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

[exoplanet]

We don't need to fight ISIS over there anymore.They are coming across the border from Mexico.We will be fighting them here.

I honestly can't tell the difference between people parodying conservative paranoid fantasies and actual conservative opinions anymore.

 

[Perotista]

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?

What ever Trump does, did, the left will oppose him for no other reason it was Trump that did it or didn't do it. The right will back Trump regardless of what he does or did.

It's all quite simple.The left would be backing Obama if he done the same thing with Syria and Afghanistan, the right would be pillaging him. So Trump does it, the left goes after him, the right backs him.

Our politics today has no right or wrong, nothing is correct or incorrect, it's all about Trump. Regardless of what Trump does, one side will be against it, the other side for it. Oh one side or the other will couch their anti-Trumpism or pro-Trumpsim in excuses or give other reasons for being anti or pro this or that. But it all boils down to Trump.

 

[exoplanet]

This was the inevitable result, IMO. Maybe it had to be a Republican president to finally, really leave. A Democrat would be crucified as "weak" for doing it.

It's a sad state to leave the Afghani people in, but they were pretty screwed to begin with.

 

[exoplanet]

What ever Trump does, did, the left will oppose him for no other reason it was Trump that did it or didn't do it. The right will back Trump regardless of what he does or did.

It's all quite simple.The left would be backing Obama if he done the same thing with Syria and Afghanistan, the right would be pillaging him. So Trump does it, the left goes after him, the right backs him.

Our politics today has no right or wrong, nothing is correct or incorrect, it's all about Trump. Regardless of what Trump does, one side will be against it, the other side for it. Oh one side or the other will couch their anti-Trumpism or pro-Trumpsim in excuses or give other reasons for being anti or pro this or that. But it all boils down to Trump.

There are those on the left that are attacking him for it, but plenty of us are not. When it comes down to actions, there are some alignments between conservative isolationism and liberal pacifism. It's the reasoning behind the actions that drives the true debate, IMO.

Yes, there is some sheer partisanship, but it is not all consuming, and some of it has to do with the fact that there are really no choices in Afghanistan without serious drawbacks that can legitimately be criticized.

 

[TU Curmudgeon]

I honestly can't tell the difference between people parodying conservative paranoid fantasies and actual conservative opinions anymore.

You mean that you DIDN'T know that "MS-13" is shorthand for "Muslim Soldiers - Your Unlucky Number"?

 

[TU Curmudgeon]

What ever Trump does, did, the left will oppose him for no other reason it was Trump that did it or didn't do it. The right will back Trump regardless of what he does or did.

It's all quite simple.The left would be backing Obama if he done the same thing with Syria and Afghanistan, the right would be pillaging him. So Trump does it, the left goes after him, the right backs him.

Our politics today has no right or wrong, nothing is correct or incorrect, it's all about Trump. Regardless of what Trump does, one side will be against it, the other side for it. Oh one side or the other will couch their anti-Trumpism or pro-Trumpsim in excuses or give other reasons for being anti or pro this or that. But it all boils down to Trump.

And, if Ms. Clinton had been elected then you could substitute "Clinton" for "Trump" and "left" for "right" and you'd be spot on.

 

[TU Curmudgeon]

There are those on the left that are attacking him for it, but plenty of us are not. When it comes down to actions, there are some alignments between conservative isolationism and liberal pacifism. It's the reasoning behind the actions that drives the true debate, IMO.

Yes, there is some sheer partisanship, but it is not all consuming, and some of it has to do with the fact that there are really no choices in Afghanistan without serious drawbacks that can legitimately be criticized.

When you add Mr. Trump's "victory" in Syria, and his "victory" in Afghanistan", to his "victory" in Korea that means that he has a "trifecta" and is the only President of the United States of America to have "won" THREE WARS in his first term of office.

Not only that, but if he gives the orders fast enough, he might even be able to do it within his FIRST TWO YEARS in office.

Who said that being President was complicated?

 

[Perotista]

There are those on the left that are attacking him for it, but plenty of us are not. When it comes down to actions, there are some alignments between conservative isolationism and liberal pacifism. It's the reasoning behind the actions that drives the true debate, IMO.

Yes, there is some sheer partisanship, but it is not all consuming, and some of it has to do with the fact that there are really no choices in Afghanistan without serious drawbacks that can legitimately be criticized.

I wouldn't classify myself as an isolationist or a pacifist. But as smart fighter, others I'm sure wouldn't. I gave and still do give Bush high marks for how he first fought the war in Afghanistan. A few SF and paramilitary on the ground, our air power with the 13 tribe northern alliance doing the fighting on the ground. Them, boom. His huge mistake, he called it nation building. The problem was Afghanistan, maybe a country in name only, wasn't a country we would recognize. 18 tribes ruling over their own little section of Afghanistan. More like the Indians of the 1700-1800's here. There was no Indian nation, there was no nation of Afghanistan. Bush tried to make Afghanistan a nation when the tribes didn't want a nation as we know what a nation is. A bunch of those 13 tribes that were on our side to begin with, aren't anymore.

Syria, I never thought we should put troops in there to begin with. I think if we just get out of Assad's and Russia's way, they'll handle the rest of ISIS. ISIS is their enemy as much as ISIS was ours. Their tactics might be more brutal, but unlike video games, war is all about killing and destruction. Don't get involved in a war unless you are willing to do all the killing and destroying as necessary. also make it a quick war even if it means more death and destruction at the beginning to end it. A long, prolonged war trying to avoid death and destruction always leads to many times more deaths and destruction due to it length.

my opinions anyway.

 

[Perotista]

And, if Ms. Clinton had been elected then you could substitute "Clinton" for "Trump" and "left" for "right" and you'd be spot on.

exactly, nothing would change.

 

[beerftw]

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.
​

The problem is the taliban is a competent enemy, they formed from the muhajedeen the us trained to push the soviets out, they to this day retain much of their training, against the us they were no match but at the same time no pushover, against afghan forces they are deadly, so this leaves us with the option of staying indefinately or cutting loose and hoping the afghan forces rise up to the task without us babysitting them.


Keep in mind controlling afghanistan has been an empire killer, since alexander the great and also persian empire no one has ever controlled the region long, russia failed and only gave up because the soviet union collapsed, but had it not collapsed they would likely still be fighting to this day with no end in sight. Prior to that britain and russia fought a cat and mouse game over the control of afghanistan, eventually both empires walked away. Going back even further nearly everyone with the power and within reach of that country has tried and failed.

 

[Idiometer]

What ever Trump does, did, the left will oppose him for no other reason it was Trump that did it or didn't do it. The right will back Trump regardless of what he does or did.

It's all quite simple.The left would be backing Obama if he done the same thing with Syria and Afghanistan, the right would be pillaging him. So Trump does it, the left goes after him, the right backs him.

Our politics today has no right or wrong, nothing is correct or incorrect, it's all about Trump. Regardless of what Trump does, one side will be against it, the other side for it. Oh one side or the other will couch their anti-Trumpism or pro-Trumpsim in excuses or give other reasons for being anti or pro this or that. But it all boils down to Trump.

I disagree. If Obama were ordering this abandonement of hard-fighting allies, I'd be equally unhappy about it, and vocally so. It has long been my experience that there is a lot more hypocrisy on the right.

 

[beerftw]

I wouldn't classify myself as an isolationist or a pacifist. But as smart fighter, others I'm sure wouldn't. I gave and still do give Bush high marks for how he first fought the war in Afghanistan. A few SF and paramilitary on the ground, our air power with the 13 tribe northern alliance doing the fighting on the ground. Them, boom. His huge mistake, he called it nation building. The problem was Afghanistan, maybe a country in name only, wasn't a country we would recognize. 18 tribes ruling over their own little section of Afghanistan. More like the Indians of the 1700-1800's here. There was no Indian nation, there was no nation of Afghanistan. Bush tried to make Afghanistan a nation when the tribes didn't want a nation as we know what a nation is. A bunch of those 13 tribes that were on our side to begin with, aren't anymore.

Syria, I never thought we should put troops in there to begin with. I think if we just get out of Assad's and Russia's way, they'll handle the rest of ISIS. ISIS is their enemy as much as ISIS was ours. Their tactics might be more brutal, but unlike video games, war is all about killing and destruction. Don't get involved in a war unless you are willing to do all the killing and destroying as necessary. also make it a quick war even if it means more death and destruction at the beginning to end it. A long, prolonged war trying to avoid death and destruction always leads to many times more deaths and destruction due to it length.

my opinions anyway.

The northern alliance should have taken the nation, they had the will to fight for afghanistan, and they were backed by the last official govt of afghanistan before the taliban controlled the nation, followed by all their neighbors as well as russia. The northern alliance was backed by everyone in the area north to russia as they were seen as a last ditch stabilizing force, and the northern alliance was a moderate islamic alliance pushing religious tolerance and protection of minorities. The us objected to the northern alliance controlling the country, and now they are heading back to islamic extremism

I think the reason they refused to allow them power was the fact they were backed by numerous nations not aligned with us interests, and us interests were put before the insterests of a stable afghanistan.

 

[Saladin4]

Got a cite ?

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

This a Gulfman special.....Absurd post...Then cut and run

 

[Saladin4]

The northern alliance should have taken the nation, they had the will to fight for afghanistan, and they were backed by the last official govt of afghanistan before the taliban controlled the nation, followed by all their neighbors as well as russia. The northern alliance was backed by everyone in the area north to russia as they were seen as a last ditch stabilizing force, and the northern alliance was a moderate islamic alliance pushing religious tolerance and protection of minorities. The us objected to the northern alliance controlling the country, and now they are heading back to islamic extremism

I think the reason they refused to allow them power was the fact they were backed by numerous nations not aligned with us interests, and us interests were put before the insterests of a stable afghanistan.

The Northern Alliance had some pretty shady characters.....War Lords, Tribal thugs and foreigners from outside the , you are correct they did not align with US interests ....

 

[beerftw]

The Northern Alliance had some pretty shady characters.....War Lords, Tribal thugs and foreigners from outside the , you are correct they did not align with US interests ....

But they aligned quite well with afghanistans interests, to restore a moderate islamic republic with womens rights and religious freedom. What the taliban offered was quite different and even the current afghan govt is not close to moderate like the northern alliance was.

It did not come down to what was best for afghanistan, it came down to what was best for american foreign policy.

 

[TU Curmudgeon]

The northern alliance should have taken the nation, they had the will to fight for afghanistan, and they were backed by the last official govt of afghanistan before the taliban controlled the nation, followed by all their neighbors as well as russia. The northern alliance was backed by everyone in the area north to russia as they were seen as a last ditch stabilizing force, and the northern alliance was a moderate islamic alliance pushing religious tolerance and protection of minorities. The us objected to the northern alliance controlling the country, and now they are heading back to islamic extremism

I think the reason they refused to allow them power was the fact they were backed by numerous nations not aligned with us interests, and us interests were put before the insterests of a stable afghanistan.

The "Northern Alliance" is the PR term for "a bunch of warlords and despots who were only interested in their own personal power, prestige, and wealth" - but I do have to admit that "Northern Alliance" sounds one hell of a lot better.

 

[TU Curmudgeon]

But they aligned quite well with afghanistans interests, to restore a moderate islamic republic with womens rights and religious freedom. What the taliban offered was quite different and even the current afghan govt is not close to moderate like the northern alliance was.

It did not come down to what was best for afghanistan, it came down to what was best for american foreign policy.

It is one of the tenets of International Relations that:

If what is good for you is not good for me, and if I have the military might to impose my will on you, then you had better not do what is good for you.
​

and this has been the case since before Chandragupta Maurya was a Lance Corporal.

 

[beerftw]

The "Northern Alliance" is the PR term for "a bunch of warlords and despots who were only interested in their own personal power, prestige, and wealth" - but I do have to admit that "Northern Alliance" sounds one hell of a lot better.

Northern alliance was much more than that, it was a coalition formed with multiple states to restore the govt of the last afghan leader and the govt of mazari sharif who resisted the taliban to the very end, that govt was known for religious tolerance and protection of minorities, and all the other nations craved stability from their neighbor, because if there was no desire to restore the old govt they would not have formed that alliance.

 

[TU Curmudgeon]

Northern alliance was much more than that, it was a coalition formed with multiple states to restore the govt of the last afghan leader and the govt of mazari sharif

Technically you are correct. The leaders of the "Northern Alliance" quite appreciated the fact that Mr. Sharif's government left them alone to do as they pleased in their (de facto) independent fiefdoms.

who resisted the taliban to the very end,

Again, technically correct. Of course the leaders of the "Northern Alliance" would have resisted ANY force that attempted to infringe on their independence.

... that govt was known for religious tolerance and protection of minorities,

As had been the previous (Communist supported) government.

and all the other nations craved stability from their neighbor,

Which they would have "craved" regardless of who was governing Afghanistan (assuming that "governing Afghanistan" isn't an oxymoron).

because if there was no desire to restore the old govt they would not have formed that alliance.

The leaders of the "Northern Alliance" found that the Taliban "cramped their style" in many ways - one of the most objected to one was the insistence by the Taliban on eradicating the Opium trade. Now that the Taliban has been ousted, the Opium trade is flourishing again in Afghanistan.

Whether the US government is receiving financial benefits from the renewed flourishing of the Opium trade in Afghanistan is still undecided and will likely remain undecided until the current government of Afghanistan is changed (hopefully by the Afghans through their own efforts/laws).

Of course, no matter what evidence is brought forward regarding whether the US government is receiving financial benefits from the renewed flourishing of the Opium trade in Afghanistan will be totally discounted by whichever side that evidence doesn't "prove".

 

[Checkerboard Strangler]

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 people do their best to ignore posts from people who are still figuring this whole thing out, I am certain that, to them, the lefties who are screaming appear to make up the entire universe. Go ahead, it will confirm your bias, and there isn't a damn thing I can do about that, is there?

I admitted in an earlier post that I am conflicted, but mainly I am suspicious of Trump's motives. It's also important to take into account WHAT HAPPENS AFTER he pulls everyone out.

His motives? I think he's hoping the whole place goes KABOOM and that we get attacked, so that he can have a nice convenient WAR to keep him in office.

 

[Unitedwestand13]

The Northern Alliance had some pretty shady characters.....War Lords, Tribal thugs and foreigners from outside the , you are correct they did not align with US interests ....

One of the best potential leaders of the northern alliance was assassinated by al Qaeda 2 days prior to September 11 2001. A strange coincidence

 

[Perotista]

If people do their best to ignore posts from people who are still figuring this whole thing out, I am certain that, to them, the lefties who are screaming appear to make up the entire universe. Go ahead, it will confirm your bias, and there isn't a damn thing I can do about that, is there?

I admitted in an earlier post that I am conflicted, but mainly I am suspicious of Trump's motives. It's also important to take into account WHAT HAPPENS AFTER he pulls everyone out.

His motives? I think he's hoping the whole place goes KABOOM and that we get attacked, so that he can have a nice convenient WAR to keep him in office.

I don't know about Trump. I'm not a pro-Trumper and I'm not an anti-Trumper. I'm in neither camp. I don't like the man, I think he has an obnoxious, egotistical, uncouth personality, persona if you will. Better suited for a wrestler in the WWE than president or the resident of the Oval Office. I didn't vote for him and never will. He has done somethings I agreed with, somethings I haven't. But that is normal of all presidents in my lifetime.

I think Assad and Russia can handle what's left of ISIS in Syria. I will also be the first to admit the middle east isn't the area of my expertise. The Middle East has been in turmoil since the breakup of the Ottoman Empire and we westerners drew country boundaries after WWI. The Boundaries were drawn without a thought to what religious sect or tribal affiliations. Hence turmoil or where peace can only be maintained by a strong man in the form of a Saddam, Assad, Qaddafi etc. The middle east is one crazy place.

 

[Checkerboard Strangler]

I don't know about Trump. I'm not a pro-Trumper and I'm not an anti-Trumper. I'm in neither camp. I don't like the man, I think he has an obnoxious, egotistical, uncouth personality, persona if you will. Better suited for a wrestler in the WWE than president or the resident of the Oval Office. I didn't vote for him and never will. He has done somethings I agreed with, somethings I haven't. But that is normal of all presidents in my lifetime.

I think Assad and Russia can handle what's left of ISIS in Syria. I will also be the first to admit the middle east isn't the area of my expertise. The Middle East has been in turmoil since the breakup of the Ottoman Empire and we westerners drew country boundaries after WWI. The Boundaries were drawn without a thought to what religious sect or tribal affiliations. Hence turmoil or where peace can only be maintained by a strong man in the form of a Saddam, Assad, Qaddafi etc. The middle east is one crazy place.

I've no doubt that Russia can finish off ISIS in Syria. That's not the problem. The problem is, our stupid issues with Iran drove them straight into Vladimir Putin's arms. I'm not attempting to paint Iran's government as somehow noble, but it's a fact that they aren't planning on nuclear weapons.

We're better off if we attempt to restore some semblance of a relationship, no matter how rocky or thorny, with Iran...better than watching as they cuddle up to Putin. I'm not an expert on the ME either but this much I do know, most Americans know even less than I do.
For instance, if you ask the average American "when did our troubles with Iran begin?", they invariably answer "1979".

Not only did the British make a mess of things in the late 40's, we helped them make that mess, and 1953 was a banner year for US meddling in Iran, once again at the behest of the British Crown, the Anglo-Persian Oil Co. and MI5.

And with the disaster of Iraq in the rear-view mirror on top of everything else, leaving at this particular time, and handing it all over to Putin, it's as if every last drop of blood we shed over there was for a big fat NOTHING.
And not only that, but we will now be wide open for a terrorist attack which I am convinced is Donald Trump's Christmas wish to save his doomed legacy in the White House. Don't forget, we have a mastermind named Erik Prince over there (Dubai), who is fond of owning private armies, and his sister Betsy is the SecEd in Trump's administration.

Don't think Erik Prince wouldn't be happy to help a terrorist attack occur over here?
I'd make book on it.

 

[sanman]

I've no doubt that Russia can finish off ISIS in Syria. That's not the problem. The problem is, our stupid issues with Iran drove them straight into Vladimir Putin's arms. I'm not attempting to paint Iran's government as somehow noble, but it's a fact that they aren't planning on nuclear weapons.

We're better off if we attempt to restore some semblance of a relationship, no matter how rocky or thorny, with Iran...better than watching as they cuddle up to Putin. I'm not an expert on the ME either but this much I do know, most Americans know even less than I do.
For instance, if you ask the average American "when did our troubles with Iran begin?", they invariably answer "1979".

Not only did the British make a mess of things in the late 40's, we helped them make that mess, and 1953 was a banner year for US meddling in Iran, once again at the behest of the British Crown, the Anglo-Persian Oil Co. and MI5.

And with the disaster of Iraq in the rear-view mirror on top of everything else, leaving at this particular time, and handing it all over to Putin, it's as if every last drop of blood we shed over there was for a big fat NOTHING.
And not only that, but we will now be wide open for a terrorist attack which I am convinced is Donald Trump's Christmas wish to save his doomed legacy in the White House. Don't forget, we have a mastermind named Erik Prince over there (Dubai), who is fond of owning private armies, and his sister Betsy is the SecEd in Trump's administration.

Don't think Erik Prince wouldn't be happy to help a terrorist attack occur over here?
I'd make book on it.

The United States has more in common with Russia than it does with Iran. Putin is not some "Great Satan" that America should be pathologically obsessed with.

There are plenty of opportunities for the US to work with Russia, for the betterment of international stability in the 21st century. Putin's been the leader of Russia for quite some time, yet it's mainly in the past decade or so that history has been revised to suddenly cast him as a "Great Satan" through the shrillest possible rhetoric. And of course the shrillness has to continue at a fever pitch, lest anyone dare to stop for a moment to look around and question it.

KGB-this-KGB-that -- it's all a shrill shrieking narrative that continues to get ever shriller with each passing moment, to lash everyone into keeping their heads down and marching in lockstep.

 

[Perotista]

I've no doubt that Russia can finish off ISIS in Syria. That's not the problem. The problem is, our stupid issues with Iran drove them straight into Vladimir Putin's arms. I'm not attempting to paint Iran's government as somehow noble, but it's a fact that they aren't planning on nuclear weapons.

We're better off if we attempt to restore some semblance of a relationship, no matter how rocky or thorny, with Iran...better than watching as they cuddle up to Putin. I'm not an expert on the ME either but this much I do know, most Americans know even less than I do.
For instance, if you ask the average American "when did our troubles with Iran begin?", they invariably answer "1979".

Not only did the British make a mess of things in the late 40's, we helped them make that mess, and 1953 was a banner year for US meddling in Iran, once again at the behest of the British Crown, the Anglo-Persian Oil Co. and MI5.

And with the disaster of Iraq in the rear-view mirror on top of everything else, leaving at this particular time, and handing it all over to Putin, it's as if every last drop of blood we shed over there was for a big fat NOTHING.
And not only that, but we will now be wide open for a terrorist attack which I am convinced is Donald Trump's Christmas wish to save his doomed legacy in the White House. Don't forget, we have a mastermind named Erik Prince over there (Dubai), who is fond of owning private armies, and his sister Betsy is the SecEd in Trump's administration.

Don't think Erik Prince wouldn't be happy to help a terrorist attack occur over here?
I'd make book on it.

I may not like Trump much, but I don't have the fear of him you do either. I was ambivalent on Obama's Iran deal. I didn't say much one way or the other. What I did say was that it should have got senate ratification. That without ratification, it was no more than a deal between Obama and Iran than was Nixon deal with then President Theiu of South Vietnam that the U.S. would come to South Vietnam's aid if the North broke the Paris Peace Pact. Any future president could either abide by or not. This I pointed out and then let it rest.

Was it a good deal or wasn't it. I still don't know. I made no objections when Obama agreed to it other than it lacked ratification. I made no objections when Trump pulled us out. Talking is better than hostilities. That is if there is a chance of working things out. Then that may depend on trust. Does Iran trust us? Do we trust Iran? The answer to both is probably no. We then could revert back to Reagan's trust but verify slogan. If you have a means, a way to verify Iran or whomever is keeping their part of the bargain, then perhaps trust can be earned via verification.

As an outsider, a civilian, all I can do is take other people's word on that. So then it once again boils down to trust. Some say Iran was in compliance, others say not. Others were saying we were taking Iran's word that they were in compliance as there was no way for us to verify because they wouldn't let us on the ground. I don't know who was telling the truth, who wasn't or whom to trust. That in itself is a dang shame. When you can't trust those in charge, what have we come to?