• 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!

U.S. Softens Deadline for Deal to Keep Troops in Afghanistan

anatta

DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 20, 2013
Messages
24,880
Reaction score
10,597
Location
daily dukkha
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/12/24/w...ep-troops-in-afghanistan.html?ref=world&_r=1&

Screw me into the ground sideways if there is ANY reason to stay with these parasitic Afganis dithering around for "better terms"

here's the deal -sign it. Oh you won't? well then,,,get the **** out of Dodge City yesterday..last train out of Kabul (etc)

WHY ARE WE STAYING ON A BUNCH OF BLACKMAILERS TERMS???? Haven't we given enough blood and treasure to that pile of rocks???

What's it going to take folks to finally understand we are not wanted, there isn't any way out of this but just LEAVE..

Karzai just opened the door, and we're like...."uh.. well maybe we'll stay where we're not wanted"...
 

Not really sure why the US government is not seeing the red flags here. He wants a peace deal between the taliban and the government. In other words, he wants to legally support the taliban instead of having to do it behind our backs. I think we should continue to bomb the hell out of the taliban irregaurdless of the afghan government.
 

Yet another "red line" that comes and goes? The reality is that the defense industry wants to keep a firm US foothold in "the region" and, as in Pakistan, the US will pay the necessary bribes to do so. Thi$ i$ $ome $erious money at $take here.

Having already declared a US "victory" date in Afghanistan, all that remains is to maintain a plausible reason to keep a US troop presence in "the region" enabling keeping massive amounts of US money flowing into the right hands. Karzai knows that he holds the best hand at the poker table and is calling the Obama bluff.
 
It seems to me that Afghanistan would be a much better enemy than a friend.

Let the Taliban have it. Let them enjoy. Let Karzai embrace them and feed them dates. If they act up, just bomb them back to the stone age.

This begging and pleading for the right to give them our money and lives seems, uh, a bit ridiculous? Here is a chance for a graceful exit but then who will pay our mercenaries?

Money speaks louder than logic.

The sword is mightier than the pen.
 
Yes. Karzai envisions a "supporting role" for the Afg. Taliban. like there going to accept the Kabul western style gov't?? Playing a "suport role?""

I mean we saw this movie before-right?- they do not accept "supporting roles", despite this make emailed statement

Taliban urge Afghan president Hamid Karzai to reject US security deal | World news | theguardian.com

So either leave, and let the Taliban work with Karzai, or stay, and isolate the Taliban, whichever way/Karzai play it, the Taliban are not going to accept US presence.
And it looks like Karzai (whom is leaving office in April) is just fine with us going.... or blackmailing us to stay.....
ugh....just get out..this is a cluster**** like the 12 years of the war has been already.

Nothing to gain by staying.
 

Yes. But Karzai only holds that hand as long as we keep staying at the poker table.
The only way out is to cash in the chips, and let the place go back to it's normal feudal ways.
 
annata said:
Yes. But Karzai only holds that hand as long as we keep staying at the poker table.
The only way out is to cash in the chips, and let the place go back to it's normal feudal ways.
Click to expand...

OK but without a US base of operations in Afghanistan what happens to the super profitable US "war on terror"? That is the real issue here, since we can hardly count on Egypt, Iraq or Pakistan to rent us a base of operations. Obama, like many congress critters (from both parties), is depending on serious campaign cash coming from defense spending in support of the "war on terror". You are looking at this from the perspective of a common man on Main Street, put on your congress critter hat or defense contractor hat and then reevaluate the situation.
 

What we should say is that you either sign this, or we stop sending you money and bomb the crap out of your country anyway. He needs our support to stay in power.
 
If we leave, the taliban will again rule the country, and that is something we simply can not allow to happen.
 
Got it.
we want our bases worldwide, so we can keep the empire (MIC) in business. We are in a Global War on Terror/Battlefield Earth, (etc.)

So the status quo of being ready/war footing anytime, anywhere demands we have bases in Afg.
It's no co-incidence the Senate Intel committe memebers get a lot cash from ....



Has Political Spending Defanged Intel Watchdogs in Congress?
 
KABUL, Afghanistan - Three International Security Assistance Force service members died following a suicide vehicle born improvised explosive device attack in Kabul, Afghanistan today (12/27)

DVIDS - News - ISAF reports casualties

(It is ISAF policy to defer casualty identification procedures to the relevant national authorities)
 

If we don't stay, the Karzai government folds up, the Taliban takes over and we are going back to start over, from scratch, in ten years.
 

That tells me that the enemy hasn't been destroyed and we need to launch an offensive to destroy him.
 
apdst said:
If we don't stay, the Karzai government folds up, the Taliban takes over and we are going back to start over, from scratch, in ten years.
Click to expand...

I wonder...does anybody, anywhere know what they're doing? Not that I can see, but if turmoil is wanted, we got that covered, and we're good at it! :mrgreen:

Good morning, apdst. :2wave:
 
polgara said:
I wonder...does anybody, anywhere know what they're doing? Not that I can see, but if turmoil is wanted, we got that covered, and we're good at it! :mrgreen:

Good morning, apdst. :2wave:
Click to expand...

Good morning, sugar!

I believe the Leftists are so eager to create a scenario so they can declare defeat, that they'll do anything they can to undermine the efforts of our forces deploye to foreign battlefields.
 
get them out now.

President, Obama, at least keep one damned promise.

get them out.
 
apdst said:
If we don't stay, the Karzai government folds up, the Taliban takes over and we are going back to start over, from scratch, in ten years.
Click to expand...
No we're not going to "start over", the US isn't going to re-invade. We might wind up doing the thing we should have done from the beginning, and just run a counter-terrorism policy
insetad of all out couner insurgency.

I have very serious doubts about the long term viability of this Afg. gov't - the history of the place being the "graveyard of the empires". shows it is a feudal society at heart
that only unifies to throw out occupiers. we are seen as occupiers. The only question remaining is if more Afganis will support the US lproped up gov't
or go the route the Taliban calls us - occupiers, and occupiers must be thrown out along with their gov'ts
 
polgara said:
I wonder...does anybody, anywhere know what they're doing? Not that I can see, but if turmoil is wanted, we got that covered, and we're good at it! :mrgreen:

Good morning, apdst. :2wave:
Click to expand...


Yes Lady P......the Taliban knows whats it doing.....and they don't care that we lost. They will continue to keep going after our people. Even if they miss. Like they did Christmas day.



KABUL, Afghanistan (AP) — The U.S. Embassy in Kabul was hit by indirect fire before dawn on Christmas Day but no Americans were hurt, as attacks elsewhere in Afghanistan killed at least six people Wednesday, officials said.

Two rounds struck the sprawling embassy compound but it was not immediately clear which part of the complex, and a U.S. Embassy official said the incident was under investigation.

"At approximately 6:40 local time in Kabul, approximately two rounds of indirect fire impacted the U.S. Embassy compound," said the official, who spoke on condition of anonymity in line with regulations. "All Americans are accounted for and no injuries were sustained."

Indirect fire can refer to either mortars or rockets.

The Taliban promptly claimed they fired four rockets at the American Embassy on Wednesday and said they inflicted heavy casualties. But the insurgents often exaggerate their claims.....snip~

US Embassy in Kabul attacked on Christmas Day - AP News 12/25/2013 6:37 AM

http://www.debatepolitics.com/inter...-us-embassy-kabul-attacked-christmas-day.html
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register
Cookies are required to use this site. You must accept them to continue using the site. Learn more…