• 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!

Afghan president to sign deal Tuesday allowing US troops to stay after 2014

Porchev

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 1, 2009
Messages
3,092
Reaction score
2,491
Location
GA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Conservative
Perhaps learning from what happened in Iraq with ISIS, Afghanistan looks like they don't want that to happen to them, so they want some American troops to stay:

> Newly inaugurated Afghan President Ashraf Ghani Ahmadzai is expected to sign a vital security deal Tuesday to allow American soldiers to remain in the country past the end of the year, officials say.

A senior Defense Department official confirmed to Fox News that the new president will sign the Bilateral Security Agreement allowing for 9,800 U.S. troops to remain in Afghanistan after 2014. The president also is expected to sign a NATO Status of Forces Agreement, which will allow a small NATO force to stay on as well.

John Podesta, a senior adviser to President Obama, speaking to a news conference at the U.S. Embassy in Kabul, said he would sign it on behalf of the U.S.

The announcement comes after Ashraf Ghani Ahmadzai was sworn in Monday as Afghanistan's new president, replacing Hamid Karzai in the country's first democratic transfer of power after the 2001 U.S.-led invasion toppled the Taliban. Karzai would not sign the security agreement with the U.S. <

Afghan president to sign deal Tuesday allowing US troops to stay after 2014, officials say | Fox News
 
Ohhh yayyy.. The war on terror is never ever going to end!
 
Ohhh yayyy.. The war on terror is never ever going to end!

Keeping some sort of long-term U.S. military presence there will help keep the country from ending up like Iraq and Syria--with ISIS animals senselessly murdering innocent people and pillaging much of the country.
 
Keeping some sort of long-term U.S. military presence there will help keep the country from ending up like Iraq and Syria--with ISIS animals senselessly murdering innocent people and pillaging much of the country.

The Taliban is gonna come back one way or another.
 
Bring them all home now.
 
Ohhh yayyy.. The war on terror is never ever going to end!

You're just finding that out?

This is the greatest prize for the Military Industrial Complex, a war with no goals and no end. I read somewhere that it costs well over a million dollars to kill one terrorist, I have noi idea whether its true, but I tend not to want to doubt it.
 
They haven't been successful with our troops in place, what do you think will change that?



Time.

The fact that the US has thrown everything at them with the help of many other nations and they are still a threat proves they are wining.

Can someone tell me what the objective is here? At first it was kill terrorist especially bin Laden. Then it was kill the Taliban and regime change, then it was about schools and women's rights. It's going on 14 years, the longest war in US history and there's no end in sight, the Taliban is still a threat if you leave, the heroin trade is stronger than ever.

So what exactly has been accomplished? And what does "over" look like?
 

Hmmmm....All these articles from July of this year...What do you suppose that is tied to? I mean why the surge? Then I found this:

"President Obama revealed his long-awaited plan for Afghanistan on Tuesday, announcing that a residual force of 9,800 U.S. troops will remain there for one year following the end of combat operations in December. That number will be cut in half at the end of 2015, and reduced at the end of 2016 to a small military presence at the U.S. Embassy."

Obama to leave 9,800 U.S. troops in Afghanistan - The Washington Post

So, when Obama announces a reduction in troop levels, and ending active engagement by our forces, thus surrendering our positions, the Taliban fills in, no big surprise...More example of current weakness on Obama's part.
 
Time.

The fact that the US has thrown everything at them with the help of many other nations and they are still a threat proves they are wining.

Can someone tell me what the objective is here? At first it was kill terrorist especially bin Laden. Then it was kill the Taliban and regime change, then it was about schools and women's rights. It's going on 14 years, the longest war in US history and there's no end in sight, the Taliban is still a threat if you leave, the heroin trade is stronger than ever.

So what exactly has been accomplished? And what does "over" look like?

It seems like we have none, largely because we haven't gone after this to win it....We held on to some hope that the people would stand up to the radicals with our help, instead they just count on us to do it all, then spit on our graves when our backs are turned....

If they are the threat to us that we are told they are, and present ever increasing threat to our own homeland, then my suggestion is to stop playing around with theory, and hopes in this and go after it with overwhelming force, and burtality....Kill them all, let Allah sort them out.
 
It seems like we have none, largely because we haven't gone after this to win it....We held on to some hope that the people would stand up to the radicals with our help, instead they just count on us to do it all, then spit on our graves when our backs are turned....

If they are the threat to us that we are told they are, and present ever increasing threat to our own homeland, then my suggestion is to stop playing around with theory, and hopes in this and go after it with overwhelming force, and burtality....Kill them all, let Allah sort them out.


I can't support wholesale slaughter in any case, and especially here where you don't even know 'friend' from foe.

Of course they will spit on your graves, an invading army is only welcome when the populace has suffered hard at the hands of their own government. Japanese lined the streets with home made flags when MacArthur rolled into Tokyo, not because they loved Americans, but because they had been starving, living on rats for weeks.

People forget they have been occupied a lot in history, there is no love lost with the British, Russians will always be on heir **** list and now Americans.

Instead of killing people at the rate of $1 million a head otr something, what if the US converted the poppy industry into a legitimate supplier of opiate medications? Income, work, infrastructue.

In Germany, the 'enemy" came to be an ally against the Russians, not by being conquered and not right away, but after the Berlin Airlift and a few years of the Marshal Plan...that thinking is needed here as opposed to kill everything that we don't understand.
 
So we van send them back on a few years.



For what?

Are you admitting this is another Vietnam? Another "unwinable" war?

You going to stay there decades or centuries...the same conundrum faced by the British in the late 1800's, again in the 1980's by the Russians and now with the US. Can;'t leave and can't stay.....just a money burner that kills American soldiers
 
Hmmmm....All these articles from July of this year...What do you suppose that is tied to? I mean why the surge? Then I found this:

"President Obama revealed his long-awaited plan for Afghanistan on Tuesday, announcing that a residual force of 9,800 U.S. troops will remain there for one year following the end of combat operations in December. That number will be cut in half at the end of 2015, and reduced at the end of 2016 to a small military presence at the U.S. Embassy."

Obama to leave 9,800 U.S. troops in Afghanistan - The Washington Post

So, when Obama announces a reduction in troop levels, and ending active engagement by our forces, thus surrendering our positions, the Taliban fills in, no big surprise...More example of current weakness on Obama's part.

Or it just signals that the historic trend of things. The Taliban has always been slowly coming back. We can not be in a constant war with them.
 
For what?

Are you admitting this is another Vietnam? Another "unwinable" war?

You going to stay there decades or centuries...the same conundrum faced by the British in the late 1800's, again in the 1980's by the Russians and now with the US. Can;'t leave and can't stay.....just a money burner that kills American soldiers

For what? Because the threat that we suppressed, not destroyed, we recover and become a threat, again
 
Or it just signals that the historic trend of things. The Taliban has always been slowly coming back. We can not be in a constant war with them.

If we unleashed enough violence upon them, they would disappear.
 
I can't support wholesale slaughter in any case, and especially here where you don't even know 'friend' from foe.

Of course they will spit on your graves, an invading army is only welcome when the populace has suffered hard at the hands of their own government. Japanese lined the streets with home made flags when MacArthur rolled into Tokyo, not because they loved Americans, but because they had been starving, living on rats for weeks.

People forget they have been occupied a lot in history, there is no love lost with the British, Russians will always be on heir **** list and now Americans.

Instead of killing people at the rate of $1 million a head otr something, what if the US converted the poppy industry into a legitimate supplier of opiate medications? Income, work, infrastructue.

In Germany, the 'enemy" came to be an ally against the Russians, not by being conquered and not right away, but after the Berlin Airlift and a few years of the Marshal Plan...that thinking is needed here as opposed to kill everything that we don't understand.

Not talking about 'slaughter', but I will say, there is but one way to win a war, and that is to inflict enough death, misery, and pain til the the enemy knows it is too much to continue to wage. Short of that we are chasing our tails prolonging the suffering of both ourselves, and those living in these countries that have to put up with these people continually rebirthing, pillaging, and killing innocent people.

I don't know but I am sick to death of taking the kinder, gentler war making, it doesn't work!
 
Or it just signals that the historic trend of things. The Taliban has always been slowly coming back. We can not be in a constant war with them.

Not if we go in there and win the damned thing....Make it so evident that to even contemplate things like this fraud of a religion we are kissing the arse of today, that the wrath will come down immediately.
 
I can't support wholesale slaughter in any case, and especially here where you don't even know 'friend' from foe.

Of course they will spit on your graves, an invading army is only welcome when the populace has suffered hard at the hands of their own government. Japanese lined the streets with home made flags when MacArthur rolled into Tokyo, not because they loved Americans, but because they had been starving, living on rats for weeks.

People forget they have been occupied a lot in history, there is no love lost with the British, Russians will always be on heir **** list and now Americans.

Instead of killing people at the rate of $1 million a head otr something, what if the US converted the poppy industry into a legitimate supplier of opiate medications? Income, work, infrastructue.

In Germany, the 'enemy" came to be an ally against the Russians, not by being conquered and not right away, but after the Berlin Airlift and a few years of the Marshal Plan...that thinking is needed here as opposed to kill everything that we don't understand.

Japan and Germany were beaten down into submission after years of aggressive destruction and death from the war. We have been trying to build Afghanistan and Iraq up for years (somewhat like the Marshal Plan), but the problem may be that they (Taliban, ISIS types, etc.) were not beaten down enough yet. That is why I think some argue that we needed to be more aggressive militarily and loosen up the rules of engagement.
 
We have to leave some forces there. We still have troops in Germany, Japan and Korea. What's wrong with keep permanent bases where you need them?

000001.jpg
 
Back
Top Bottom