Karzai says no more US troops needed.

Karzai says no more US troops needed. (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion

Message

jlf1961 -> Karzai says no more US troops needed. (3/15/2014 5:21:57 AM)
quote: Karzai says Afghanistan doesn't need US troops KABUL, Afghanistan (AP) - In his final address to Afghanistan's parliament Saturday, President Hamid Karzai told the United States its soldiers can leave at the end of the year because his military, which already protects 93 percent of the country, was ready to take over entirely. He reiterated his stance that he would not sign a pact with the United States that would provide for a residual force of U.S. troops to remain behind after the final withdrawal, unless peace could first be established. The Afghan president has come under heavy pressure to sign the Bilateral Security Agreement, with a council of notables that he himself convened recommend that he sign the pact. The force would train and mentor Afghan troops, and some U.S. Special Forces would also be left behind to hunt down al-Qaida. All 10 candidates seeking the presidency in April 5 elections have said they would sign the security agreement. But Karzai himself does not appear to want his legacy to include a commitment to a longer foreign troop presence in his country. Source Okay Obama, the Afghani President said it, now bring the troops home, all of em. While you are at it, tell the opium warlords we dont need em any more and bomb the poppy fields.

TheHeretic -> RE: Karzai says no more US troops needed. (3/15/2014 7:06:03 AM)
We shouldn't ever have gone in the way we did, and failing that, should have been out years ago.

Musicmystery -> RE: Karzai says no more US troops needed. (3/15/2014 7:27:40 AM)
Look at Mr. News. He's been saying that for several months, in defiance of the legislature's preferences.

Musicmystery -> RE: Karzai says no more US troops needed. (3/15/2014 7:29:08 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: TheHeretic We shouldn't ever have gone in the way we did, and failing that, should have been out years ago. At long last, something we agree on.

TheHeretic -> RE: Karzai says no more US troops needed. (3/15/2014 8:30:46 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Musicmystery At long last, something we agree on. Well, there is the stuff we agree on, and the stuff where I'm right. [8\|] Something that troubles me greatly is that President Obama has clearly understood there is no such thing as victory in Afghanistan, yet has continued sending our troops into the meat grinder for 5 years while he works out the terms of whatever dumbass agreement will get signed and become meaningless as soon as we are out.

DesideriScuri -> RE: Karzai says no more US troops needed. (3/15/2014 8:34:50 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: jlf1961 quote: Karzai says Afghanistan doesn't need US troops KABUL, Afghanistan (AP) - In his final address to Afghanistan's parliament Saturday, President Hamid Karzai told the United States its soldiers can leave at the end of the year because his military, which already protects 93 percent of the country, was ready to take over entirely. He reiterated his stance that he would not sign a pact with the United States that would provide for a residual force of U.S. troops to remain behind after the final withdrawal, unless peace could first be established. The Afghan president has come under heavy pressure to sign the Bilateral Security Agreement, with a council of notables that he himself convened recommend that he sign the pact. The force would train and mentor Afghan troops, and some U.S. Special Forces would also be left behind to hunt down al-Qaida. All 10 candidates seeking the presidency in April 5 elections have said they would sign the security agreement. But Karzai himself does not appear to want his legacy to include a commitment to a longer foreign troop presence in his country. Source Okay Obama, the Afghani President said it, now bring the troops home, all of em. While you are at it, tell the opium warlords we dont need em any more and bomb the poppy fields. Has anyone heard if we've started tearing down and packing it in yet? If we haven't started, why the fuck not? It will be a happy day when we're no longer "pounding sand" (literally and figuratively). It very easily could be something that gets agreed on, surprisingly, after this Ukraine/Crimea/Russia thing gets resolved.

jlf1961 -> RE: Karzai says no more US troops needed. (3/15/2014 9:46:45 AM)
Truth be told, he hasnt gotten all the troops out of Iraq. There are still some "advisers." History has proven that no country has ever managed to pacify Afghanistan in any way shape or form. Time to get out.

DarkSteven -> RE: Karzai says no more US troops needed. (3/15/2014 9:52:16 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: TheHeretic Something that troubles me greatly is that President Obama has clearly understood there is no such thing as victory in Afghanistan, yet has continued sending our troops into the meat grinder for 5 years while he works out the terms of whatever dumbass agreement will get signed and become meaningless as soon as we are out. Political. He wants to make sure that the withdrawal and subsequent bloodbath occurs when he's out of office. That said, assuming that there really IS a withdrawal. We may just keep a residual force in, under the guise of "training" or something.

TheHeretic -> RE: Karzai says no more US troops needed. (3/15/2014 9:54:36 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: jlf1961 Truth be told, he hasnt gotten all the troops out of Iraq. There are still some "advisers." Have you got something you can share on this, Jlf? The plan was to keep a small residual force, but the administration completely failed to get a SOFA. Are you talking active servicemembers, or contractors? I would expect we still have some black ops types running around quietly, but I'd also expect them to be under CIA, rather than DOD.

TheHeretic -> RE: Karzai says no more US troops needed. (3/15/2014 9:59:54 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DarkSteven Political. He wants to make sure that the withdrawal and subsequent bloodbath occurs when he's out of office. Exactly. We waste treasure all over the place, but he appears to be completely fine with spending blood to do it as well. Did you catch his policy speech at West Point back in '09? He basically told the audience to go die for nothing. http://www.americanrhetoric.com/speeches/barackobama/barackobamawestpointafghanistan.htm

jlf1961 -> RE: Karzai says no more US troops needed. (3/15/2014 10:26:10 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: TheHeretic quote: ORIGINAL: jlf1961 Truth be told, he hasnt gotten all the troops out of Iraq. There are still some "advisers." Have you got something you can share on this, Jlf? The plan was to keep a small residual force, but the administration completely failed to get a SOFA. Are you talking active servicemembers, or contractors? I would expect we still have some black ops types running around quietly, but I'd also expect them to be under CIA, rather than DOD. There are no combat troops in Iraq, the last US troops are to be pulled out by the end of this year.

MrRodgers -> RE: Karzai says no more US troops needed. (3/15/2014 10:50:32 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: jlf1961 Truth be told, he hasnt gotten all the troops out of Iraq. There are still some "advisers." History has proven that no country has ever managed to pacify Afghanistan in any way shape or form. Time to get out. More than that really. Here.....as of 3/15/2014 The four bases they are interested in are said to be the former Saddam International Airport outside Baghdad, Tallil air base near Nasiriyah, in the south, the air base known as H-1 in the western desert, and the Bashur airfield in northern Iraq. H-1, where special forces teams are currently based, sits strategically on the route of the oil pipeline to Jordan. US access to the bases would leave Iraq's neighbours Syria and Iran within striking distance and a senior US official said: "It will make them nervous."

TheHeretic -> RE: Karzai says no more US troops needed. (3/15/2014 11:06:09 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: MrRodgers More than that really. Here.....as of 3/15/2014 Right. That's the latest try for a SOFA the administration failed on previously. I don't think we ever should have gone into Iraq to begin with either, but that is the one we own.

MrRodgers -> RE: Karzai says no more US troops needed. (3/15/2014 12:05:10 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: TheHeretic quote: ORIGINAL: MrRodgers More than that really. Here.....as of 3/15/2014 Right. That's the latest try for a SOFA the administration failed on previously. I don't think we ever should have gone into Iraq to begin with either, but that is the one we own. The last was the SOFA of 2008 signed by Bush and leaving Iraq in a civil war between Shiites and Sunnis and otherwise a vacuum for any number of groups to swoop in. The last SOFA Here

RottenJohnny -> RE: Karzai says no more US troops needed. (3/15/2014 1:27:52 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: TheHeretic We shouldn't ever have gone in the way we did, and failing that, should have been out years ago. I was ready for everyone to come home the day after OBL was finally killed. I'm not sure how we could have justified leaving before that single goal was realized.

DesideriScuri -> RE: Karzai says no more US troops needed. (3/15/2014 3:38:47 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: RottenJohnny quote: ORIGINAL: TheHeretic We shouldn't ever have gone in the way we did, and failing that, should have been out years ago. I was ready for everyone to come home the day after OBL was finally killed. I'm not sure how we could have justified leaving before that single goal was realized. How many of our troops were truly necessary in getting bin Laden when we got him? All the troops that weren't directly going after OBL or al Qaeda should have been pulled as soon as they were no longer going after OBL or AQ. We had 2 main objectives in Afghanistan, and one secondary objective. We had to kill OBL and decimate AQ. In order to do that, we had to topple the Taliban. At no point in time should our mission included fighting to defend Afghanistan from the Taliban. The only reason the Taliban was toppled was because they wouldn't hand over OBL and wouldn't allow us to come in and root him out. Not sure exactly when it was, but the Afghan strategy diverged wildly from what it was initially. That's when troop reductions should have started.

RottenJohnny -> RE: Karzai says no more US troops needed. (3/15/2014 7:39:34 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri quote: ORIGINAL: RottenJohnny quote: ORIGINAL: TheHeretic We shouldn't ever have gone in the way we did, and failing that, should have been out years ago. I was ready for everyone to come home the day after OBL was finally killed. I'm not sure how we could have justified leaving before that single goal was realized. How many of our troops were truly necessary in getting bin Laden when we got him? All the troops that weren't directly going after OBL or al Qaeda should have been pulled as soon as they were no longer going after OBL or AQ. We had 2 main objectives in Afghanistan, and one secondary objective. We had to kill OBL and decimate AQ. In order to do that, we had to topple the Taliban. At no point in time should our mission included fighting to defend Afghanistan from the Taliban. The only reason the Taliban was toppled was because they wouldn't hand over OBL and wouldn't allow us to come in and root him out. Not sure exactly when it was, but the Afghan strategy diverged wildly from what it was initially. That's when troop reductions should have started. Who could have ever predicted they would have found OBL where and when they did? Who could have ever predicted exactly how things were going to progress in Afghanistan? What is it they say about the fog of war and how no plan survives the first day of combat? I agree that the mission changed along the way but as far as I'm concerned, until AQ was demolished and OBL was dead, it was worth keeping every boot on the ground there. After those objectives were completed, the troops should have left the next day.

blacksword404 -> RE: Karzai says no more US troops needed. (3/15/2014 10:49:48 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: jlf1961 quote: Karzai says Afghanistan doesn't need US troops KABUL, Afghanistan (AP) - In his final address to Afghanistan's parliament Saturday, President Hamid Karzai told the United States its soldiers can leave at the end of the year because his military, which already protects 93 percent of the country, was ready to take over entirely. He reiterated his stance that he would not sign a pact with the United States that would provide for a residual force of U.S. troops to remain behind after the final withdrawal, unless peace could first be established. The Afghan president has come under heavy pressure to sign the Bilateral Security Agreement, with a council of notables that he himself convened recommend that he sign the pact. The force would train and mentor Afghan troops, and some U.S. Special Forces would also be left behind to hunt down al-Qaida. All 10 candidates seeking the presidency in April 5 elections have said they would sign the security agreement. But Karzai himself does not appear to want his legacy to include a commitment to a longer foreign troop presence in his country. Source Okay Obama, the Afghani President said it, now bring the troops home, all of em. While you are at it, tell the opium warlords we dont need em any more and bomb the poppy fields. Does that mean we can ignore his phone call when a coup happens and he ends up like his brother? He's supposed to be the ruler of Afghanistan. But he's really only ruler of that city. The warlords run Afghanistan.

Lucylastic -> RE: Karzai says no more US troops needed. (3/16/2014 2:27:39 AM)
its not just the US over in Afghanistan...dont take it to heart Jeff, he wants them all out.

DesideriScuri -> RE: Karzai says no more US troops needed. (3/16/2014 6:20:26 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: RottenJohnny quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri quote: ORIGINAL: RottenJohnny quote: ORIGINAL: TheHeretic We shouldn't ever have gone in the way we did, and failing that, should have been out years ago. I was ready for everyone to come home the day after OBL was finally killed. I'm not sure how we could have justified leaving before that single goal was realized. How many of our troops were truly necessary in getting bin Laden when we got him? All the troops that weren't directly going after OBL or al Qaeda should have been pulled as soon as they were no longer going after OBL or AQ. We had 2 main objectives in Afghanistan, and one secondary objective. We had to kill OBL and decimate AQ. In order to do that, we had to topple the Taliban. At no point in time should our mission included fighting to defend Afghanistan from the Taliban. The only reason the Taliban was toppled was because they wouldn't hand over OBL and wouldn't allow us to come in and root him out. Not sure exactly when it was, but the Afghan strategy diverged wildly from what it was initially. That's when troop reductions should have started. Who could have ever predicted they would have found OBL where and when they did? Who could have ever predicted exactly how things were going to progress in Afghanistan? What is it they say about the fog of war and how no plan survives the first day of combat? I agree that the mission changed along the way but as far as I'm concerned, until AQ was demolished and OBL was dead, it was worth keeping every boot on the ground there. After those objectives were completed, the troops should have left the next day. The only "boots on the ground" that were necessary were those that were actively going after AQ and OBL. There should have been no other reason for troops over there. Any soldiers not being used for those two things should have been removed from the country. It wasn't our mission - nor was it our responsibility - to stop the Taliban from regaining power and leadership, once we toppled them and were going after AQ/OBL. It wasn't our responsibility to rebuild the Afghan infrastructure to any degree. It wasn't our responsibility to train the Afghan army. That was my point.

Page: [1] 2 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.046875