• 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!

US to sign historic deal with Taliban, Trump announces, beginning end of US war in Afghanistan and w

ClaraD said:
I want us to finish the job we started. We committed and only cowards tuck tail and run. My son didn't go and become disabled for us to run away.
Click to expand...

It probably would help if you defined "the job we started" first.
 
Jredbaron96 said:
Not a single one of the hijackers were Afghans.
Click to expand...

Thanks you for letting me know.

They all trained or traveled to Afghanistan. We need to make sure no training/recruitment camps reopen after we leave.
 
eman623 said:
They all trained or traveled to Afghanistan. We need to make sure no training/recruitment camps reopen after we leave.
Click to expand...

Because there's no where else for terrorists to train, right? No places in say, Yemen, or Iraq, or Syria, or North Africa?
 
ClaraD said:
I want us to finish the job we started. We committed and only cowards tuck tail and run. My son didn't go and become disabled for us to run away.
Click to expand...

So you are sending your kid back to Afghanistan to continue the fight right.. Or do you just expect other families to bear that burden.

I have 4 rotations to Afghanistan. How many more should my family have to put up with.
 
Jredbaron96 said:
Not a single one of the hijackers were Afghans.
Click to expand...

Please tell me what significance that is.

Was AQ not headquarteres in Afghanistan. Was the Taliban not protecting AQ.
 
braindrain said:
Please tell me what significance that is.

Was AQ not headquarteres in Afghanistan. Was the Taliban not protecting AQ.
Click to expand...

And AQ was supported by members of the Saudi government. When are we going to go after them?
 
Jredbaron96 said:
Because there's no where else for terrorists to train, right? No places in say, Yemen, or Iraq, or Syria, or North Africa?
Click to expand...

So we should just allow a county to support terrorist whose goal is to attack the US go unmolested because they might find another country willing to support them.
 
braindrain said:
So we should just allow a county to support terrorist whose goal is to attack the US go unmolested because they might find another country willing to support them.
Click to expand...

No, of course not. Where in my post did I say that?

The argument that we need to stay in Afghanistan because it might become a safe haven loses weight once you realize that terrorists have already found other places to plan and prepare terrorist attacks from.
 
Jredbaron96 said:
And AQ was supported by members of the Saudi government. When are we going to go after them?
Click to expand...

Lets see your evidence that the Saudi government supported AQ.
Random members of an entire government doing something mean almost nothing.

Some members of the US government supported the IRA. Does that mean the US supported them.
 
braindrain said:
Lets see your evidence that the Saudi government supported AQ.
Random members of an entire government doing something mean almost nothing.
Click to expand...

Except they don't mean "almost nothing". A high ranking member of a government supporting a terrorist organization is a problem regardless of how you want to try to spin it. The fact that the US government is involved in trying to suppress information related to Saudi involvement in 9/11 is also troublesome.

Some members of the US government supported the IRA. Does that mean the US supported them.
Click to expand...

Interesting argument. Would you say the US supported the Contras as well?
 
Jredbaron96 said:
No, of course not. Where in my post did I say that?

The argument that we need to stay in Afghanistan because it might become a safe haven loses weight once you realize that terrorists have already found other places to plan and prepare terrorist attacks from.
Click to expand...

You seem to be confused. Where did I say we should stay Afghanistan. Oh thats right. No where. You just made that up.

I have always thought the moment we didnt build a coalition government at the very same time we we driving the Taliban out back in the initial invasion that there was no real chance for that country.

We had one opportunity and we blew it because the US government was to interested in playing whack a mole and not UW.
 
braindrain said:
You seem to be confused. Where did I say we should stay Afghanistan. Oh thats right. No where. You just made that up.
Click to expand...

The person I was replying to was on that line of thinking. Your desperation to play the victim is showing.

We had one opportunity and we blew it because the US government was to interested in playing whack a mole and not UW.
Click to expand...

On that you'll get no disagreement from me.
 
Jredbaron96 said:
Except they don't mean "almost nothing". A high ranking member of a government supporting a terrorist organization is a problem regardless of how you want to try to spin it. The fact that the US government is involved in trying to suppress information related to Saudi involvement in 9/11 is also troublesome.



Interesting argument. Would you say the US supported the Contras as well?
Click to expand...
The fact that you can't separate actual foreign policy and individual actions is rather surprising.
I thought you were better then that.

And yes the US supported the contrast as that was an official policy even if a secret one. Not random people acting on their own.
 
Jredbaron96 said:
The person I was replying to was on that line of thinking. Your desperation to play the victim is showing.



On that you'll get no disagreement from me.
Click to expand...
I responded to a post that quoted me. So I was the one you were replying to. Nice try at dishonest games though.
 
braindrain said:
The fact that you can't separate actual foreign policy and individual actions is rather surprising.
Click to expand...

The fact that you think that makes it okay says a lot.
 
Jredbaron96 said:
The fact that you think that makes it okay says a lot.
Click to expand...
Yes how dare I not hold am entire government responsible for the actions of a few individuals. I notice you want to avoid US government supporung the IRA but somehow that is different.
 
Jredbaron96 said:
Because there's no where else for terrorists to train, right? No places in say, Yemen, or Iraq, or Syria, or North Africa?
Click to expand...

What is your point?
 
braindrain said:
You quoted me and I responded. That is a fact. Sorry if you don't like that.
Click to expand...

I was originally quoting someone else and you decided to jump on. You can stop lying now.
 
braindrain said:
Yes how dare I not hold am entire government responsible for the actions of a few individuals. I notice you want to avoid US government supporung the IRA but somehow that is different.
Click to expand...

Lol so it was a just a few bad apples in senior levels of the Saudi government who were involved, no big deal.
 
Jredbaron96 said:
Are we going to start intervening in all those countries now?
Click to expand...

If they set up terrorist camps and start training folks to attack us, then yes, we should intervene.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom