• 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!

Karzai: "American military should “stop harassing” the Afghan judiciary

American said:
No they're not, they got their asses handed to them in a big way.
Click to expand...

Which is precisely why they are laughing at the US failure to improve anything other than the poppy production in the same place. Laughing their asses off.
 
eohrnberger said:
Looking a bit into the crystal ball here, but still.

US and Afghanistan can't come to a Status of Forces agreement, so all the US troops are out by end of year 2014.
Taliban and the newly elected Afghan president continue talks, as the Taliban slowly take over the entire government.
Once the Taliban have done away with the Democratically elected government (say a year or two at most).
The Taliban will re-institute their Sharia law, so music and movies will be banned, girls won't be allowed to go to school, rape, stoning, etc. will be the commonly handed out punishment by their local courts.
The Taliban invite Al Qaeda back in, as they did years before.
Give it about 10 years, we'll be back to where we started.
Chances are high, in my mind anyway, that coalition forces will have to re-invade that country by about then.

Too bad Obama and Karzai couldn't manage to get that Status of Forces agreement. Might have put this entire thing on a different path. This will be a failure on both of them.
Click to expand...

Heya Eorhn :2wave: .....they are saying Hagel and Obama are just thinking of waiting until the Election is over. Then try again......how pathetic. 4 times they told him to sign. Now we are going to give them another chance to sign. I have never seen such backstreet shuffling while trying to sound forceful and confident of ......that we know what we are doing. :roll:
 
annata said:
ya but I do not see the TAliban taking over Paki, like they prolly will in Afg. Paki has a legitimate military/ not afraid to run a coupe', if it happens.

Iran gets nukes/Saud gets nukes ( from Paki). "what difference does it make at this point?" ..lol (Hillary on Bengazi)
Click to expand...



Well I got a message for the Pakis......look back in their history. Seems someone a very very long time ago got ticked at them and obliterated a city. Leaving everything in the city and the surrounding region under glass. Whats got all of MS Science all confused is.....no one around we knew of had, such capabilities.
shocked.gif
 
MMC said:
Heya Eorhn :2wave: .....they are saying Hagel and Obama are just thinking of waiting until the Election is over. Then try again......how pathetic. 4 times they told him to sign. Now we are going to give them another chance to sign. I have never seen such backstreet shuffling while trying to sound forceful and confident of ......that we know what we are doing. :roll:
Click to expand...

Hey there MMC! :2wave:

No, from what I've heard the pentagon has plans that'll pull out every last troop by the end of this year. I don't think that they'll even try again with a newly elected president. What are the chances that Karzai is going to be re-elected? We already know he and his administration are corrupt as hell, so any challenger has one heck of a hill to climb to be elected.

I'd be inclined to pull out every single piece of equipment out along with the troops. No sense leaving it for the Taliban to use against us later.
 
Well look who put on a big boy robe.
 
eohrnberger said:
Hey there MMC! :2wave:

No, from what I've heard the pentagon has plans that'll pull out every last troop by the end of this year. I don't think that they'll even try again with a newly elected president. What are the chances that Karzai is going to be re-elected? We already know he and his administration are corrupt as hell, so any challenger has one heck of a hill to climb to be elected.

I'd be inclined to pull out every single piece of equipment out along with the troops. No sense leaving it for the Taliban to use against us later.
Click to expand...



I think Klein, but don't quote me on that. There were a couple of others on the same show. Was saying this Morning that we would look to work with whatever Military was in place. They know Karzai is out.....so it will be see if we can still work out Obama Foreign Policy.

I am telling ya.....he always re-rounds and tries to clean up his mess. Anything that helps stroke his ego. So that it doesn't show failure on his record.
 
MMC said:
I think Klein, but don't quote me on that. There were a couple of others on the same show. Was saying this Morning that we would look to work with whatever Military was in place. They know Karzai is out.....so it will be see if we can still work out Obama Foreign Policy.

I am telling ya.....he always re-rounds and tries to clean up his mess. Anything that helps stroke his ego. So that it doesn't show failure on his record.
Click to expand...

I agree but would point out, there never was an attainable "success" in Afghanistan.
 
APACHERAT said:
Or if McCain or Romney were President.
.
As the Commandant of the Marine Corps, Gen. Amos or is it Anus ? :lol: said the other day in reference to Afghanistan, it ain't going to get any better.
Click to expand...

Whatever his name, he's right. It ain't going to get any better.
 
Montecresto said:
I agree but would point out, there never was an attainable "success" in Afghanistan.
Click to expand...
a classic ex. of "mission creep". There was a poster here (can't recall) that laid it out nicely.
Something like we flooded troops into Tora Bora chasing bin Laden, and just wound up with Bush's war to secure and BUILD a stable Afghanistan.

Obama's problem is he doubled down on this unworkable idea - his so called "escalation/de-escalation" and got 3/4 of the total dead US troops under his watch killed.
Not to mention the $B's in aid.. Not to mention the fact Karzai makes him look foolish, etc.
 
Montecresto said:
I agree but would point out, there never was an attainable "success" in Afghanistan.
Click to expand...


Well we know that.....but Obama thought it was his lynchpin with AQ being on the run. Albeit knowing all along where they started from and that Africa was quite a bit left on the map that he was looking at.
 
bring them home. all of them.
 
Dittohead not! said:
They were about as successful with whatever they were trying to accomplish as we are with whatever we're trying to accomplish.
Click to expand...

OMG Ditto, too funny, but true nevertheless.
 
Montecresto said:
Which is precisely why they are laughing at the US failure to improve anything other than the poppy production in the same place. Laughing their asses off.
Click to expand...

No, you hope they are laughing, because it's you that thinks it's a funny situation.
 
annata said:
a classic ex. of "mission creep". There was a poster here (can't recall) that laid it out nicely.
Something like we flooded troops into Tora Bora chasing bin Laden, and just wound up with Bush's war to secure and BUILD a stable Afghanistan.

Obama's problem is he doubled down on this unworkable idea - his so called "escalation/de-escalation" and got 3/4 of the total dead US troops under his watch killed.
Not to mention the $B's in aid.. Not to mention the fact Karzai makes him look foolish, etc.
Click to expand...

MMC said:
Well we know that.....but Obama thought it was his lynchpin with AQ being on the run. Albeit knowing all along where they started from and that Africa was quite a bit left on the map that he was looking at.
Click to expand...

Oh I know that dude! Don't take my statement as any sort of excuse for Obama. But this adventure that not only didn't define what success ever even was, it had the support of all but one rather unknown congresswoman, (I was standing next to her at the time) so there's plenty of blame for going in there already. A "mission accomplished" was never clear or in any realm a possibility. Bush's whole "war on terror" that Obama stopped fighting has no tangible army to engage, has no defined battle field, no possible end strategy, and the only winners are defense contractors and the people that lone governments money to prosecute their military conflicts. Civilians, in any proximity to a firefight, drone strike or bombing raid are the feigned casualties and regarded as fodder, collateral damage, etc. and their countries are destabilized and left uncertain, dangerous, full of corruption and various factions fighting for control. this has been both supported by and ****ed up by both parties, neither are excused, and I wait, albeit impatiently for americans to stop lending their partisan support for failure. not to worry though bro, im not holding my breathe.
 
American said:
No, you hope they are laughing, because it's you that thinks it's a funny situation.
Click to expand...

I think it's clear enough that I'm anti-war. There's nothing funny about it to me whatsoever, Americans were there by choice. Afghanistan civilians however are the victims with 30 or 40 or 100 thousand dead, who can know for certain, And don't think that Americans weren't laughing (hell, don't still laugh) at Russia over their failed attempt. Of course Putin and his men have had their toasts.
 
Dittohead not! said:
Whatever his name, he's right. It ain't going to get any better.
Click to expand...

Do you think that I should provide a link ?

Why not.

>"Drawing on the American experience of leaving Iraq without an agreement on future presence, the Commandant of the Marine Corps said, “I don’t want that to happen in Afghanistan.” Gen. James Amos, speaking on Tuesday at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace in Washington, added, “We can ill afford to simply pull out and go home,” noting the tumult now convulsing parts of Iraq."<

Marine Commandant: U.S. Can 'Ill Afford to Simply Pull Out' of Afghanistan | USNI News
 
Dittohead not! said:
They were about as successful with whatever they were trying to accomplish as we are with whatever we're trying to accomplish.
Click to expand...

The USSR supported a democratic transitional government with human rights and an inflow of international development projects and the support of the UN? I don't remember that part.


:roll:
 
APACHERAT said:
Do you think that I should provide a link ?

Why not.

>"Drawing on the American experience of leaving Iraq without an agreement on future presence, the Commandant of the Marine Corps said, “I don’t want that to happen in Afghanistan.” Gen. James Amos, speaking on Tuesday at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace in Washington, added, “We can ill afford to simply pull out and go home,” noting the tumult now convulsing parts of Iraq."<

Marine Commandant: U.S. Can 'Ill Afford to Simply Pull Out' of Afghanistan | USNI News
Click to expand...



Let the Saudis and the those Sunni Arabs.....run in to save the day. Get a little bit of that front line action on a grand scale. So they can taste whats its like. Rather than just talk and talk and talk and beg others to go and do the their dirty work for them.
 
ecofarm said:
The USSR supported a democratic transitional government with human rights and an inflow of international development projects and the support of the UN? I don't remember that part.


:roll:
Click to expand...

I don't either, but I do remember them being about as successful with their venture as we are with ours.

Genghis Kahn wasn't trying to establish democracy either, and whatever he was trying to accomplish was also a failure.
 
Dittohead not! said:
I don't either, but I do remember them being about as successful with their venture as we are with ours.
Click to expand...

This is just plain BS. Afghanistan has a democratic transition governement with human rights on the books and massive international aid and investment projects. The USSR never even imagined wanting such things for Afghanistan.

Your false equivalence is so inept as to be laughable. Learn some history.
 
ecofarm said:
This is just plain BS. Afghanistan has a democratic transition governement with human rights on the books and massive international aid and investment projects. The USSR never even imagined wanting such things for Afghanistan.

Your false equivalence is so inept as to be laughable. Learn some history.
Click to expand...
Right. And when the USA leaves, which they must sooner or later, and Afganistan returns to an authoritarian hell hole once again, then the cry will be that we could have won if the liberals hadn't made us pull out.
 
Dittohead not! said:
Right. And when the USA leaves, which they must sooner or later, and Afganistan returns to an authoritarian hell hole once again, then the cry will be that we could have won if the liberals hadn't made us pull out.
Click to expand...

So your position is based on fantasy. Well, that explains a lot.
 
annata said:
a classic ex. of "mission creep". There was a poster here (can't recall) that laid it out nicely.
Something like we flooded troops into Tora Bora chasing bin Laden, and just wound up with Bush's war to secure and BUILD a stable Afghanistan.

Obama's problem is he doubled down on this unworkable idea - his so called "escalation/de-escalation" and got 3/4 of the total dead US troops under his watch killed.
Not to mention the $B's in aid.. Not to mention the fact Karzai makes him look foolish, etc.
Click to expand...

Rumsfeld's original strategy for Afghanistan was to only have a small American footprint in Afghanistan. We didn't flood Tora Bora with troops.

You may remember back in 2004 the leading Democrat candidate for the Democrat nomination for President was a war hero :lamo who received numerous Purple Hearts for self-inflicted wounds and was awarded the Silver Star for shooting a fleeing VC in the back. He said he knew how to win in Afghanistan. Increase the size on special forces ten fold, you know, every soldier is a Green Beret and every sailor is a SEAL, Then flood Afghanistan with special forces. I don't know how many he was thinking of, 200,000 ?

By late 2001, Al Qaeda had fled Afghanistan moving their base of operations to Yaman and the Horn of Africa while those Al Qaeda who couldn't afford a pane ticket went into hiding in Northern Pakistan. Until 2009, Al Qaeda would be trapped and confined to these three regions.

By early 2002 the Taliban would get their butts whooped along with a broken nose, swollen black eyes and a few fractured bones and would flee to Pakistan to lick their wounds for years.

It ends up there were a few Taliban who were able to read and knew the history of Vietnam and some had internet access to see what Americans were saying. As soon as they saw the usual Americans back stabbing the American soldier in Iraq by not supporting the war in Iraq, the Taliban started reentering Afghanistan on snoop and poop missions. As soon as G,W. Bush became a lame duck President the Taliban started coming back to Afghanistan.

The Taliban biggest concern was who would win the Presidency in 2008 ? As soon as they saw that Obama who was Muslim friendly would win, the Taliban came back big time. The Taliban smelled victory in 2009 as soon as Obama said that he would be withdrawing American troops from Afghanistan before winning the war.

Should be noted that when the military commanders requested a troop surge in early 2009, it took Obama months to react. Obama would cave in and agree to send half of the number of troops that were requested and it would be over six months after the surge request was made before the first surge troops have started entering in-country. Then Obama introduced his politically correct Rules of Engagement (ROE) that favored the Taliban and would cause American troops to bleed in die in the name of political correctness.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom