Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 18

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

  1. #1
    Guru
    annata's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Location
    beneath the bodi tree
    Last Seen
    02-16-17 @ 12:52 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    3,163

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

    an embarrassing turn after weeks of threats by some senior administration officials, including Susan E. Rice, the national security adviser, that a complete American withdrawal from Afghanistan — the so-called zero option — would be considered if Mr. Karzai did not sign the deal by the year’s end.

    Mr. Karzai reiterated that a formal peace process with the Taliban must begin before he signs, and that the United States commit itself to Afghanistan’s peace and security.
    He would sign, he said, “as soon as they are ready to accept our conditions, because we are not in a rush.”
    http://www.nytimes.com/2013/12/24/wo...ef=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"...
    Oṃ maṇi padme hūṃ

  2. #2
    Professor
    Capster78's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Location
    Florida
    Last Seen
    08-24-15 @ 02:35 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    2,253

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

    Quote Originally Posted by annata View Post
    http://www.nytimes.com/2013/12/24/wo...ef=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.
    - There was never a good war, or a bad peace.
    - Idealistically, everything should work as you planed it to. Realistically, it depends on how idealistic you are as to the measure of success.
    - Better to be a pessimist before, and an optimist afterwords.

  3. #3
    Sometimes wrong

    ttwtt78640's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    Uhland, Texas
    Last Seen
    Today @ 10:27 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    34,580

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

    Quote Originally Posted by annata View Post
    http://www.nytimes.com/2013/12/24/wo...ef=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"...
    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.
    “The reasonable man adapts himself to the world: the unreasonable one persists to adapt the world to himself.
    Therefore all progress depends on the unreasonable man.” ― George Bernard Shaw, Man and Superman

  4. #4
    Discount Philosopher
    specklebang's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Las Vegas
    Last Seen
    06-05-14 @ 08:26 PM
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    11,524

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

    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.

  5. #5
    Guru
    annata's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Location
    beneath the bodi tree
    Last Seen
    02-16-17 @ 12:52 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    3,163

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Capster78 View Post
    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.
    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

    The Taliban on Monday offered the Afghan leader rare, if somewhat grudging, support for his position so far, but also demanded that he abandon all conditions and reject the pact unilaterally.
    "Karzai, the president of the Kabul administration, apparently conditionally refused to sign the BSA," the emailed statement from spokesman Zabihullah Mujahid said. "If he truly understands the real (situation), he should reject it without conditions, from a sense of Afghan spirit.
    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.
    Oṃ maṇi padme hūṃ

  6. #6
    Guru
    annata's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Location
    beneath the bodi tree
    Last Seen
    02-16-17 @ 12:52 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    3,163

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

    Quote Originally Posted by ttwtt78640 View Post
    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.
    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.
    Oṃ maṇi padme hūṃ

  7. #7
    Sometimes wrong

    ttwtt78640's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    Uhland, Texas
    Last Seen
    Today @ 10:27 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    34,580

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

    Quote Originally Posted by annata View Post
    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.
    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.
    “The reasonable man adapts himself to the world: the unreasonable one persists to adapt the world to himself.
    Therefore all progress depends on the unreasonable man.” ― George Bernard Shaw, Man and Superman

  8. #8
    Professor
    Capster78's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Location
    Florida
    Last Seen
    08-24-15 @ 02:35 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    2,253

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

    Quote Originally Posted by annata View Post
    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.
    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.
    - There was never a good war, or a bad peace.
    - Idealistically, everything should work as you planed it to. Realistically, it depends on how idealistic you are as to the measure of success.
    - Better to be a pessimist before, and an optimist afterwords.

  9. #9
    Professor
    Capster78's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Location
    Florida
    Last Seen
    08-24-15 @ 02:35 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    2,253

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

    If we leave, the taliban will again rule the country, and that is something we simply can not allow to happen.
    - There was never a good war, or a bad peace.
    - Idealistically, everything should work as you planed it to. Realistically, it depends on how idealistic you are as to the measure of success.
    - Better to be a pessimist before, and an optimist afterwords.

  10. #10
    Guru
    annata's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Location
    beneath the bodi tree
    Last Seen
    02-16-17 @ 12:52 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    3,163

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

    Quote Originally Posted by ttwtt78640 View Post
    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.
    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 ....

    Reviewing Federal Election Commission (FEC) data from January 1, 2005 to October 4, 2013, MapLight found that the current members of the House and Senate intelligence committees received a total of $3.7 million in campaign contributions from the PACs and employees of the Pentagon’s 20 largest intelligence contractors (as ranked by USASpending.gov on September 26, 2013).

    Contracting giant Lockheed Martin was the single largest contributor, pumping nearly $800,000 into intelligence committee members’ campaign coffers. Northrop Grumman gave the second-largest amount with $753,000, followed by Honeywell International with $715,000. Notably, a large number of contractors among the top 20 have won hundreds of millions of dollars in Defense Department intelligence contracts since 2005 yet gave nothing or next to nothing in campaign contributions to House and Senate intelligence committee members during that period. In fact, half of the top 20 either made no contributions or gave less than $10,000. Snowden’s former employer, Booz Allen Hamilton, gave $12,400 and received $123 million in contracts.

    Because much of their work is conducted behind closed doors, it is difficult to precisely measure the effect of campaign spending on the intelligence committees’ oversight functions. We do know, however, that the committees are staunchly protecting the intelligence agencies and their programs from radical reforms
    Has Political Spending Defanged Intel Watchdogs in Congress?
    Oṃ maṇi padme hūṃ

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •