• 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!

NATO flag lowered in Afghanistan as combat mission ends

Sometimes, one must admit that a situtation is hopeless and that a ground up (top down?) rebuild is required. A "nation" that has never had a functional central government, has a 5% literacy rate and has one paved road cannot be expected to govern itself, much less, create (and control) a viable security force. In order for "democracy" to have any chance of success in a nation, it first requires a population that can make decisions without having them based, nearly entirely, upon corruption and loyalty to "tribal" leaders that maintain power by force.

Phantom aid in Afghanistan - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
it's very difficult for the country to overcome the ethnic/tribal divisions, while in a civil war with the Pashtuns who don't recognize the international border between Afgh & Paki.

It has everything going against it, and nationbuilding was a folly. But there have been enough results I mentioned in here (IMHO)
to at least see it thru further. The drop dead date is 2014 for leaving, so we're going to be there like it or not.
 
it's very difficult for the country to overcome the ethnic/tribal divisions, while in a civil war with the Pashtuns who don't recognize the international border between Afgh & Paki.

It has everything going against it, and nationbuilding was a folly. But there have been enough results I mentioned in here (IMHO)
to at least see it thru further. The drop dead date is 2014 for leaving, so we're going to be there like it or not.



We gave the Taliban a Office in Qatar.....they don't negotiate, which they told us Right before Kerry came up with both Afghan Candidates ruling together. They are into a power struggle with each other.

BO is releasing Taliban and the worst of the worst.....they will not be thinking about kicking their shoes off and sitting anything out. Most will want payback. Which this doesn't count any of the issues dealing with AQ being back in.

Moreover how many attacks wherein our troopers were shot in the back? They even killed a US Army General. The Afghans like the Pakistani.....cannot be trusted!
 
We gave the Taliban a Office in Qatar.....they don't negotiate, which they told us Right before Kerry came up with both Afghan Candidates ruling together. They are into a power struggle with each other.

BO is releasing Taliban and the worst of the worst.....they will not be thinking about kicking their shoes off and sitting anything out. Most will want payback. Which this doesn't count any of the issues dealing with AQ being back in.

Moreover how many attacks wherein our troopers were shot in the back? They even killed a US Army General. The Afghans like the Pakistani.....cannot be trusted!

Al Qaeda's famous line: "We don't differentiate between civilian and soldier".
 
Al Qaeda's famous line: "We don't differentiate between civilian and soldier".



What makes it worse there are both Afghan and Pakistan fighters inside Syria fighting with ISIS. Which if not crushed will spread to both of the Taliban's sanctuaries.

They have already spread to Libya, which has AQ operating there, and Ansar al Sharia. ISIS has even picked up supporters from Trinidad and Tobago. They are moving West. Despite any moves to the East.
 
The Taliban were "wasted"?


Can you substantiate that in any credible way?

The last reports I heard were that the Taliban just slaughtered an entire village on the border with Pakistan in retaliation for the villagers having allowed American forces tom operate.

If you have some conclusive proof that the Taliban or other little renamed groups are not still killing, raping and torturing women, please present it.

And they have been getting stronger for years.

No, I stated toasted - The Northern Alliance was then in power.
Then the big idea- Nation Building comes about. How did that work out?
Look at the tribal areas and see how Afghanistan splits. North / South.


In regards to your post and deflection on most comments. Here ya go.
OK I can play that way.
Rwanda - 800 K -

Uganda -
World Report 2012: Uganda | Human Rights Watch
Articles about Mass Murders Uganda - Los Angeles Times

Then just a step away we have
Congo
A brief history of Congo's wars - CSMonitor.com

Not done yet.
How is Darfur doing

and last for this post.

South Sudan.
 
We gave the Taliban a Office in Qatar.....they don't negotiate, which they told us Right before Kerry came up with both Afghan Candidates ruling together. They are into a power struggle with each other.

BO is releasing Taliban and the worst of the worst.....they will not be thinking about kicking their shoes off and sitting anything out. Most will want payback. Which this doesn't count any of the issues dealing with AQ being back in.

Moreover how many attacks wherein our troopers were shot in the back? They even killed a US Army General. The Afghans like the Pakistani.....cannot be trusted!
No, they cannot be trusted but soldiers were expected to be friends rather than soldiers. Diplomacy efforts should be left to diplomats but who the victors are, and where the power lies, should never have been in doubt.

The Taliban have outsmarted the Harvard educated fools, and have won another victory.

Taliban declares 'defeat' of U.S. troops in Afghanistan - Chicago Tribune

http://foreignpolicy.com/2014/12/29...pital-is-imminent-libya-dawn-haftar-militias/

ISIS Takeovers in Iraq: Biggest Islamist Victory Since 9/11
 
We gave the Taliban a Office in Qatar.....they don't negotiate, which they told us Right before Kerry came up with both Afghan Candidates ruling together. They are into a power struggle with each other.

BO is releasing Taliban and the worst of the worst.....they will not be thinking about kicking their shoes off and sitting anything out. Most will want payback. Which this doesn't count any of the issues dealing with AQ being back in.

Moreover how many attacks wherein our troopers were shot in the back? They even killed a US Army General. The Afghans like the Pakistani.....cannot be trusted!
so what would you do MMC? I made my ideas fairly clear, see what pays off at least till 2016.
Karzai is gone, Ghani has a real unity gov't . Paki isn't playing the double game . The ANSF are fighting and dying...

All of which could be nothing, but it's a better chance then it ever was in the past 12 years but still a sticky wicket
http://foreignpolicy.com/2014/12/08/all-the-presidents-strongmen/
 
Last edited:
so what would you do MMC? I made my ideas fairly clear, see what pays off at least till 2016.
Karzai is gone, Ghani has a real unity gov't . Paki isn't playing the double game . The ANSF are fighting and dying...

All of which could be nothing, but it's a better chance then it ever was in the past 12 years but still a sticky wicket
All the President’s Strongmen | Foreign Policy



Since we were not in it to win it.....I would leave Afghanistan all to its own demise.
 
No, they cannot be trusted but soldiers were expected to be friends rather than soldiers. Diplomacy efforts should be left to diplomats but who the victors are, and where the power lies, should never have been in doubt.

The Taliban have outsmarted the Harvard educated fools, and have won another victory.

Taliban declares 'defeat' of U.S. troops in Afghanistan - Chicago Tribune

http://foreignpolicy.com/2014/12/29...pital-is-imminent-libya-dawn-haftar-militias/

ISIS Takeovers in Iraq: Biggest Islamist Victory Since 9/11



Heya Grant. :2wave: I agree with you.....although, truthfully the Taliban was not fighting an Army that was out to destroy them. Regardless if that means Afghanistan would lose 2/3rds of their population. So, while they may have won the conflict. There didn't really need to worry, and not from any Democracy.
 
NATO was supposed to be a defensive alliance for a potential war in Europe, instead it soon became a military tool for Western imperialism. It should have never gone into the Middle East.
 
Heya Grant. :2wave: I agree with you.....although, truthfully the Taliban was not fighting an Army that was out to destroy them. Regardless if that means Afghanistan would lose 2/3rds of their population. So, while they may have won the conflict. There didn't really need to worry, and not from any Democracy.

Hi MMC!

That brings up the question then of why the Army was even there. That the strongest military force in the world should be sacrificing these good men and women and then leaving for the Islamists to take over just doesn't make any apparent sense. The families and friends of those people who died in Iraq and Afghanistan must be asking themselves what it was all for.

It seems to me that there has to be some continuity between Presidencies when the country is at war or it will continue to be one defeat after another, with domestic political purposes overriding the welfare of the country and its allies.

The US retreating from the Middle East and Afghanistan will only embolden terrorists, just as we have seen in Iraq, Egypt and Libya. American wars have always been held somewhere else but I'm not sure, with the latest demonstration of weakness, that this good fortune will continue. That the American people themselves are divided and uncertain about foreign policy, even as to who is their enemy, is also a negative indicator.
 
NATO was originally the position of a Western European alliance to deter Communist Eastern Europe, now it has become a tool of liberalism to suppress all those against its message.
What 'message' are you referring to?
 
NATO did not start out as an anti-terrorist alliance, that was added in later. Your reading comprehension is terrible.
Nowhere did I say that it began as an anti-terrorist alliance. Read carefully, understand completely, then respond. You might also look at the link I submitted.
 
Nowhere did I say that it began as an anti-terrorist alliance. Read carefully, understand completely, then respond. You might also look at the link I submitted.
First read what I wrote, then read your nonsensical reply.

I'll quote it for you again since you have such a short memory:

NATO was supposed to be a defensive alliance for a potential war in Europe, instead it soon became a military tool for Western imperialism. It should have never gone into the Middle East.
 
"War on **Instert Neo-Con Phrase Here** "
Yup. Our resident neo-con failed to read the first part of his own link:

On 12 September, NATO decided that, if it is determined that the attack against the United States was directed from abroad, it shall be regarded as an action covered by Article 5 of the Washington Treaty.

This is the first time in the Alliance's history that Article 5 has been invoked.
 
First read what I wrote, then read your nonsensical reply.

I'll quote it for you again since you have such a short memory:

NATO was supposed to be a defensive alliance for a potential war in Europe, instead it soon became a military tool for Western imperialism. It should have never gone into the Middle East.

You said this
NATO did not start out as an anti-terrorist alliance, that was added in later. Your reading comprehension is terrible.
And you still haven't familiarized with Article 5. You seem to be celebrating New Years a little early.
 
Since we were not in it to win it.....I would leave Afghanistan all to its own demise.
which will prolly happen given Afgh history.
I don't knw how we can win a foreign civil war -we cant kill enough Taliban, we can't occupy forever.

The easiest thing to do is just leave. It might even be the smartest move. I think we should play it out a bit more
 
Back
Top Bottom