• 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. envoy: United States, Taliban reach draft agreement in peace talks

TU Curmudgeon

TU Curmudgeon

B.A. (Sarc), LLb. (Lex Sarcasus), PhD (Sarc.)
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 7, 2018
Messages
62,557
Reaction score
19,323
Location
Lower Mainland of BC
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Centrist
From United Press International

U.S. envoy: United States, Taliban reach draft agreement in peace talks
​

March 12 (UPI) -- The United States and the Taliban have reached a draft agreement on counter-terrorism assurances and troop withdrawal in a step toward ending the 17-year-long war, U.S. presidential envoy Zalmay Khalilzad said Tuesday.

Khalilzad wrote on Twitter that "the conditions for peace have improved" after a round of talks with Taliban leaders in Qatar's capital, Dohar, as the two sides had agreed on two of the four issues needed to end the conflict.

"Peace requires agreement on four issues: counter-terrorism assurances, troop withdrawal, intra-Afghan dialogue, and a comprehensive ceasefire," he wrote. "In January talks, we 'agreed in principle' on these four elements. We're now 'agreed in draft' on the first two."

According to the January talks, the Taliban would promise not to allow al-Qaida or any terror group to use Afghanistan as a base of operations in exchange for a U.S. troop withdrawal.

COMMENT:-

Since one of the main objectives of invading and conquering Afghanistan was to remove the Taliban from power, it's good to see that "Team Trump" has finally achieved this goal. Now all that has to happen is for the US to promise to provide the Afghan government with all of the military hardware support that it requires and the US troops can be removed from Afghanistan because the whole matter has been resolved and victory achieved.

Comments and applause from Dương Văn Minh on this stunning diplomatic victory by "Team Trump" are expected shortly.
​
 
I'm not going to criticize this because at this point I just want out of there. And if this get us closer to that then good. But it seems like the kind of thing Trump supporters would call "negotiating with terrorists".
 
TU Curmudgeon said:
Since one of the main objectives of invading and conquering Afghanistan was to remove the Taliban from power,
Click to expand...

No, it wasn't.

Preamble

Joint Resolution

To authorize the use of United States Armed Forces against those responsible for the recent attacks launched against the United States.
Whereas, on September 11, 2001, acts of treacherous violence were committed against the United States and its citizens; and

Whereas, such acts render it both necessary and appropriate that the United States exercise its rights to self-defense and to protect United States citizens both at home and abroad; and

Whereas, in light of the threat to the national security and foreign policy of the United States posed by these grave acts of violence; and

Whereas, such acts continue to pose an unusual and extraordinary threat to the national security and foreign policy of the United States; and

Whereas, the President has authority under the Constitution to take action to deter and prevent acts of international terrorism against the United States: Now, therefore, be it

Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
Section 1 – Short Title

This joint resolution may be cited as the 'Authorization for Use of Military Force'.

Section 2 – Authorization For Use of United States Armed Forces

(a) IN GENERAL- That the President is authorized to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons, in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations or persons.
(b) War Powers Resolution Requirements-
(1) SPECIFIC STATUTORY AUTHORIZATION- Consistent with section 8(a)(1) of the War Powers Resolution, the Congress declares that this section is intended to constitute specific statutory authorization within the meaning of section 5(b) of the War Powers Resolution.
(2) APPLICABILITY OF OTHER REQUIREMENTS- Nothing in this resolution supersedes any requirement of the War Powers Resolution.
Click to expand...

The purpose was to bring bin Laden to American justice and shut down terrorist operations in Afghanistan. That was made clear after September 11 all the way up to when the bombs started to fall, where the Taliban still had the chance to stave off military action simply by turning him over and closing their training camps.
 
Harshaw said:
No, it wasn't.



The purpose was to bring bin Laden to American justice and shut down terrorist operations in Afghanistan. That was made clear after September 11 all the way up to when the bombs started to fall, where the Taliban still had the chance to stave off military action simply by turning him over and closing their training camps.
Click to expand...

You do know that the Taliban DID offer to turn Osama bin Laden over to the US government IF the US government complied with normal international norms for such hand overs, don't you?

You do know that, when the US government, demanded that the Taliban hand over Osama bin Laden it had no case which would stand up in any rational extradition hearing in any rational court in any rational country in the world, don't you?

You do know that the US government refused to provide the Taliban with ANY evidence (beyond "Because we so so.") when it demanded that the Taliban turn Osama bin Laden over to the US government, don't you?

PS - You do know that the US government did not recognize the Taliban as the government of Afghanistan, don't you?
 
TU Curmudgeon said:
You do know that the Taliban DID offer to turn Osama bin Laden over to the US government IF the US government complied with normal international norms for such hand overs, don't you?

You do know that, when the US government, demanded that the Taliban hand over Osama bin Laden it had no case which would stand up in any rational extradition hearing in any rational court in any rational country in the world, don't you?

You do know that the US government refused to provide the Taliban with ANY evidence (beyond "Because we so so.") when it demanded that the Taliban turn Osama bin Laden over to the US government, don't you?

PS - You do know that the US government did not recognize the Taliban as the government of Afghanistan, don't you?
Click to expand...

Even if it's all true, none of this speaks to the point, i.e., the objectives in Afghanistan.
 
Harshaw said:
Even if it's all true, none of this speaks to the point, i.e., the objectives in Afghanistan.
Click to expand...

That may be true.

Unfortunately no one on the US side appears ever to have enunciated any clear-cut, objectively defined, achievable, "objectives in Afghanistan".
 
TU Curmudgeon said:
Unfortunately no one on the US side appears ever to have enunciated any clear-cut, objectively defined, achievable, "objectives in Afghanistan".
Click to expand...

Then this isn't true:

Since one of the main objectives of invading and conquering Afghanistan was to remove the Taliban from power
Click to expand...
 
TU Curmudgeon said:
That may be true.

Unfortunately no one on the US side appears ever to have enunciated any clear-cut, objectively defined, achievable, "objectives in Afghanistan".
Click to expand...

This is one of the issue that plagues us PERIOD.

EVEN if we have established Mission WE NEVER follow of finalize it. What do I mean.

Iraq invasion, I had Assumed was to drive out the Iraqi Army that was controlled by Saddam Hussein. Once power was removed That should have been our MOVE OUT. We stayed.

We then Captured Saddam. He faced a jury. We should have moved out.... We stayed.

We then tried to intact a Democratic Government, which the country is that of religion NOT specified Democracy. Secondly 3 warring religions who for 2000 years have been fighting for religious power NOT democratic power... YET we stayed.

Religious Fanatics have ALWAYS and will likely forever plague US Democracy. We are stubborn to force democracy on others and refuse to leave when a SIMPLE objective is met. Afghanistan was NO different. WHO armed the Taliban years ago? WE DID... Now we are fighting their control. ITS NOT democracy and respect of democracy. the LIVE with different norms and values.

Here is my opinionated take.

ISIS, and Fanatical Religious groups are forever. So if a country threatens us and or commits a horrible act , we kick some ass, show our dominance if there is a dictator that rises up to threaten American way of life, we have the means to remove. do so. Then get out. Its not our busines show to run another country ESPECIALLY when the host country has been doing social norms WELL longer than our 1776, 300 years of life.

1) Iraq - Removed Saddam, We needed to leave and let them figure it out.
2) Afghanistan - Hunted Bin laden, he was caught, we needed to get out.
3) Bring back all our troops Keep them home. Keep them safe , safe guard borders so as another 9/11 doesnt happen again. If it does Kick some ass and then come again and figure out how to prevent future conflicts


WE ARE NOT the worlds police. We should NOT be patrolling the streets of another country forever. We should be patrolling our OWN country. Passing out Toothbrushes, Shoes and slipper to OUR OWN people.

Sign an agreement, and Get out...
 
Skeptic Bob said:
I'm not going to criticize this because at this point I just want out of there. And if this get us closer to that then good. But it seems like the kind of thing Trump supporters would call "negotiating with terrorists".
Click to expand...

The larger question is this: has the danger of Pakistan becoming a failed state passed? Because that is really what this is all about.
 
Cardinal said:
The larger question is this: has the danger of Pakistan becoming a failed state passed? Because that is really what this is all about.
Click to expand...

Actually thats another hellava good question.

Now 2 side questions with that

1) Failed Nation with Nukes.... Thats danger Will Robinson danger
2) Failed nation means what though? Does that mean was must occupy or be a common force within a failed nation?

What I am trying to illicit (outside of Nukes) there are many failed operating nations. What direct danger do they pose that requires a FULL train up and deployed assets? that of a LONG term basis.
 
Exactice said:
Actually thats another hellava good question.

Now 2 side questions with that

1) Failed Nation with Nukes.... Thats danger Will Robinson danger
2) Failed nation means what though? Does that mean was must occupy or be a common force within a failed nation?

What I am trying to illicit (outside of Nukes) there are many failed operating nations. What direct danger do they pose that requires a FULL train up and deployed assets? that of a LONG term basis.
Click to expand...

I don't know how many failed states there are, but the only nuclear power I'm aware of that is at risk of becoming a failed state is Pakistan. The people that would enter that particular power vacuum is the Taliban, and I guess we have to ask ourselves how soundly we would sleep at night knowing the Taliban had nukes.
 
Exactice said:
This is one of the issue that plagues us PERIOD.

EVEN if we have established Mission WE NEVER follow of finalize it. What do I mean.

Iraq invasion, I had Assumed was to drive out the Iraqi Army that was controlled by Saddam Hussein. Once power was removed That should have been our MOVE OUT. We stayed.

We then Captured Saddam. He faced a jury. We should have moved out.... We stayed.

We then tried to intact a Democratic Government, which the country is that of religion NOT specified Democracy. Secondly 3 warring religions who for 2000 years have been fighting for religious power NOT democratic power... YET we stayed.

Religious Fanatics have ALWAYS and will likely forever plague US Democracy. We are stubborn to force democracy on others and refuse to leave when a SIMPLE objective is met. Afghanistan was NO different. WHO armed the Taliban years ago? WE DID... Now we are fighting their control. ITS NOT democracy and respect of democracy. the LIVE with different norms and values.

Here is my opinionated take.

ISIS, and Fanatical Religious groups are forever. So if a country threatens us and or commits a horrible act , we kick some ass, show our dominance if there is a dictator that rises up to threaten American way of life, we have the means to remove. do so. Then get out. Its not our busines show to run another country ESPECIALLY when the host country has been doing social norms WELL longer than our 1776, 300 years of life.

1) Iraq - Removed Saddam, We needed to leave and let them figure it out.
2) Afghanistan - Hunted Bin laden, he was caught, we needed to get out.
3) Bring back all our troops Keep them home. Keep them safe , safe guard borders so as another 9/11 doesnt happen again. If it does Kick some ass and then come again and figure out how to prevent future conflicts


WE ARE NOT the worlds police. We should NOT be patrolling the streets of another country forever. We should be patrolling our OWN country. Passing out Toothbrushes, Shoes and slipper to OUR OWN people.

Sign an agreement, and Get out...
Click to expand...

Failing to learn from history is your mantra. You made that clear. After WW! we left Germany "to figure it out". After the Russians left Afghanistan we left the Afghans "to figure it out". How did those moves work out for us?
 
iguanaman said:
Failing to learn from history is your mantra. You made that clear. After WW! we left Germany "to figure it out". After the Russians left Afghanistan we left the Afghans "to figure it out". How did those moves work out for us?
Click to expand...

SO again.... its our responsibility to be the worlds police?

We have the authority to go in there do a regime change, Place democracy at the forefront and remain their basically for an extended period or forever? So your example of Germany, So in fear of the past we should remain an occupying force? Russia an Afghanistan, is no different then Russia and Georgia, Crimea, etc.

WE establish a Mission. If a threat or an act is committed upon the US we react and neutralize the threat. ONCE that is completed we with draw and maintain our nation security. IF another nation or the nation that we just removed the threat from becomes a threat TO the US we react. WHY do we need to occupy semi permanently/permanently?
 
Harshaw said:
The purpose was to bring bin Laden to American justice and shut down terrorist operations in Afghanistan. That was made clear after September 11 all the way up to when the bombs started to fall, where the Taliban still had the chance to stave off military action simply by turning him over and closing their training camps.
Click to expand...

sorry Harshaw, that purpose got a little muddled when Bush let OBL and "the largest concentration of Al Qaeda fighters of the war" escape to Pakistan. Of course the reason Cheney gave was a lie that we didn't know if OBL was there. the second reason was also a lie

Rumsfeld said at the time that he was concerned that too many U.S. troops in Afghanistan would create an anti-American backlash and fuel a widespread insurgency.

http://foreign.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/Tora_Bora_Report.pdf

think about it Harshaw, we've invaded Afghanistan, replaced its govt, have the Taliban and al queda on the run and we know exactly where they are going, Tora Bora, and are waiting for them. And then we start bombing them non stop and ground commanders ask for 800 troops to cut off their escape and they are told "we don't want to hurt their feelings". Even you have to admit that's laughably false. I think they let OBL escape because they felt it would hurt their secret day 1 agenda to invade Iraq. So why do you think they let OBL and "the largest concentration of Al Qaeda fighters of the war" escape to Pakistan?
 
Exactice said:
SO again.... its our responsibility to be the worlds police?

We have the authority to go in there do a regime change, Place democracy at the forefront and remain their basically for an extended period or forever? So your example of Germany, So in fear of the past we should remain an occupying force? Russia an Afghanistan, is no different then Russia and Georgia, Crimea, etc.

WE establish a Mission. If a threat or an act is committed upon the US we react and neutralize the threat. ONCE that is completed we with draw and maintain our nation security. IF another nation or the nation that we just removed the threat from becomes a threat TO the US we react. WHY do we need to occupy semi permanently/permanently?
Click to expand...

Hmm. would we have been better off leaving some forces in Germany and preventing Hitler from taking power? How many American lives would have been saved?
 
Vern said:
sorry Harshaw, that purpose got a little muddled when Bush let OBL and "the largest concentration of Al Qaeda fighters of the war" escape to Pakistan. Of course the reason Cheney gave was a lie that we didn't know if OBL was there. the second reason was also a lie

Rumsfeld said at the time that he was concerned that too many U.S. troops in Afghanistan would create an anti-American backlash and fuel a widespread insurgency.

http://foreign.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/Tora_Bora_Report.pdf

think about it Harshaw, we've invaded Afghanistan, replaced its govt, have the Taliban and al queda on the run and we know exactly where they are going, Tora Bora, and are waiting for them. And then we start bombing them non stop and ground commanders ask for 800 troops to cut off their escape and they are told "we don't want to hurt their feelings". Even you have to admit that's laughably false. I think they let OBL escape because they felt it would hurt their secret day 1 agenda to invade Iraq. So why do you think they let OBL and "the largest concentration of Al Qaeda fighters of the war" escape to Pakistan?
Click to expand...

Bush was too worried that Afghanistan would effect his timetable for the invasion of Iraq and that getting Bin Laden would make the Iraq invasion seem less important. From his 1st day in office all GW wanted was to get Saddam Hussein. Nothing was to get in the way of that.
 
iguanaman said:
Hmm. would we have been better off leaving some forces in Germany and preventing Hitler from taking power? How many American lives would have been saved?
Click to expand...

Fair point... Unfortunately hind sight 20/20 easy to make those judgement AFTER the fact no?

That is the true questions and where we stand.

Each war has cause and effect and consequences. History like you stated... unfortunately has a repetitive nature. An "Evil" person hell bent to cause suffering to others.

If and when that person shows up is the question.

What is OUR responsibility. That to the World, That to Nato, That to America, that to the American citizen.

A threat to American Democracy ALWAYS and will for EVER exist due to beliefs structure. SO do we suppress it by occupying the world where At anytime an uprising can occur. Somalia, Lybia, Syria, Iran, Iraq, China, North Korea etc.

OR do we accept the FATE that the US is NOT perfect, our DEMOCRACY is NOT widely accepted and that Religion is ANOTHER governing factor for other countries.

WOULD it not be a great start, to maintain and protect our BORDERS and interest first. while maintaining operational awareness for our alias? OR are we to again be the police of the world?
 
Harshaw said:
Then this isn't true:
Click to expand...

Did you miss the "clear-cut, objectively defined, ACHIEVABLE" bit?

Returning the Taliban to power in Afghanistan - which is what, essentially, the current negotiations will achieve once the US government provides the existing Afghan government with the same level of support that it provided to the "South Vietnam" government, doesn't appear to even resemble the outcome intended - does it?
 
TU Curmudgeon said:
You do know that the Taliban DID offer to turn Osama bin Laden over to the US government IF the US government complied with normal international norms for such hand overs, don't you?

You do know that, when the US government, demanded that the Taliban hand over Osama bin Laden it had no case which would stand up in any rational extradition hearing in any rational court in any rational country in the world, don't you?

You do know that the US government refused to provide the Taliban with ANY evidence (beyond "Because we so so.") when it demanded that the Taliban turn Osama bin Laden over to the US government, don't you?

PS - You do know that the US government did not recognize the Taliban as the government of Afghanistan, don't you?
Click to expand...

Ah yes, we are supposed to trust the regime which machine guns little girls for going to school :roll:

The Taliban were not going to turn Osama Bin Laden over for a multitude of both cultural and political reasons.

But that hasn't stopped you from grasping at straws to attack the US before, and I doubt it will again.
 
Vern said:
sorry Harshaw, that purpose got a little muddled when Bush let OBL and "the largest concentration of Al Qaeda fighters of the war" escape to Pakistan. Of course the reason Cheney gave was a lie that we didn't know if OBL was there. the second reason was also a lie

Rumsfeld said at the time that he was concerned that too many U.S. troops in Afghanistan would create an anti-American backlash and fuel a widespread insurgency.

http://foreign.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/Tora_Bora_Report.pdf

think about it Harshaw, we've invaded Afghanistan, replaced its govt, have the Taliban and al queda on the run and we know exactly where they are going, Tora Bora, and are waiting for them. And then we start bombing them non stop and ground commanders ask for 800 troops to cut off their escape and they are told "we don't want to hurt their feelings". Even you have to admit that's laughably false. I think they let OBL escape because they felt it would hurt their secret day 1 agenda to invade Iraq. So why do you think they let OBL and "the largest concentration of Al Qaeda fighters of the war" escape to Pakistan?
Click to expand...

This is not an argument against anything I said. I'll let you figure out why. Toodles.
 
TU Curmudgeon said:
Did you miss the "clear-cut, objectively defined, ACHIEVABLE" bit?

Returning the Taliban to power in Afghanistan - which is what, essentially, the current negotiations will achieve once the US government provides the existing Afghan government with the same level of support that it provided to the "South Vietnam" government, doesn't appear to even resemble the outcome intended - does it?
Click to expand...

Depends if they continue to harbor and train Jihadi terrorists.
 
Cardinal said:
The larger question is this: has the danger of Pakistan becoming a failed state passed? Because that is really what this is all about.
Click to expand...

Becoming a failed state? Pakistan IS a failed state. It always has been. It's largest exports are soccer balls and terrorists.
 
Harshaw said:
This is not an argument against anything I said. I'll let you figure out why. Toodles.
Click to expand...

If the US government hadn't let the members of al-Qa'eda get out of Afghanistan, then they wouldn't be available now to form a part of the US government backed "Syrian Opposition".

This is what is known, in government circles, as "retroactive long-range planning".

In the real world it's known as "lying to cover your ass".
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom