• 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 troops coming home? Obama to say on Wednesday

Re: President Obama To Announce Details of Afghanistan Strategy On Wednesday

please show us where your crystal ball has EVER been correct with its past predictions
only then would we have any basis to revise the absence of credibility your predictions receive

Obama's administration. How is the hope-n-change working for you? Like'n that 9% unemployment?


once we give the keys to a secure nation to its people, to defend themselves, it becomes their problem thereafter to maintain their own security

But first, you have to stat with a secure nation.

This is going to be the bloodiest retreat in the history of the United States.
 
Re: President Obama To Announce Details of Afghanistan Strategy On Wednesday

Obama's administration. How is the hope-n-change working for you? Like'n that 9% unemployment?
Obama inherits an economy which is quickly sliding toward depression and you think you are prescient in anticipating unemployment is going to be higher than normal
next you will tell us there will be snow fall up north during winter, and think that was a unique forecast

But first, you have to stat with a secure nation.
isn't that the stated goal?
it will soon be a fact in iraq
and here is my own prediction. in no time there will be a new government and internal upheaval. that nation will soon after become a satellite of iran. but the keys will have been given to the indigenous people and if they choose to drive their country over the precipice, that is their choice to make
same with afghanistan
we should have never engaged in nation building in either
we should never have gone into iraq
and we should have been in afghanistan only long enough to take our al qaeda and its supporters, and left the rubble for the people to deal with. do understand the consequences of sustaining the rogues who dare attack us

This is going to be the bloodiest retreat in the history of the United States.
hope we are both posting here when our final withdrawal occurs. i expect to be able to severely chide you for your bogus forecast
i am optimistic in that expectation ... because you have seldom been correct with any of your posts on these boards
 
Once again...to hammer the point again

The mission in A-stan was to get the ones that did 9-11, not nation build. Anybody that thinks we are going to make a core or even seam state out of A-stan needs to re-think
 
Once again...to hammer the point again

The mission in A-stan was to get the ones that did 9-11, not nation build. Anybody that thinks we are going to make a core or even seam state out of A-stan needs to re-think

The reason that we has to go to Afghanistan in 2001, is because we didn't perform a little nation building in 1986. The Russians left, so we washed our hands of Afghanistan, then the crazies moved in. Now, 2011--and into 2012--we're going to wash our hands of Afghanistan and the crazies are just going to move right back in, again. This retreat is history repeating itself. The same thing happened in 1918.
 
The reason that we has to go to Afghanistan in 2001, is because we didn't perform a little nation building in 1986. The Russians left, so we washed our hands of Afghanistan, then the crazies moved in. Now, 2011--and into 2012--we're going to wash our hands of Afghanistan and the crazies are just going to move right back in, again. This retreat is history repeating itself. The same thing happened in 1918.

Not really, we did some training of the crazies, so don't forget that. However, the Taliban was not too interested in anythign outside Afghanistan. Al Qaeda was not dependent on Afghanistan, as they function quite easily in other states, including states that are our allies. We could easily destroy training sites, hinder al Qaeda, and still not nation build, leaving Afghanistan to the Afghan people. We should not see us as an imperial US, but only function to assure our safety.
 
The reason that we has to go to Afghanistan in 2001, is because we didn't perform a little nation building in 1986. The Russians left, so we washed our hands of Afghanistan, then the crazies moved in. Now, 2011--and into 2012--we're going to wash our hands of Afghanistan and the crazies are just going to move right back in, again. This retreat is history repeating itself. The same thing happened in 1918.

I see your point, but I'd like to offer a different perspective.

It's extremely difficult, if not impossible, to nation-build in a country like Afghanistan with its history, geography, and demographics. It's a landlocked country. Doesn't have whole lot of natural resources (unless you count the mineral deposits that were just recently discovered). Its people have a tribal, almost medieval-like attitude toward society. There is no NATION of Afghans, it's merely a country with arbitrarily Western-drawn borders with a collection of a few different tribes.

Another point, should we have had to nation-build in every country we fought the Cold War in in order to forestall future POTENTIAL terrorist attacks? Should we have had to expend resources nation-building in a lot of those Latin American, African, and Asian third-world countries who faced political instability, just like Afghanistan, after the Cold War? I mean, hindsight is always 20-20.
 
The reason that we has to go to Afghanistan in 2001, is because we didn't perform a little nation building in 1986. The Russians left, so we washed our hands of Afghanistan, then the crazies moved in. Now, 2011--and into 2012--we're going to wash our hands of Afghanistan and the crazies are just going to move right back in, again. This retreat is history repeating itself. The same thing happened in 1918.

Leaving or not leaving A-stan? Arguments both for and against?

I'll see your side....willing to consider your ideas and opinions

What would have happened had we bombed and kicked the **** out of A-stan and Iraq and then just left them to recover and sort themselves out? Whatever our complaints about the people hating us now, it would be ten times worse. The leadership, i.e. strongman, that emerged would be solidly anti-American with wide popular support. We could say to them, don't support terrorists or we'll come back and do it again, but that isn't effective with that culture. That approach would only be effective if we were willing to so destroy the population and infrastructure that their only concern was whether they could scrape together enough food and sticks to last through the winter, with no economy, nothing but the barest amount of local organization and no national structure left to speak of.

We haven't, and we won't do that. So nation building, filling the vacuum, is the only viable, long term solution. Which is why we can't afford to abandon Iraq or Afghanistan until a government which is at least neutral, is strong enough to control the people.
 
I see your point, but I'd like to offer a different perspective.

It's extremely difficult, if not impossible, to nation-build in a country like Afghanistan with its history, geography, and demographics. It's a landlocked country. Doesn't have whole lot of natural resources (unless you count the mineral deposits that were just recently discovered). Its people have a tribal, almost medieval-like attitude toward society. There is no NATION of Afghans, it's merely a country with arbitrarily Western-drawn borders with a collection of a few different tribes.

Another point, should we have had to nation-build in every country we fought the Cold War in in order to forestall future POTENTIAL terrorist attacks? Should we have had to expend resources nation-building in a lot of those Latin American, African, and Asian third-world countries who faced political instability, just like Afghanistan, after the Cold War? I mean, hindsight is always 20-20.

The same could have been said about Japan, as well.
 
Leaving or not leaving A-stan? Arguments both for and against?

I'll see your side....willing to consider your ideas and opinions

What would have happened had we bombed and kicked the **** out of A-stan and Iraq and then just left them to recover and sort themselves out? Whatever our complaints about the people hating us now, it would be ten times worse. The leadership, i.e. strongman, that emerged would be solidly anti-American with wide popular support. We could say to them, don't support terrorists or we'll come back and do it again, but that isn't effective with that culture. That approach would only be effective if we were willing to so destroy the population and infrastructure that their only concern was whether they could scrape together enough food and sticks to last through the winter, with no economy, nothing but the barest amount of local organization and no national structure left to speak of.

We haven't, and we won't do that. So nation building, filling the vacuum, is the only viable, long term solution. Which is why we can't afford to abandon Iraq or Afghanistan until a government which is at least neutral, is strong enough to control the people.

It worked in Japan and Germany. In The Confederacy. In fact, it's worked everywhere that it's been performed.

What has been hsitorically prove not to work, has been a half assed attempt at waging war and more importantly, waging the peace that followed. We're going to make another half ass attempt at waging peace and it will fail.
 
It worked in Japan and Germany. In The Confederacy. In fact, it's worked everywhere that it's been performed.

What has been hsitorically prove not to work, has been a half assed attempt at waging war and more importantly, waging the peace that followed. We're going to make another half ass attempt at waging peace and it will fail.

did it work in germany after WWI
hardly
the way that defeated nation was treated - the "peace" which was ordained by the victors - ultimately led to WWII

we cannot - we should not try - to impose our will on other nations
help, yes
control, no
pity you are unable to discern the difference
 
did it work in germany after WWI
hardly
the way that defeated nation was treated - the "peace" which was ordained by the victors - ultimately led to WWII

we cannot - we should not try - to impose our will on other nations
help, yes
control, no
pity you are unable to discern the difference

Because no nation building took place in Germany after WW1. I made that point earlier.
 
What has been hsitorically prove not to work, has been a half assed attempt at waging war and more importantly, waging the peace that followed. We're going to make another half ass attempt at waging peace and it will fail.

You rest, refit and retrain. It won't be long...;)
 
You rest, refit and retrain. It won't be long...;)

Not to mention, remember the lessons we learned this go-'round, because they're going to come in handy in a few years.
 
karzai's brother, ahmad wali, was assassinated in kandahar yesterday

Ahmad Wali Karzai assassination 'huge propaganda boost for Taliban' - Telegraph

His assassination is likely to drive home a very stark message to the Afghan population, that the Afghan state under President Karzai is incapable of providing security, even for its own leadership. As such, this will make it much harder for Nato to persuade the local population to switch their allegiance to the Afghan government as ISAF forces begin to hand over the security lead to Afghan.

whether or not he was strung out, wali appears to have been quite the playa, more so than his kook of a brother, at least

The immediate commercial impact of his death will be felt by the string of businesses owned by the 'King of Kandahar,' as the staunchly pro-US Ahmad Karzai was known; their future is now unclear. These include influential private security companies, such as Watan Risk Management and Asia Security Group, which have contracts with ISAF for protecting its supply convoys.

The latter also runs its own private paramilitary unit in the province – the Kandahar Strike Force that assisted US Special Forces and the CIA to seek out and kill senior Taliban insurgents. Ahmad also owned or ran a string of hotels, real estate companies and even a Toyota car dealership.

He will also be remembered for the extensive narcotics empire that he ran from Kandahar, under the aegis of the provincial government. The smuggling operations he set up are unlikely to fracture in his absence.

party on, peaceniks
 
today: us aid money goes to afghan militants

The United States' inability to control the billions of dollars of American aid flowing into Afghanistan every year is increasing the risk that some of that money is inadvertently fueling the Afghan insurgency, according to a scathing new report by one of the U.S. government's own watchdogs.

The audit by the Special Inspector General for Afghanistan Reconstruction paints a dispiriting picture of a massive U.S. aid effort that's effectiveness has been seriously impaired by a lack of effective oversight and an Afghan government that refuses to rein in corruption.

The United States has spent more than $70 billion on security assistance and development projects in Afghanistan since 2002, and the Obama administration has made clear that it will continue sending extensive financial aid to the impoverished country even after the U.S.-led war winds down in 2014. Absent far-reaching policy changes, the report says much of that money may be misspent, embezzled, or passed into the hands of the country’s militants.

“While U.S. agencies have taken steps to strengthen their oversight of U.S. funds flowing through the Afghan economy, they still have limited visibility over the circulation of these funds, leaving them vulnerable to fraud or diversion to insurgents,” the staff of acting Special Inspector General for Afghan Reconstruction Herbert Richardson wrote in the report released on Wednesday. “We found that agencies have not instituted sufficient controls over U.S. funds, limiting their oversight.”

The political debate over Afghanistan focuses on the uncertain state of the U.S.-led military campaign, but the report concentrates on an equally important aspect of the broader war effort: the ongoing U.S. push to find ways of limiting the endemic corruption sapping public confidence in President Hamid Karzai's government.

Indeed, the new audit—the product of nearly eight months of work by U.S. investigators—highlights multiple instances where the Karzai government went out of its way to hamper anti-corruption efforts.

The report made clear that the Afghans don’t deserve all of the blame, however. It criticized the United States for failing to record the serial numbers of the aid money given to contractors and other recipients, making it virtually impossible to track the money’s movement. The report also faulted the United States for allowing prime contractors to pay their Afghan partners through unlicensed wire-transfer companies, again making it difficult to ensure aid money ends up in the right hands.

Watchdog Says U.S. Aid Money in Afghanistan May Be Fueling Insurgency - Yochi J. Dreazen - NationalJournal.com

the ig goes on to characterize the state of the kabul aiport as chaotic, with uncounted hundreds of thousands of dollars flying out routinely

fyi

afghanization, anyone?
 
today: us aid money goes to afghan militants

So you agree with me that we should end all our me wars immediately! That's super Prof!

Now which credible candidate is proposing that???

:sun
 
agree with whom?

LOL!

aghanistan---OBAMA's WAR---is a loser, american casualties are up 400% since the slasher ESCALATED

for what?

how's libya working out, peace lovers?

days not weeks?

nato not us?

it's NOT hostilities?

party on, progressives, be proud
 
agree with whom?

LOL!

aghanistan---OBAMA's WAR---is a loser, american casualties are up 400% since the slasher ESCALATED

for what?

how's libya working out, peace lovers?

days not weeks?

nato not us?

it's NOT hostilities?

party on, progressives, be proud


I am impressed with your anti-war position Prof.

When did you first become anti-war? Show us your alternative? Which credible candidate is proposing less war and military funding than Obama? :sun
 
I am impressed with your anti-war position

you're gonna make me puke

party on, peaceniks

pray for the martyrs of OBAMA'S WAR---afghanistan

and good luck making any sense outta libya

the commander in chief is clueless
 
you're gonna make me puke

party on, peaceniks

pray for the martyrs of OBAMA'S WAR---afghanistan

and good luck making any sense outta libya

the commander in chief is clueless



Make up your mind. Are you pro war or anti-war?

Easy question for someone who is not a political hack and believes in what he's posting. Come on show us you are not just a political hack, state your position for once.

Cat got your tongue?
 
I am impressed with your anti-war position Prof.

When did you first become anti-war? Show us your alternative? Which credible candidate is proposing less war and military funding than Obama? :sun


Where is Obama saying he will pull out? Wait thats right he will use it to win the election and do it next year during the election season. What a partisan ass
 
Where is Obama saying he will pull out? Wait thats right he will use it to win the election and do it next year during the election season. What a partisan ass


So like me, you support immediate withdrawal from both our Middle East wars?
 
No I support kicking terrorists ass

Well here you said, "Where is Obama saying he will pull out? Wait thats right he will use it to win the election and do it next year during the election season. What a partisan ass."

Which is it, do you want to pull out now as I do? Or are you just taking that position as a dishonest political hack?
 
Back
Top Bottom