• 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. Congratulates Karzai on Winning Second Term

ReverendHellh0und

I don't respect you.
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 13, 2007
Messages
79,903
Reaction score
20,981
Location
I love your hate.
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
U.S. Congratulates Karzai on Winning Second Term

U.S. Congratulates Karzai on Winning Second Term - FOXNews.com


KABUL -- The United States and its allies have congratulated President Hamid Karzai on winning a second term following a proclamation by the country's election commission.

The Monday ruling ends a two-and-a-half month ordeal wrought with fraud, back-room negotiations and worries that the Afghan government might never regain credibility.




So just yesterday was it, that the Obama administration was using the elections as an excuse to fiddle without a decision on Afghanistan? That they would not make a decision until after the elections?


Well. They are over. It's time to do right by those who are in harms way.
 
exactly

just a few weeks ago our questions about a "credible partner" in afghanistan were enough to make the prez dither while disputing publicly his pentagon and cabinet

and today karzai's suddenly a-ok

rank amateurs occupy our white house
 
So just yesterday was it, that the Obama administration was using the elections as an excuse to fiddle without a decision on Afghanistan? That they would not make a decision until after the elections?


Well. They are over. It's time to do right by those who are in harms way.

You are more concerned with the timing of a decision than you are with the content of such a decision. That mentality is what got us into the mess in the first place.
 
So just yesterday was it, that the Obama administration was using the elections as an excuse to fiddle without a decision on Afghanistan? That they would not make a decision until after the elections?


Well. They are over. It's time to do right by those who are in harms way.

What exactly is the goal in Afghanistan with the additional troops? Are we trying to remove the Taliban from control? Are we ending corruption in the government? Are we forcing the people of Afghan to, for once in their life, fight for control of their country from?

Or are you for just throwing troops lives away into a pointless war?

I don't see the point of "liberating" people who don't care to be liberated.
 
exactly

just a few weeks ago our questions about a "credible partner" in afghanistan were enough to make the prez dither while disputing publicly his pentagon and cabinet

and today karzai's suddenly a-ok

rank amateurs occupy our white house
what would you have obama say about karzai? obama has to deal with the elected leader of the country.
 
So just yesterday was it, that the Obama administration was using the elections as an excuse to fiddle without a decision on Afghanistan? That they would not make a decision until after the elections?


Well. They are over. It's time to do right by those who are in harms way.
Hold on a damn minute, I thought Obama considered the Bush puppet Karzai a corrupt leader. Why the congratulations?
 
What exactly is the goal in Afghanistan with the additional troops? Are we trying to remove the Taliban from control? Are we ending corruption in the government? Are we forcing the people of Afghan to, for once in their life, fight for control of their country from?

Or are you for just throwing troops lives away into a pointless war?

I don't see the point of "liberating" people who don't care to be liberated.
First it's a just war, now it isn't. First we're after al Qaeda, now we're throwing away lives for people that don't want us there. What mission do you think we're on? Liberals wanted bin Laden dead, dead, dead....like right now!
 
First it's a just war, now it isn't. First we're after al Qaeda, now we're throwing away lives for people that don't want us there. What mission do you think we're on? Liberals wanted bin Laden dead, dead, dead....like right now!

The troop increase isn't to go after Bin Laden, it's for the strategy to defeat Taliban and "liberate" Afghanistan. That's one the initial reasons for the delay in the increase. The Admin is looking into switching strategies and focusing on Al-Q instead of the Taliban.

I put liberate in quotes because the corruption of the democratic government hurts the freedom of Afghan more then the Taliban.

I'm all for annihilating AL-Q and Bin Laden. I am NOT for wasting the lives of soldiers and American tax dollars on trying to liberate a country that doesn't care to be liberated.
 
Last edited:
Hold on a damn minute, I thought Obama considered the Bush puppet Karzai a corrupt leader. Why the congratulations?

According to the article there wasn't any "congratulations". All that is said is that the US embassy said they "looked forward to working with Karzai to support reform and improve security".

That's that detailed FoxNews reporting.
 
what would you have obama say about karzai? obama has to deal with the elected leader of the country.

Give us a break! :roll:
 
According to the article there wasn't any "congratulations". All that is said is that the US embassy said they "looked forward to working with Karzai to support reform and improve security".

That's that detailed FoxNews reporting.

KABUL -- The United States and its allies have congratulated President Hamid Karzai on winning a second term following a proclamation by the country's election commission.......

The British government and the United Nations also issued statements of congratulations.

That's what I read.
 
The Admin is looking into switching strategies and focusing on Al-Q instead of the Taliban.

Well, maybe it's time then....cause Obama is "shifting strats" as Commander in Chief....to establish timelines from Congress. Benchmarks so we can all play Monday morning QB and decide whether we're winning or not. And speaking of winning, if we're switching strats probably means the current strat(that Obama sent McChrystal over to employ) isn't working or is being "lost."

Where is Harry Reid with the "war is lost?"

Where is John Murtha's cries of murder when Obama drones kill innocents?

Where are the funding games and timeline demands from this Congress?

Where is the first benchmark so prevalent and necessary during Iraq's tough days?

Oh...here......I found where the Democrats are:

"Whatever decision you make, we'll support it." from Harry Reid.:roll:

Oh look...Hillary:

"It's important that at the end of the day that the president makes a decision that he believes in,"

........a decision "he" believes in, is that what Hillary said? Remember when she thought there were 545 Commanders in Chief? Remember in 2007 when she tried to revoke her authorization for war in Iraq?

Oh looksy......this from the media dariling Robert Gibbs:

"The president is going to make a decision — popular or unpopular — based on what he thinks is in the best interests of the country,"

Really, Bob? Well, don't that make ALL of you hypocritical jokes! What circus clowns we now have running the show, what hypocrites!
 
So now it's OK for the US to invade countries to take control of trade, economical, and geographical resources?

Of course not, but when has that stopped us before?

Karzai IS a puppet, at least in my opinion, that Obama is obviously not responsible for. Karzai was puppet of the Bush administration.

Was he democratically elected for another term? It appears so, so I guess Obama will be forced to deal with him.

But if he is somehow just shill for the US Gov, then it will probably make it even easier for Obama to do... whatever it is he plans on doing over there.
 
So now it's OK for the US to invade countries to take control of trade, economical, and geographical resources?

You didn't ask if its right, you asked what's the point.
 
again, what would you have obama do or say?
 
Congratulations Karzai. :shrug:

Afghanistan had its chance (twice) and the same person emerged victorious. Any decent Government would have to congratulate him, there is no other option.
 
Congratulations Karzai. :shrug:

Afghanistan had its chance (twice) and the same person emerged victorious. Any decent Government would have to congratulate him, there is no other option.
Not if he's really a cheater and a puppet.
 
What circus clowns we now have running the show, what hypocrites!

Judging by facts of your foreign policies, the clowns running the show BEHIND the scenes are the same as before...
 
Well, maybe it's time then....cause Obama is "shifting strats" as Commander in Chief....to establish timelines from Congress. Benchmarks so we can all play Monday morning QB and decide whether we're winning or not. And speaking of winning, if we're switching strats probably means the current strat(that Obama sent McChrystal over to employ) isn't working or is being "lost."

Where is Harry Reid with the "war is lost?"

Where is John Murtha's cries of murder when Obama drones kill innocents?

Where are the funding games and timeline demands from this Congress?

Where is the first benchmark so prevalent and necessary during Iraq's tough days?

Oh...here......I found where the Democrats are:

"Whatever decision you make, we'll support it." from Harry Reid.:roll:

Oh look...Hillary:

"It's important that at the end of the day that the president makes a decision that he believes in,"

........a decision "he" believes in, is that what Hillary said? Remember when she thought there were 545 Commanders in Chief? Remember in 2007 when she tried to revoke her authorization for war in Iraq?

Oh looksy......this from the media dariling Robert Gibbs:

"The president is going to make a decision — popular or unpopular — based on what he thinks is in the best interests of the country,"

Really, Bob? Well, don't that make ALL of you hypocritical jokes! What circus clowns we now have running the show, what hypocrites!

Your entire post relies on the one fact that you have failed to prove, that the current strategy is failing. I haven't seen any evidence that our military efforts will fail if McChrystal was given the resources he requested.

Changing strategy does not equate to the current strategy failing. Sometimes there is just a better strategy that produces better benefits in the short term or long term.

IMHO, I would rather us focus on Al-Q and eliminating the group that attacked us in 2001 then liberating a country that doesn't care to try and liberate themselves.
 
So just yesterday was it, that the Obama administration was using the elections as an excuse to fiddle without a decision on Afghanistan? That they would not make a decision until after the elections?


Well. They are over. It's time to do right by those who are in harms way.

Seems to me that the troops might be being used as an intimidation tactic in this election.
 
So now it's OK for the US to invade countries to take control of trade, economical, and geographical resources?

Yes. As long as you don't admit it.
 
You didn't ask if its right, you asked what's the point.

I took it as you providing a reason to fight the war. Which, to me, it isn't. It is an outcome, but should not be a point of fighting.
 
Back
Top Bottom