• 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!

Afghan president to sign deal Tuesday allowing US troops to stay after 2014

Porchev said:
Perhaps learning from what happened in Iraq with ISIS, Afghanistan looks like they don't want that to happen to them, so they want some American troops to stay:

> Newly inaugurated Afghan President Ashraf Ghani Ahmadzai is expected to sign a vital security deal Tuesday to allow American soldiers to remain in the country past the end of the year, officials say.

A senior Defense Department official confirmed to Fox News that the new president will sign the Bilateral Security Agreement allowing for 9,800 U.S. troops to remain in Afghanistan after 2014. The president also is expected to sign a NATO Status of Forces Agreement, which will allow a small NATO force to stay on as well.

John Podesta, a senior adviser to President Obama, speaking to a news conference at the U.S. Embassy in Kabul, said he would sign it on behalf of the U.S.

The announcement comes after Ashraf Ghani Ahmadzai was sworn in Monday as Afghanistan's new president, replacing Hamid Karzai in the country's first democratic transfer of power after the 2001 U.S.-led invasion toppled the Taliban. Karzai would not sign the security agreement with the U.S. <

Afghan president to sign deal Tuesday allowing US troops to stay after 2014, officials say | Fox News
Click to expand...

Perhaps Obama has pulled his head out-Ive said for some time that we very quickly were about to lose the peace in afghanistan like we have in Iraq.
 
Porchev said:
Perhaps learning from what happened in Iraq with ISIS, Afghanistan looks like they don't want that to happen to them, so they want some American troops to stay:

> Newly inaugurated Afghan President Ashraf Ghani Ahmadzai is expected to sign a vital security deal Tuesday to allow American soldiers to remain in the country past the end of the year, officials say.

A senior Defense Department official confirmed to Fox News that the new president will sign the Bilateral Security Agreement allowing for 9,800 U.S. troops to remain in Afghanistan after 2014. The president also is expected to sign a NATO Status of Forces Agreement, which will allow a small NATO force to stay on as well.

John Podesta, a senior adviser to President Obama, speaking to a news conference at the U.S. Embassy in Kabul, said he would sign it on behalf of the U.S.

The announcement comes after Ashraf Ghani Ahmadzai was sworn in Monday as Afghanistan's new president, replacing Hamid Karzai in the country's first democratic transfer of power after the 2001 U.S.-led invasion toppled the Taliban. Karzai would not sign the security agreement with the U.S. <

Afghan president to sign deal Tuesday allowing US troops to stay after 2014, officials say | Fox News
Click to expand...

Karzai wanted us to leave so we get rid of him. So we set up another stooge as president so that we can keep troops there in perpetuity. Just more proof that the military-industrial complex is alive and well and more of our soldiers will die in a pointless war with no end. I have no idea why we are still over there other than to keep our defense budget from being slimmed down. :roll:
 
TheDemSocialist said:
If we leave and no longer get involved in it the war does end for us.
Click to expand...

No, it doesn't. You are dreaming. It is amazing how little you seem to have learned from even recent events, let alone history.
 
jmotivator said:
No, it doesn't. You are dreaming.
Click to expand...
Uhh.. How is if we leave Afghanistan and no longer get involved in that area does the war "continue" for us? You are no longer involved...
 
TheDemSocialist said:
Uhh.. How is if we leave Afghanistan and no longer get involved in that area does the war "continue" for us? You are no longer involved...
Click to expand...

Again, you have learned nothing. We will always be a target of radical Islamist no matter how cowardly we behave.
 
jmotivator said:
Again, you have learned nothing.
Click to expand...

I think its common sense. IF the US gets out of the war, they no longer are involved in the conflict, the war is over for the US.
 
TheDemSocialist said:
I think its common sense. IF the US gets out of the war, they no longer are involved in the conflict, the war is over for the US.
Click to expand...

You have accepted the Islamist propaganda. We will always be the target of Islamic terrorism no matter how cowardly we behave and no matter how much leeway we give terrorists to brutalize the region.

There is a critical flaw in your reasoning in that you limit your reasoning to a black and white image of Islamic terrorists -vs- US military. You kid yourself into believing that there is only a causal correlation between our action and Islamist terrorism... and you believe this because you choose to listen to Islamic terrorists. In reality, the Islamic radical justifications for attacking the US are simple propaganda meant to drive a wedge between Western citizenry and their government. The weak willed and the ones predisposed to anti-government propaganda eat it up with a spoon and quote Osama bin Laden like he is the one truth.

The trouble is it isn't the truth. The Islamic radicals at playing in the bloody fields of the Middle East have an ultimate goal for their actions that don't end with the US leaving the region. Islamic radicals are not at war with the US because we are at war with them. They are at war with the US because we offer a free and open and outrageously successful society as a counterargument to their medieval death cult. Our war against them is an impediment to their growth, but not the cause of their radicalism. Ending our engagement in the middle east only hastens their growth and empowers them. They want death for America and the West no matter how involved we are in the region, it just gets easier to kill us the less we are involved.

Another aspect of the ME puzzle you refuse to accept is that there is no one else that can effect change in the Middle East. The paupers, living under these brutal death squads have no power. There is no struggle for them. There is obedience or death. Without US involvement there is no good outcome even possible. Sitting back and watching it all go to hell when we COULD do something isn't a great way to lessen Middle East hostilities towards the US. You only make more enemies.
 
jmotivator said:
You have accepted the Islamist propaganda. We will always be the target of Islamic terrorism no matter how cowardly we behave and no matter how much leeway we give terrorists to brutalize the region.

There is a critical flaw in your reasoning in that you limit your reasoning to a black and white image of Islamic terrorists -vs- US military. You kid yourself into believing that there is only a causal correlation between our action and Islamist terrorism... and you believe this because you choose to listen to Islamic terrorists. In reality, the Islamic radical justifications for attacking the US are simple propaganda meant to drive a wedge between Western citizenry and their government. The weak willed and the ones predisposed to anti-government propaganda eat it up with a spoon and quote Osama bin Laden like he is the one truth.

The trouble is it isn't the truth. The Islamic radicals at playing in the bloody fields of the Middle East have an ultimate goal for their actions that don't end with the US leaving the region. Islamic radicals are not at war with the US because we are at war with them. They are at war with the US because we offer a free and open and outrageously successful society as a counterargument to their medieval death cult. Our war against them is an impediment to their growth, but not the cause of their radicalism. Ending our engagement in the middle east only hastens their growth and empowers them. They want death for America and the West no matter how involved we are in the region, it just gets easier to kill us the less we are involved.

Another aspect of the ME puzzle you refuse to accept is that there is no one else that can effect change in the Middle East. The paupers, living under these brutal death squads have no power. There is no struggle for them. There is obedience or death. Without US involvement there is no good outcome even possible. Sitting back and watching it all go to hell when we COULD do something isn't a great way to lessen Middle East hostilities towards the US. You only make more enemies.
Click to expand...
We are at war with mainly the Taliban in Afghanistan. There is no indication that the Taliban wants to take the war to the USA if we leave the region. Hell its been said that corruption is a bigger threat than the Taliban. U.S. general: Corruption, not Taliban, the worst threat to Afghanistan | Al Jazeera America
 
j-mac said:
Not talking about 'slaughter', but I will say, there is but one way to win a war, and that is to inflict enough death, misery, and pain til the the enemy knows it is too much to continue to wage. Short of that we are chasing our tails prolonging the suffering of both ourselves, and those living in these countries that have to put up with these people continually rebirthing, pillaging, and killing innocent people.

I don't know but I am sick to death of taking the kinder, gentler war making, it doesn't work!
Click to expand...



I disagree. "enough death, misery, and pain til the the enemy knows it is too much to continue to wage." ends up being slaughter in the fog of war. It was tried one and off again in Korea and Vietnam. Since WWII wars have become more strategic, surgical strikes etc. But you have to have a starting point, what is the objective beyond scorched earth?

As with Afghanistan, and now Iraq there is no strategic objective, no way to tell success from failure other than the "daily body count" of Vietnam.
 
TheDemSocialist said:
Uhhhh hows that?
Click to expand...

YOu post ignorant articles about what the greatest threats for Afghanistan that ignore entire history of Afghanistan in favor of navel gazing as a response to the threat of Radical Islam to the West and the US.

You might as well be speaking from the 1990s. It is precisely your brand of willful ignorance that allows a corrupt state like Afghanistan to become a hotbed of militant Islamic terrorists.

To burst your bubble, who do you think will have the greatest influence on a corrupt Afghanistan absent the US influence? When the bodies start getting hung from the lamp posts in earnest, which direction will the Afghan government push, towards a free and open society, or towards a rabid, animalistic Islamic death cult? Because they have already been tested once in the last 30 years and we know what they chose then.

Bonus question: If Afghanistan devolves again (as it will) when the US leaves, and the purple fingers of Afghan women voters are replaced with the bloodied and charred corpses and severed heads of women who were killed for their desire for equality, do you think the Islamists will stop targeting the US?

You have no concept of the enemy and their desires and only judge them by their own propaganda campaigns.
 
jmotivator said:
Bonus question: If Afghanistan devolves again (as it will) when the US leaves, and the purple fingers of Afghan women voters are replaced with the bloodied and charred corpses and severed heads of women who were killed for their desire for equality, do you think the Islamists will stop targeting the US?

You have no concept of the enemy and their desires and only judge them by their own propaganda campaigns.
Click to expand...

News flash the Taliban arent targeting the US outside of Afghanistan and Pakistan.
 
Porchev said:
Japan and Germany were beaten down into submission after years of aggressive destruction and death from the war. We have been trying to build Afghanistan and Iraq up for years (somewhat like the Marshal Plan), but the problem may be that they (Taliban, ISIS types, etc.) were not beaten down enough yet. That is why I think some argue that we needed to be more aggressive militarily and loosen up the rules of engagement.
Click to expand...

Then we are back at the original point.....incompetence in the waging of that war. 13 years, an array of allies and drone strikes in the thousands and the enemy is "not beaten down enough"...

It simply is not working.
 
jmotivator said:
Again your amazing myopia is showing.
Click to expand...
Their goals are to set up the Islamic Emirate again. Not to start global jihad. Hell there are talks about possibly negotiating with them.
 
American said:
Maybe you love the idea of women in burqas.
Click to expand...

As long as its their choice. But I dont love the idea of a continuous, endless war. I also dont love the idea of the USA being the worlds policeman.
 
TheDemSocialist said:
As long as its their choice. But I dont love the idea of a continuous, endless war. I also dont love the idea of the USA being the worlds policeman.
Click to expand...

No one asked you to LOVE it.
 
TheDemSocialist said:
Their goals are to set up the Islamic Emirate again. Not to start global jihad. Hell there are talks about possibly negotiating with them.
Click to expand...

You don't even know what it is called, no hope you will understand their purpose. :roll:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom