistan. The US public would not accept genocide, and their pocketbooks would not accept the mass number of soldiers and an actual long term rebuilding of Afghanistan (think 25 years)
 
Liberals?

You know what, Gulfman?
You're such a big badass, you should probably volunteer to go down to the border and offer to help hunt them down.
Better yet, you might even be a hero for hunting them down right in your own neighborhood.

I assume that you have firearms. You should go out there and hunt for liberal ISIS.
They might be right on your street right now, or maybe at the 7-11.
 
That's nonsense.

If you were reading the posts on this site, you'll see the left clamoring and hollering about Trump pulling the troops out of Syria. You'll see them, the left wanting more and more intervention in the Ukraine, more sanctions and punishment against Russia for Ukraine intervention and Crimara. Several of the well known leftest are jumping on Trump for pulling Troops from Afghanistan also. They even started a couple of threads on it. Cut and run, etc. Ceding Afghanistan to the Taliban.

All are complete opposite of the norm. You'd expect the right to be upset about troops withdrawal from Syria and Afghanistan, about not doing more in the Ukraine etc. You'd expect the left to jumping up and down with glee, Trump pulling troops from Afghanistan and Syria. Not the case.

I suppose the bottom line is if Trump does something, the left is against it, the right all for it, even if what Trump does is in perfect alignment with the left ideology, philosophy, ideals prior to Trump. The love/hate of Trump has turned normal politics, ideology, philosophy, etc upside down. It's all about Trump, not what he does or doesn't do. Both sides are blinded by the man in their love/hate of him.

Just read through the threads, you'll see the left being the aggressive on the withdrawals, opposing them. The right defending their man, all for them.
 
if the average citizen wants continued involvement in this war, then a couple things need to happen.

1. declare war. if we're at war as a nation, then we are at war.

2. shared sacrifice. that means significant taxes and war bonds. chip the **** in or **** off.

i don't see either of these things happening, so scrap it. i don't like the modern American "oh, we're still there?" version of war.
 
We don't need to fight ISIS over there anymore.They are coming across the border from Mexico.We will be fighting them here.
You do realize that just because the Orange Man-Child says it, doesn't make it true, right?
 
ISISISISILDAESHWHATEVER doesn't have to send people "across the border from Mexico" there are THOUSANDS of "low hanging fruit" already in the US (many of them even born in the US).

Yep, and here these "terrorists" are dealt with as criminals by our police forces and must be judged, as criminals, in a court of law. When "terrorists" are over there then the same acts of terror, done for the same reasons (motives?), are no longer said to be crimes requiring police action - then (and only then?) a long term US (and allied?) military response is said to be required and we are told that it cannot ever be considered to be a police action.

Over there we allow (demand?) the line between police and military missions to be blurred (disappear entirely?) and those fighting "terrorists" suddenly become the amorphous "security forces" - not quite military and yet, we are told, absolutely not police. The mission therefore also becomes amorphous with very odd terms used for goals such as to "achieve (establish, ensure or maintain?) stability" in the nation/region.

When the mission statement itself is amorphous then so too becomes any measure of its completion. How can anyone define the precise point in time when Syria, Afghanistan, Iraq or 'the region' can be declared (partly, mostly or completely?) "stabiliized"? If anyone tells you that the mission statement for the US military "involvement" in Afghanistan, Iraq and/or Syria is clear then they are lying.

Welcome to the amorphous (and therefore endless?) "war on terror". Since it would be foolish to ask the question "When can we get rid of police forces fighting terror in the US?", it appears to have become equally foolish to ask the question "When can we end US support for security forces fighting terror in nation X or region Y?".
 
Last edited:
if the average citizen wants continued involvement in this war, then a couple things need to happen.

1. declare war. if we're at war as a nation, then we are at war.

2. shared sacrifice. that means significant taxes and war bonds. chip the **** in or **** off.

i don't see either of these things happening, so scrap it. i don't like the modern American "oh, we're still there?" version of war.

This war needs to be defined, and as much more than some amorphous term like (a critical part of?) the war on terror.

When inside the US, "terrorists" are dealt with as criminals by our police forces and must be judged, as criminals, in a court of law. When "terrorists" are over there then the same acts of terror, done for the same reasons (motives?), are no longer said to be crimes requiring police action - then (and only then?) a (long term?) US (and allied?) military response is said to be required and we are told that it cannot ever be considered to be a police action.

Over there we allow (demand?) the line between police and military missions to be blurred (disappear entirely?) and those fighting "terrorists" suddenly become the amorphous "security forces" - not quite military and yet, we are told, absolutely not police. The mission therefore also becomes amorphous with very odd terms used for goals such as to "achieve (establish, ensure or maintain?) stability" in the nation/region.

When the mission statement itself is amorphous then so too becomes any measure of its completion. How can anyone define the precise point in time when Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria or 'the region' can be declared (partly, mostly or completely?) "stabiliized"? If anyone tells you that the mission statement for the US military "involvement" in Afghanistan, Iraq and/or Syria is clear then they are lying.

Welcome to the amorphous (and therefore endless?) "war on terror". Since it would be foolish to ask the question "When can we get rid of police forces fighting terror in the US?", it appears to have become equally foolish to ask the question "When can we end US support for security forces fighting terror in nation X or region Y?".
 
This war needs to be defined, and as much more than some amorphous term like (a critical part of?) the war on terror.

When inside the US, "terrorists" are dealt with as criminals by our police forces and must be judged, as criminals, in a court of law. When "terrorists" are over there then the same acts of terror, done for the same reasons (motives?), are no longer said to be crimes requiring police action - then (and only then?) a (long term?) US (and allied?) military response is said to be required and we are told that it cannot ever be considered to be a police action.

Over there we allow (demand?) the line between police and military missions to be blurred (disappear entirely?) and those fighting "terrorists" suddenly become the amorphous "security forces" - not quite military and yet, we are told, absolutely not police. The mission therefore also becomes amorphous with very odd terms used for goals such as to "achieve (establish, ensure or maintain?) stability" in the nation/region.

When the mission statement itself is amorphous then so too becomes any measure of its completion. How can anyone define the precise point in time when Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria or 'the region' can be declared (partly, mostly or completely?) "stabiliized"? If anyone tells you that the mission statement for the US military "involvement" in Afghanistan, Iraq and/or Syria is clear then they are lying.

Welcome to the amorphous (and therefore endless?) "war on terror". Since it would be foolish to ask the question "When can we get rid of police forces fighting terror in the US?", it appears to have become equally foolish to ask the question "When can we end US support for security forces fighting terror in nation X or region Y?".

i don't see a good reason not to declare the war. i also believe that if a war is worth fighting, it's worth paying for. everyone should be paying more in taxes as long as this war is being fought.
 
i don't see a good reason not to declare the war. i also believe that if a war is worth fighting, it's worth paying for. everyone should be paying more in taxes as long as this war is being fought.

The "war on terror" has definitely been declared. There is no way that either party dare raise "everyone's taxes" - that would be political suicide. To cover (eliminate?) the current federal deficit would require a 40% increase in total personal federal income tax revenue.
 
The "war on terror" has definitely been declared. There is no way that either party dare raise "everyone's taxes" - that would be political suicide. To cover (eliminate?) the current federal deficit would require a 40% increase in total personal federal income tax revenue.

there is no declared state of war currently. if people aren't willing to share the sacrifice, then no one should be putting his or her life at risk.
 
We don't need to fight ISIS over there anymore.They are coming across the border from Mexico.We will be fighting them here.

Got a cite ?

Or is this more of your usual BS ? Sure smells like it, cite up or shut up.
 
From NBC News

Taliban greets Pentagon's withdrawal of troops from Afghanistan with cries of victory

PESHAWAR, Pakistan — News that the White House had ordered the Pentagon to draw up plans for a troop withdrawal from Afghanistan provoked widespread criticism that the move would kneecap efforts to broker a peace deal to end America's longest war.

But there was one group on Friday celebrating the reports — the Taliban.

Senior members told NBC News the news was a clear indication they were on the verge of victory.

“The 17-year-long struggle and sacrifices of thousands of our people finally yielded fruit," said a senior Taliban commander from Afghanistan’s Helmand province. "We proved it to the entire world that we defeated the self-proclaimed world’s lone super power."

COMMENT:-

Apparently not everyone thinks that Mr. Trump is doing the wrong thing by pulling out of Afghanistan.

I wonder how the "conservatives" feel about finding themselves on the same side as the Taliban.

It has always been said..." Afghanistan is where empires go to die ".
Eve Of Destruction prophesy fulfilled a few years late.
Our divisions will never heal, and few people want them to.
 
Does anybody else find it strange that the left is switching from Peace Doves to War Hawks. That perhaps the right is going back to their isolationist mode of pre-Vietnam? It's my opinion that G.W. Bush fought a very smart war in the beginning. A few SF and paramilitary on the ground, our air power, the 13 tribe northern alliance doing the fighting on the ground. Driving the Taliban out of Afghanistan.

Then the screw up, the thing G.W. called nation building which was in essence of us forcing democracy upon the Afghani which didn't want it. We've been there ever since. The remainder of Bush, all through Obama and now the beginnings of Trump. Just so we can ensure we choose their form of government. By not letting the Afghani choose themselves, they wanted Tribal rule by their elders and shamans or whatever they call their religious folks. This has caused a fall out of 8 or 9 of the 13 tribes originally on our side to oppose us.

Think about it. The Taliban wanted to bring all of Afghanistan under a single ruler instead of Tribal rulers. So we help them drive the Taliban out, then force them to be ruled by a single ruler from one of the tribes. All they wanted was to be ruled by their own tribal elders and religious folks.

what we have here is colonization by another name, nation building.

This isn't about hawks or doves, it's about the U.S. honoring our commitments, something Trump neither understands nor cares about. So what if we leave the Kurds, who have been fighting and dying alongside us, to the tender mercies of Erdogan, a vicious dictator who plans to wipe them out?
 
Congress would rather do neither and (safely?) bets that will not reduce their re-election rate of over 90%.

i also support having congress and the president lead the troops into battle like the nobility of old.
 
The Taliban was created by the US and Saudis via the Pakistani intel agencies. This whole war in Afghanistan was a farce since the very beginning. It's a pointless quagmire and we need to get out of it.
 
Back
Top Bottom