Taliban and United States Strike Deal to Withdraw American Troops From Afghanistan.

  • 47 results
  • 1
  • 2
Avatar image for Master_Live
Master_Live

20550

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 7

#1  Edited By Master_Live
Member since 2004 • 20550 Posts

After more than a year of talks, the agreement lays out the beginning of the end of the United States’ longest war. But many obstacles remain.

DOHA, Qatar — The United States signed a deal with the Taliban on Saturday that sets the stage to end America’s longest war — the nearly two-decade-old conflict in Afghanistan that began after the Sept. 11 attacks, killed tens of thousands of people, vexed three White House administrations and left mistrust and uncertainty on all sides.

The agreement lays out a timetable for the final withdrawal of United States troops from Afghanistan, the impoverished Central Asian country once unfamiliar to many Americans that now symbolizes endless conflict, foreign entanglements and an incubator of terrorist plots.

The war in Afghanistan in some ways echoes the American experience in Vietnam. In both, a superpower bet heavily on brute strength and the lives of its young, then walked away with seemingly little to show.

American efforts to instill a democratic system in the country, and to improve opportunities for women and minorities, are at risk if the Taliban, which banned girls from schools and women from public life, become dominant again. Corruption is still rampant, the country’s institutions are feeble, and the economy is heavily dependent on American and other international aid.

The agreement signed in Doha, Qatar, which followed more than a year of stop-and-start negotiations and conspicuously excluded the American-backed Afghanistan government, is not a final peace deal, is filled with ambiguity, and could still unravel.

But it is seen as a step toward negotiating a more sweeping agreement that some hope could eventually end the insurgency of the Taliban, the militant movement that once ruled Afghanistan under a severe Islamic code.

The war cost $2 trillion and took the lives of more than 3,500 American and coalition troops and tens of thousands of Afghans since the U.S. invasion in aftermath of the Sept. 11 attacks, which were plotted by Al Qaeda leaders under the protection of the Taliban.

The withdrawal of American troops — about 12,000 are still in Afghanistan — is dependent on the Taliban’s fulfillment of major commitments that have been obstacles for years, including its severance of ties with international terrorist groups such as Al Qaeda.

The agreement also hinges on more difficult negotiations to come between the Taliban and the Afghan government over the country’s future. Officials hope those talks will produce a power-sharing arrangement and lasting cease-fire, but both ideas have been anathema to the Taliban in the past.

“I really believe the Taliban wants to do something to show that we’re not all wasting time,” President Trump said in Washington hours after the agreement had been signed. “If bad things happen, we’ll go back.”

In rambling remarks on Afghanistan at a news conference on the coronavirus epidemic, Mr. Trump also seemed to suggest that the Taliban might be America’s newfound allies.

“I’ll be meeting personally with Taliban leaders in the not-too-distant future, and will be very much hoping that they will be doing what they say,” the president said. “They will be killing terrorists. They will be killing some very bad people. They will keep that fight going.”

Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, who was in Doha for the signing ceremony, seemed more cautious in his assessment of the Taliban’s future behavior.

“The agreement will mean nothing — and today’s good feelings will not last — if we don’t take concrete action on commitments stated and promises made,” Mr. Pompeo said.

The Trump administration has framed the deal as the long-awaited promise made to war-weary Americans, for whom the Afghan war has defined a generation of loss and trauma but has yielded no victory.

At the height of the war, more than 100,000 American troops occupied Afghanistan, as did tens of thousands from about 40 nations in the United States-led NATO coalition.

The war has gone on so long — the first allied warplane and cruise missiles struck on Oct. 7, 2001, and American boots hit the ground in numbers on Oct. 19 — that many young Afghan soldiers and their coalition partners have no memory of its onset.

Retaliation against Al Qaeda and its allies among the Taliban was the catalyst that drove the American invasion. But it has been a dawning sense of futility, perhaps best demonstrated in the American acceptance of relatively small concessions from Taliban in the agreement, that has driven efforts of successive administrations to find a way out.

Even in the description of Al Qaeda in the agreement, the Taliban refused to accept the word “terrorist.” The language focuses on the Taliban’s commitment to prevent future attacks, rather than any regrets over the past.

From the start of the talks, late in 2018, Afghan officials were troubled that the Taliban had blocked them from participating. They worried that Mr. Trump would abruptly withdraw troops without securing conditions they saw as crucial, including a reduction in violence and a Taliban promise to negotiate in good faith with the government.

The chief American envoy, Zalmay Khalilzad, signed on behalf of the United States. Mullah Abdul Ghani Baradar, a current Taliban deputy and a figure from the original Taliban government, signed for the Taliban. The two shook hands as the room erupted in cheers.

Some Taliban members in attendance chanted “Allahu akbar,” or “God is great,” a cry of victory.

More than 1,200 miles away during the signing, another senior American official, Defense Secretary Mark T. Esper, was with Afghan officials in Kabul to ease the Afghan government’s concerns. Joined by NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg, they issued a declaration asserting the United States’ commitment to helping sustain the Afghan military.

Mr. Esper emphasized that if the Taliban violated pledges, “the United States would not hesitate to nullify the agreement.”

President Ashraf Ghani of Afghanistan called for a moment of silence for war’s victims and said, “Today can be a day of overcoming the past.”

The best-case prospect laid out by the deal signed on Saturday could go far beyond America’s disengagement. It raised the hope of ending a conflict that began more than 20 years before the United States invasion, when the Soviet Union’s forces invaded the country and the United States began supporting the guerrilla resistance against them.

But behind the hope lies a web of contradictions, and a large degree of ambiguity that has Afghans worried.

The United States, which struggled to help secure better rights for women and minorities and instill a democratic system and institutions in Afghanistan, has struck a deal with an insurgency that has never clearly renounced its desire for a government and justice system rooted in a severe interpretation of Islam.

Though the Taliban get their primary wish under this agreement — the withdrawal of American troops — they have remained vague in commitments to protect the civil rights that they had brutally repressed when in power.

Among the Taliban, bringing the world’s strongest military power to the humbling point of withdrawal has widely been seen as a victory. A day before the signing ceremony at the Doha Sheraton hotel, the Taliban’s multimedia chief described it as a historic landmark for proclaiming “the defeat of the arrogance of the White House in the face of the white turban.”

But at the signing ceremony, Mr. Pompeo warned the Taliban to moderate their celebration.

“I know there will be a temptation to declare victory,” he said. “But victory for Afghans can only be achieved if they can live in peace and prosper.”

The deal’s conditional schedule for the withdrawal of the remaining American troops specifies that in the first phase, nearly 5,000 are to leave Afghanistan in 135 days. The withdrawal of the rest, to be completed within 14 months of the signing, will depend on the Taliban keeping its end of the bargain.

The insurgents pledged to keep international terrorist networks such as Al Qaeda from using Afghanistan as a base for attacks. And the United States pledged to work toward the gradual removal of Taliban leaders from both American and United Nations sanctions blacklists.

But the deal leaves an awkward reality for the Trump administration: It has signed an agreement with a movement that is dominated by an officially listed terrorist group, the Haqqani Network, known for its campaign of suicide bombings. The network’s leader, Sirajuddin Haqqani, is the Taliban’s deputy leader and military commander.

The United States also committed to seek the release of 5,000 Taliban prisoners, held by the Afghan government, and 1,000 members of government security forces from the Taliban side by March 10 — less than two weeks away — before the Afghan and Taliban sides are expected to start direct negotiations.

While American diplomats had pushed for a cease-fire, they settled for what they called a “reduction in violence” and tested it over seven days before the signing. Officials said attacks had dropped by as much as 80 percent.

With the signing of the deal, the U.S. and Taliban sides clearly stated their commitment to not attack each other. Just how much the Taliban will hold fire on Afghan security forces before a cease-fire is reached in Afghan negotiations remains a point of uncertainty and worry.

In recent years, the brunt of fighting has been borne by Afghan soldiers and police officers, many of them American-trained. But even some of them came to see U.S. troops as invaders, turning their guns on their American and NATO partners. More than 150 American and NATO troops have been killed in such “green-on-blue” attacks, including two American service members gunned down this month.

Mr. Khalilzad, the veteran diplomat leading the American peace efforts and himself a native of Afghanistan, long insisted that the United States was not seeking a withdrawal agreement, but “a peace agreement that enables withdrawal.”

The Taliban’s willingness to enter negotiations with other Afghans, including the government, over a political settlement has offered both hope and fear to the Afghan people.

The hope is that some kind of lasting peace can be reached. The fear is that the most difficult work lies ahead, and that the Taliban will be emboldened by the American withdrawal announcement to challenge a bitterly divided government in Kabul.

Much of the peace negotiations happened in a year of record violence from both sides. In just the last quarter of 2019, the Taliban carried out 8,204 attacks, the highest for that period over the past decade. The United States dropped 7,423 bombs and missiles during the year, a record since the Air Force began recording the data in 2006.

In the past five years, more than 50,000 members of the Afghan security forces have been killed, and tens of thousands wounded. The Taliban’s losses are harder to verify, but their casualty rate is believed to be comparable. Out of about 3,550 NATO coalition deaths in Afghanistan, nearly 2,400 have been Americans.

Mr. Khalilzad, the chief U.S. negotiator, struck an optimistic but somber tone.

“Today is a day for hope,” he said. “Today is a day to remember. We must remember the lessons of history, and the darkness of conflict.”

Needless to say that this deal could blow up at any moment. The United States' interest is for Afghanistan to not become a base for terrorist to attack US targets. It is time for the US to withdraw, for this war to end and for the authorization for this kind of action to be finally repealed.

What say you?

Avatar image for Master_Live
Master_Live

20550

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 7

#2  Edited By Master_Live
Member since 2004 • 20550 Posts

2 opinion, commentary pieces on the deal:

The Real Test in Afghanistan Is Still to Come.

A Chance to End America’s Longest War.

Avatar image for outworld222
outworld222

4773

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 3

User Lists: 0

#3 outworld222
Member since 2004 • 4773 Posts

Omg I thought this day won’t come in my lifetime. Good job president trump😁.

Now if only we’d do the same for Iraq, and all will be well.😁

Best news ever. Thanks TC.

Avatar image for LJS9502_basic
LJS9502_basic

180467

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#4 LJS9502_basic
Member since 2003 • 180467 Posts

I'd keep an eye on the Taliban and troops close...…..

Avatar image for eoten
Eoten

8671

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 10

#5 Eoten
Member since 2020 • 8671 Posts
@LJS9502_basic said:

I'd keep an eye on the Taliban and troops close...…..

And then the left says Trump is being a puppet of Israel and the MIC.

Avatar image for LJS9502_basic
LJS9502_basic

180467

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#6 LJS9502_basic
Member since 2003 • 180467 Posts

@eoten said:
@LJS9502_basic said:

I'd keep an eye on the Taliban and troops close...…..

And then the left says Trump is being a puppet of Israel and the MIC.

Makes no sense but it's you so...……..

Avatar image for Serraph105
Serraph105

36096

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#9 Serraph105
Member since 2007 • 36096 Posts

@Master_Live: "What say you?"

Fantastic. I have nothing, but praise for this, and it's easily the best thing Trump has done as president.

Avatar image for Master_Live
Master_Live

20550

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 7

#10 Master_Live
Member since 2004 • 20550 Posts

@joebones5000 said:

Now the country will go right back to Taliban rule. Trump is a moron, once again.

What should be done?

Avatar image for deactivated-5e9044657a310
deactivated-5e9044657a310

8136

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 6

User Lists: 0

#11 deactivated-5e9044657a310
Member since 2005 • 8136 Posts

What a waste of life and money

Avatar image for jeezers
jeezers

5341

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 3

User Lists: 0

#13 jeezers
Member since 2007 • 5341 Posts

Good! Go trump! pull out!

America First

Avatar image for mrbojangles25
mrbojangles25

61361

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 11

User Lists: 0

#14 mrbojangles25
Member since 2005 • 61361 Posts

Not sure how I feel about this.

Taliban is evil. I mean, the US and all other countries do some evil stuff...but I don't think we are inherently evil. Taliban, though? I think they are legitimately evil.

Anti-women, anti-education, anti-sports, anti-music, anti-fun...they saw off heads. Not like a clean strike of an axe or sword, they literally saw off heads it takes people minutes to die. And they video tape it.

But, at the same time, I don't think you can ever really rid the world of evil. But if you can make a deal with them to be less evil, well, maybe that is a win? I don't know.

Either way I think we will be back in that part of the world before 2030.

Avatar image for redrichard
redrichard

203

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#15 redrichard
Member since 2015 • 203 Posts

Unitedstatesians have decided enough is enough and surrendered. None of this sugar coating of agreement and withdrawals.

Avatar image for LJS9502_basic
LJS9502_basic

180467

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#16 LJS9502_basic
Member since 2003 • 180467 Posts

@redrichard said:

Unitedstatesians have decided enough is enough and surrendered. None of this sugar coating of agreement and withdrawals.

Ah the alt.

Avatar image for jeezers
jeezers

5341

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 3

User Lists: 0

#17  Edited By jeezers
Member since 2007 • 5341 Posts

@mrbojangles25: our best bet is getting out of that mess, we are just creating a vacuum to be replaced with a new chaos. As that douche from the Beetles said, "let it be".

We can build up our defense and security from home and focus on ourselves. If the countries near that mess want to foot the bill and fight back against it, be my guest. Europe has more to gain from defeating them than Americans do.

Everyone loves criticizing America for its involvement, they hate that we get involved. To Europeans... Americans are the terrorists, that tells me its time to stay out of it. Lets stay out of it and focus on our defense.

As much as they criticize our millitary power, they have let thiers dwindle. Maybe its time they did a coarse correction. Probably wont happen untill shit hits the fan, but they gotta wake up. Europe has gotten soft and tbh america has too at large.

Much like the Romans, when people get comfortable, they get soft and then fall.

Avatar image for MirkoS77
MirkoS77

18120

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 3

User Lists: 0

#18  Edited By MirkoS77
Member since 2011 • 18120 Posts

Would rather have our battles fought over there than here. We have interests in aiding our allies, in stratgically placing ourselves to work with other to recognize and nuetralize potential threats before they manifest. Our presence isn't altruistic.

Being "America First" is to be prudent enough to recognize that global affairs are our affairs also; they affect us. I don't understand how people seem to think that us withdrawing completely and turtling from the world makes us safer, it doesn't. In the end it will make us weaker. I'm against American imperialism, but that's different from maintaining the infrastructure, alliances, and military presence beneficial to keep us in the know and in a position to do something about developing situations around the globe. This is a very short-sighted and ill-considered move by Trump, IMO.

Avatar image for jeezers
jeezers

5341

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 3

User Lists: 0

#20 jeezers
Member since 2007 • 5341 Posts

@MirkoS77: This seriously amazes me, to see liberals backing staying in the middle east, what a drastic contrast to the Bush years.

This was always a big split between the neocons and the tea party, john mcain vs ron paul.

To see liberals talk like Mcain and Cheney blows my mind, it really does.

The only thing I can make sense of here, is that some liberals will endorse anything if its the opposite of what Trump is doing.

Avatar image for mrbojangles25
mrbojangles25

61361

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 11

User Lists: 0

#21 mrbojangles25
Member since 2005 • 61361 Posts

@MirkoS77 said:

Would rather have our battles fought over there than here. We have interests in aiding our allies, in stratgically placing ourselves to work with other to recognize and nuetralize potential threats before they manifest. Our presence isn't altruistic.

Being "America First" is to be prudent enough to recognize that global affairs are our affairs also; they affect us. I don't understand how people seem to think that us withdrawing completely and turtling from the world makes us safer, it doesn't. In the end it will make us weaker. I'm against American imperialism, but that's different from maintaining the infrastructure, alliances, and military presence beneficial to keep us in the know and in a position to do something about developing situations around the globe. This is a very short-sighted and ill-considered move by Trump, IMO.

Kind of agree with this. We are, in some respects, a really giant island. We have friendly neighbors to the north, and friendly ones to the south...both are relatively powerless.

Best to keep the enemies that want to hurt us at arm's length, i.e. overseas.

Avatar image for MirkoS77
MirkoS77

18120

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 3

User Lists: 0

#22  Edited By MirkoS77
Member since 2011 • 18120 Posts

@jeezers said:

@MirkoS77: This seriously amazes me, to see liberals backing staying in the middle east, what a drastic contrast to the Bush years.

This was always a big split between the neocons and the tea party, john mcain vs ron paul.

To see liberals talk like Mcain and Cheney blows my mind, it really does.

The only thing I can make sense of here, is that some liberals will endorse anything if its the opposite of what Trump is doing.

I'm not a liberal.

I had no trouble with what Bush did after 9/11 in principle, we had to go after those responsible, but the incompetent execution left something greatly to be desired.

But I'd have to agree, it seriously amazes me that conservatives, who'd be screaming to the heavens to crucify Obama had he began pulling us out of all foreign entanglements (and did upon the draw down in Iraq), have suddenly begun promoting isolationalism and stating we're not a babysitter. My dad, who for reference was a top scientist working on the Strategic Defense Initiative at Lockheed and who worshiped Reagan and who was the posterboy for the neocon, has done a complete 180 under Trump. He's unrecognizable.

The only thing I can make sense of here is that many conservatives will endorse anything to continue the cultish support of their king. They're not people of principle, they're ideological hacks.

Avatar image for jeezers
jeezers

5341

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 3

User Lists: 0

#23  Edited By jeezers
Member since 2007 • 5341 Posts

@MirkoS77 said:
@jeezers said:

@MirkoS77: This seriously amazes me, to see liberals backing staying in the middle east, what a drastic contrast to the Bush years.

This was always a big split between the neocons and the tea party, john mcain vs ron paul.

To see liberals talk like Mcain and Cheney blows my mind, it really does.

The only thing I can make sense of here, is that some liberals will endorse anything if its the opposite of what Trump is doing.

I'm not a liberal.

I had no trouble with what Bush did after 9/11 in principle, we had to go after those responsible, but the incompetent execution left something greatly to be desired.

But I'd have to agree, it seriously amazes me that conservatives, who'd be screaming to the heavens to crucify Obama had he began pulling us out of all foreign entanglements (and did upon the draw down in Iraq), have suddenly begun promoting isolationalism and stating we're not a babysitter. My dad, who for reference was a top scientist working on the Strategic Defense Initiative at Lockheed and who worshiped Reagan and who was the posterboy for the neocon, has done a complete 180 under Trump. He's unrecognizable.

The only thing I can make sense of here is that many conservatives will endorse anything to continue the cultish support of their king. They're not people of principle, they're ideological hacks.

Ah so you are not a liberal, your a conservative? you supported Bush?

That makes sense then.

I am a Ron Paul supporter, the neocons/media slandered him as an isolationist for criticizing the vacuum we created in the middle east and wanting to pull out

We never should have been in Iraq, the WMD'S did not exist, the US military will never bring peace to the middle east.

I am happy with Trumps decision to work on a plan to pull out of the middle east, when he appointed Bolton i was disappointed because i couldn't see it happening with that guy involved.

I'm glad your father realizes its a waste of time. People change for the better sometimes.

Side Note: Obama was criticized by the neocons, but truthfully he never actually pulled out, he just ramped up the drones, which caused more problems and killed more innocents.

Avatar image for drunk_pi
Drunk_PI

3358

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#24 Drunk_PI
Member since 2014 • 3358 Posts

@jeezers said:

@MirkoS77: This seriously amazes me, to see liberals backing staying in the middle east, what a drastic contrast to the Bush years.

This was always a big split between the neocons and the tea party, john mcain vs ron paul.

To see liberals talk like Mcain and Cheney blows my mind, it really does.

The only thing I can make sense of here, is that some liberals will endorse anything if its the opposite of what Trump is doing.

Nothing is ever in absolutes. Opposing the peace deal doesn't necessarily mean those who are liberal want to stay in Afghanistan because they hate Trump. It probably means that the peace deal is flawed or perhaps there's another reason.

Likewise, although I opposed the war in Iraq, I wasn't in favor of withdrawal because Iraq lacked the means to care for itself, thus was a large opening for extremist groups to take over and take advantage of a politically fragile and corrupt government and its people.

I haven't been keeping up with the peace deal so I don't know the details of it. Perhaps it's good and perhaps it's flawed. All I know is that Afghanistan is politically fragile and probably prone to takeover by the Taliban, ISIL-Kohorsan (if it ever takes a hold) and other extremist groups; or anti-democratic forces.

Avatar image for jeezers
jeezers

5341

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 3

User Lists: 0

#25 jeezers
Member since 2007 • 5341 Posts

@drunk_pi said:
@jeezers said:

@MirkoS77: This seriously amazes me, to see liberals backing staying in the middle east, what a drastic contrast to the Bush years.

This was always a big split between the neocons and the tea party, john mcain vs ron paul.

To see liberals talk like Mcain and Cheney blows my mind, it really does.

The only thing I can make sense of here, is that some liberals will endorse anything if its the opposite of what Trump is doing.

Nothing is ever in absolutes. Opposing the peace deal doesn't necessarily mean those who are liberal want to stay in Afghanistan because they hate Trump. It probably means that the peace deal is flawed or perhaps there's another reason.

Likewise, although I opposed the war in Iraq, I wasn't in favor of withdrawal because Iraq lacked the means to care for itself, thus was a large opening for extremist groups to take over and take advantage of a politically fragile and corrupt government and its people.

I haven't been keeping up with the peace deal so I don't know the details of it. Perhaps it's good and perhaps it's flawed. All I know is that Afghanistan is politically fragile and probably prone to takeover by the Taliban, ISIL-Kohorsan (if it ever takes a hold) and other extremist groups; or anti-democratic forces.

So when do we know they are secure enough to leave

its been 20 years

when is the appropriate time to leave.

this pisses me off so much, because the middle east will never be safe and secure enough to leave

Liberals used to be for leaving. One of the things I agreed with them on, being someone with libertarian leanings

I guess they are the new neocons, its so fucking stupid

Avatar image for n64dd
N64DD

13167

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#26 N64DD
Member since 2015 • 13167 Posts

I think this is a great accomplishment...but im LJbasic on this, i don’t trust either side.

Avatar image for jeezers
jeezers

5341

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 3

User Lists: 0

#27 jeezers
Member since 2007 • 5341 Posts

10:54 mark, Ron Paul, the best president we never had

Loading Video...

Avatar image for MirkoS77
MirkoS77

18120

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 3

User Lists: 0

#28 MirkoS77
Member since 2011 • 18120 Posts

@jeezers said:

Ah so you are not a liberal, your a conservative? you supported Bush?

That makes sense then.

I am a Ron Paul supporter, the neocons/media slandered him as an isolationist for criticizing the vacuum we created in the middle east and wanting to pull out

We never should have been in Iraq, the WMD'S did not exist, the US military will never bring peace to the middle east.

I am happy with Trumps decision to work on a plan to pull out of the middle east, when he appointed Bolton i was disappointed because i couldn't see it happening with that guy involved.

I'm glad your father realizes its a waste of time. People change for the better sometimes.

Side Note: Obama was criticized by the neocons, but truthfully he never actually pulled out, he just ramped up the drones, which caused more problems and killed more innocents.

I'm an independent that tends to lean slightly left. But in terms of foreign policy, I'm an interventionist as I believe the best defense is to be proactive around the world instead of secluding ourselves within our borders and taking the position of "I got mine, you deal with your problems!". It's nothing but myopia and makes us much weaker. Unfortunately, the consequences of Trump's shortsightedness will take years to manifest, at which time the current admin at the time will shoulder the blame. And so it goes....

Agree about Iraq, there was an agenda at play the Bush Administration was leveraging 9/11 to initiate conflict which got us mired in a bog and lent to the creation of other malignant elements that led to further destabilization. But once that's done, it's done. We have to attempt to mitigate the damage the best we can, simply pulling out after sticking our hand into a hornet's nest is unwise.

I don't see much of a strategy in Trump's foreign policy aside blanket withdrawls predicated upon the principle of isolationalism, which isn't a strategy at all, it's an ideal. One that Trump appears to wish to jump immediately to and then proclaim victory. Yet there are incredibly complex, fragile, and nuanced dynamics in our foreign entanglements and the ramifications that will entail upon our absence that need to be addressed before we leave. Syria, the chaos that ensued in the immediate aftermath, and the scrambling to send Pence to negotiate a ceasefire exemplified this complete lack of planning and foresight by Trump. That should've been done before we withdrew, not after.

As for my father, he hasn't changed at all. If Trump were to decide to send 100,000 troops somewhere tomorrow, he'd be finding every rationalization for it in order to justify his support of Trump. As I said, he's a cultist hack who's completely lost in blind partisanship hatred. It's sad.

Avatar image for jeezers
jeezers

5341

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 3

User Lists: 0

#29 jeezers
Member since 2007 • 5341 Posts

@MirkoS77: so we never leave the middle east, gotcha, your a proud interventionalist and want to stay.

Your father sounds like a good man, dont resent him so much

Avatar image for MirkoS77
MirkoS77

18120

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 3

User Lists: 0

#30 MirkoS77
Member since 2011 • 18120 Posts

@jeezers said:

@MirkoS77: so we never leave the middle east, gotcha, your a proud interventionalist and want to stay.

Your father sounds like a good man, dont resent him so much

I want to protect America, not selfishly cower within its borders and await someone to attack us, as you seem to.

My father is unprincipled. That's not saying he's a bad man, it's saying he's not one to be respected in that respect.

Avatar image for vl4d_l3nin
vl4d_l3nin

3705

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 5

#31  Edited By vl4d_l3nin
Member since 2013 • 3705 Posts
Loading Video...

Thank you, Mr. President

Avatar image for Audacitron
Audacitron

991

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#32 Audacitron
Member since 2012 • 991 Posts

@MirkoS77 said:
@jeezers said:

@MirkoS77: This seriously amazes me, to see liberals backing staying in the middle east, what a drastic contrast to the Bush years.

This was always a big split between the neocons and the tea party, john mcain vs ron paul.

To see liberals talk like Mcain and Cheney blows my mind, it really does.

The only thing I can make sense of here, is that some liberals will endorse anything if its the opposite of what Trump is doing.


But I'd have to agree, it seriously amazes me that conservatives, who'd be screaming to the heavens to crucify Obama had he began pulling us out of all foreign entanglements (and did upon the draw down in Iraq), have suddenly begun promoting isolationalism and stating we're not a babysitter.

The only thing I can make sense of here is that many conservatives will endorse anything to continue the cultish support of their king. They're not people of principle, they're ideological hacks.

This is why sometimes it takes a Republican to do these things. Part of me hoped that Trump had the popularity among Republican voters to do the common sense thing and make progress on entrenched Republican articles of faith. The sort of things a Democrat would be demonized for tackling, as Obama frequently was.

My sense is that Obama occasionally did the wrong thing for the right reasons, while Trump sometimes does the right thing, but usually for the wrong reasons. Trump is unprincipled, amoral, and his motives are basically selfish. He probably won't be so quick to do the same thing with Iraq. The 'America first' logic on that one is 'take their oil', and Trump has said as much.

Avatar image for eoten
Eoten

8671

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 10

#33 Eoten
Member since 2020 • 8671 Posts

Between Mirko telling us on the right what we think and believe, and people in the "Q: Why are "handouts" considered bad, when the rich took them in from the taxpayers in 2008" doing the same, it's clear to me that most of you know jack shit about any of us on the right, or what people on the right actually think or believe. Which is sad, because much of the hateful, divisive, intolerance on the left is based on very erroneous beliefs. Maybe you should actually talk to more people, and not just rely on headlines. There's a reason people call those sources "fake news."

Avatar image for jeezers
jeezers

5341

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 3

User Lists: 0

#34 jeezers
Member since 2007 • 5341 Posts

@vl4d_l3nin said:
Loading Video...

Thank you, Mr. President

good song, But lets see if it actually happens

Loading Video...

Avatar image for drunk_pi
Drunk_PI

3358

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#35 Drunk_PI
Member since 2014 • 3358 Posts

@jeezers said:
@drunk_pi said:
@jeezers said:

@MirkoS77: This seriously amazes me, to see liberals backing staying in the middle east, what a drastic contrast to the Bush years.

This was always a big split between the neocons and the tea party, john mcain vs ron paul.

To see liberals talk like Mcain and Cheney blows my mind, it really does.

The only thing I can make sense of here, is that some liberals will endorse anything if its the opposite of what Trump is doing.

Nothing is ever in absolutes. Opposing the peace deal doesn't necessarily mean those who are liberal want to stay in Afghanistan because they hate Trump. It probably means that the peace deal is flawed or perhaps there's another reason.

Likewise, although I opposed the war in Iraq, I wasn't in favor of withdrawal because Iraq lacked the means to care for itself, thus was a large opening for extremist groups to take over and take advantage of a politically fragile and corrupt government and its people.

I haven't been keeping up with the peace deal so I don't know the details of it. Perhaps it's good and perhaps it's flawed. All I know is that Afghanistan is politically fragile and probably prone to takeover by the Taliban, ISIL-Kohorsan (if it ever takes a hold) and other extremist groups; or anti-democratic forces.

So when do we know they are secure enough to leave

its been 20 years

when is the appropriate time to leave.

this pisses me off so much, because the middle east will never be safe and secure enough to leave

Liberals used to be for leaving. One of the things I agreed with them on, being someone with libertarian leanings

I guess they are the new neocons, its so fucking stupid

Afghanistan is in Central Asia.

Length =/= efficiency in helping establish a government with a reliable security sector and capability in protecting human rights, especially considering that we didn't do a good job during the Bush Administration (see 2003 Iraq War). Also, the deal itself may not be sufficient in maintaining the peace, which is a concern for those who are involved, know the issues, and/or concerned about human rights in Afghanistan, especially the women who are allowed to go to school, among other things.

If the U.S. does leave and Afghanistan collapses into anarchy, it would undo the work the U.S. has committed, thus doing the following: Making those who lost their lives meaningless, greater violence in an already volatile region, and conflict spillover into at-risk countries, as well as invite Russia and/or China into the mix to stabilize and influence Afghanistan to their liking (that's not necessarily a good thing, especially since the Trump Administration is concerned about Chinese influence throughout the world).

No group of people, conservative, liberal, libertarian, Republican, and/or Democrat are a hive mind.

Avatar image for mrbojangles25
mrbojangles25

61361

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 11

User Lists: 0

#36  Edited By mrbojangles25
Member since 2005 • 61361 Posts

@jeezers said:

@mrbojangles25: our best bet is getting out of that mess, we are just creating a vacuum to be replaced with a new chaos. As that douche from the Beetles said, "let it be".

We can build up our defense and security from home and focus on ourselves. If the countries near that mess want to foot the bill and fight back against it, be my guest. Europe has more to gain from defeating them than Americans do.

Everyone loves criticizing America for its involvement, they hate that we get involved. To Europeans... Americans are the terrorists, that tells me its time to stay out of it. Lets stay out of it and focus on our defense.

As much as they criticize our millitary power, they have let thiers dwindle. Maybe its time they did a coarse correction. Probably wont happen untill shit hits the fan, but they gotta wake up. Europe has gotten soft and tbh america has too at large.

Much like the Romans, when people get comfortable, they get soft and then fall.

I don't think Europeans believe Americans are terrorists. That's a bit of hyperbole; while I am sure there are some far-left liberals that believe that all over the world, I don't think enough of them do to label them as such.

You have to wonder, almost 20 years later, how things in that part of the world would be if 9/11 never happened. Would Saddam (or his son?) still rule Iraq? Would Afghanistan still be a backwards shithole only known for being "Russia's Vietnam"?

Concerning the liberal mentality towards it, I think many of them believe that since we have been there for so long, at this point it's more about making it worth it. If we leave, we more or less say we wasted our time, money, and lives (not in order of importance) but if we stayed maybe we could salvage something from it.

Who knows, though? There's no shortage of uneducated fanatical quran-thumping jihadis over there.

Avatar image for leftrightdivide
LeftRightDivide

66

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 5

#37 LeftRightDivide
Member since 2020 • 66 Posts

The American Empire cares about keeping their Opium supply.

The deal was probably along the lines of we get x amount of opium.

That was the real reason you went in. The Taliban cut off the supply. Since the Americans took over Afghanistan has been the leading opium producer.

If the opium supply gets cut off , you'll be back to secure it.

Avatar image for plageus900
plageus900

3065

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 5

#38  Edited By plageus900
Member since 2013 • 3065 Posts

A guy I went to high school with received the Navy Cross from the SecDef for mutilating a member of the Taliban with his bare hands.

Trump is receiving praise for sucking off Taliban delegates one by one.

Avatar image for jeezers
jeezers

5341

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 3

User Lists: 0

#40 jeezers
Member since 2007 • 5341 Posts

@mrbojangles25 said:
@jeezers said:

@mrbojangles25: our best bet is getting out of that mess, we are just creating a vacuum to be replaced with a new chaos. As that douche from the Beetles said, "let it be".

We can build up our defense and security from home and focus on ourselves. If the countries near that mess want to foot the bill and fight back against it, be my guest. Europe has more to gain from defeating them than Americans do.

Everyone loves criticizing America for its involvement, they hate that we get involved. To Europeans... Americans are the terrorists, that tells me its time to stay out of it. Lets stay out of it and focus on our defense.

As much as they criticize our millitary power, they have let thiers dwindle. Maybe its time they did a coarse correction. Probably wont happen untill shit hits the fan, but they gotta wake up. Europe has gotten soft and tbh america has too at large.

Much like the Romans, when people get comfortable, they get soft and then fall.

I don't think Europeans believe Americans are terrorists. That's a bit of hyperbole; while I am sure there are some far-left liberals that believe that all over the world, I don't think enough of them do to label them as such.

You have to wonder, almost 20 years later, how things in that part of the world would be if 9/11 never happened. Would Saddam (or his son?) still rule Iraq? Would Afghanistan still be a backwards shithole only known for being "Russia's Vietnam"?

Concerning the liberal mentality towards it, I think many of them believe that since we have been there for so long, at this point it's more about making it worth it. If we leave, we more or less say we wasted our time, money, and lives (not in order of importance) but if we stayed maybe we could salvage something from it.

Who knows, though? There's no shortage of uneducated fanatical quran-thumping jihadis over there.

Yeah maybe if we just stay another 20 years it will be worth,

personally i wouldn't waste one american life on any of those backwards places.

I think there are other interests in play, resources, money, the military industrial complex.

I do not believe we are staying to "fix it". I don't get what we are "salvaging".

I don't want to see us fucking around with these places for another 20 years. Its ridiculous, eventually, count your losses, it cant be fixed. If its going to get fixed, the people from there will need to do it.

Avatar image for MirkoS77
MirkoS77

18120

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 3

User Lists: 0

#41 MirkoS77
Member since 2011 • 18120 Posts

@eoten said:

Between Mirko telling us on the right what we think and believe,

Right, because you seem to have no trouble when others do it, such as....

This seriously amazes me, to see liberals backing staying in the middle east, what a drastic contrast to the Bush years.

You only bitch and moan at me. EVERYONE on these boards operates on generalizations. Try being a little less transparent next time.

Avatar image for LJS9502_basic
LJS9502_basic

180467

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#42 LJS9502_basic
Member since 2003 • 180467 Posts

@eoten said:

Between Mirko telling us on the right what we think and believe, and people in the "Q: Why are "handouts" considered bad, when the rich took them in from the taxpayers in 2008" doing the same, it's clear to me that most of you know jack shit about any of us on the right, or what people on the right actually think or believe. Which is sad, because much of the hateful, divisive, intolerance on the left is based on very erroneous beliefs. Maybe you should actually talk to more people, and not just rely on headlines. There's a reason people call those sources "fake news."

I don't think it's hard to know what the right thinks or believes at all. Their voting history shows that. Or are you saying no thoughts go into your votes?

Avatar image for kadin_kai
Kadin_Kai

2247

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 5

User Lists: 0

#43 Kadin_Kai
Member since 2015 • 2247 Posts

Has Halliburton finished its pipeline and postwar reconstruction already?

Who is next on the hitlist? Is it Iran?

Avatar image for horgen
horgen

127787

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 0

#44 horgen  Moderator
Member since 2006 • 127787 Posts

@mrbojangles25 said:

I don't think Europeans believe Americans are terrorists. That's a bit of hyperbole; while I am sure there are some far-left liberals that believe that all over the world, I don't think enough of them do to label them as such.

You have to wonder, almost 20 years later, how things in that part of the world would be if 9/11 never happened. Would Saddam (or his son?) still rule Iraq? Would Afghanistan still be a backwards shithole only known for being "Russia's Vietnam"?

Concerning the liberal mentality towards it, I think many of them believe that since we have been there for so long, at this point it's more about making it worth it. If we leave, we more or less say we wasted our time, money, and lives (not in order of importance) but if we stayed maybe we could salvage something from it.

Who knows, though? There's no shortage of uneducated fanatical quran-thumping jihadis over there.

I think many would consider both leaving and staying as waste of time and money.

I haven't read the details of the deal, however I am at first (and well until I read more about it at least) positive to this.

Avatar image for deactivated-5e9044657a310
deactivated-5e9044657a310

8136

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 6

User Lists: 0

#45 deactivated-5e9044657a310
Member since 2005 • 8136 Posts

Taliban broke the truce, will resume normal operations.

There goes trump's Nobel peace prize....

Avatar image for Master_Live
Master_Live

20550

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 7

#46  Edited By Master_Live
Member since 2004 • 20550 Posts

Frankly, outside of Afghanistan becoming a base for Al-Qaeda again, the US should just leave. Taliban are bad, lots of groups are around the world are bad, wasting more lives and treasure ain't going to change that fact in the short or medium term.

But some people like to throw good money after bad.

Avatar image for comp_atkins
comp_atkins

39003

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 3

User Lists: 0

#47 comp_atkins
Member since 2005 • 39003 Posts

@Audacitron said:
@MirkoS77 said:
@jeezers said:

@MirkoS77: This seriously amazes me, to see liberals backing staying in the middle east, what a drastic contrast to the Bush years.

This was always a big split between the neocons and the tea party, john mcain vs ron paul.

To see liberals talk like Mcain and Cheney blows my mind, it really does.

The only thing I can make sense of here, is that some liberals will endorse anything if its the opposite of what Trump is doing.


But I'd have to agree, it seriously amazes me that conservatives, who'd be screaming to the heavens to crucify Obama had he began pulling us out of all foreign entanglements (and did upon the draw down in Iraq), have suddenly begun promoting isolationalism and stating we're not a babysitter.

The only thing I can make sense of here is that many conservatives will endorse anything to continue the cultish support of their king. They're not people of principle, they're ideological hacks.

This is why sometimes it takes a Republican to do these things. Part of me hoped that Trump had the popularity among Republican voters to do the common sense thing and make progress on entrenched Republican articles of faith. The sort of things a Democrat would be demonized for tackling, as Obama frequently was.

My sense is that Obama occasionally did the wrong thing for the right reasons, while Trump sometimes does the right thing, but usually for the wrong reasons. Trump is unprincipled, amoral, and his motives are basically selfish. He probably won't be so quick to do the same thing with Iraq. The 'America first' logic on that one is 'take their oil', and Trump has said as much.

if we could figure out how to make trump think climate change is in his interest we'd be in better shape

Avatar image for mrbojangles25
mrbojangles25

61361

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 11

User Lists: 0

#48 mrbojangles25
Member since 2005 • 61361 Posts

@kadin_kai said:

Has Halliburton finished its pipeline and postwar reconstruction already?

Who is next on the hitlist? Is it Iran?

Loading Video...

Avatar image for Jacanuk
Jacanuk

20281

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 42

User Lists: 0

#49 Jacanuk
Member since 2011 • 20281 Posts

This thread is kinda scary.

If someone wants the left to go a specific way they just have to get Trump to be for it and then everyone on the left, no matter how good it may be, will be against it just because.

No regard for the fact that US troops in Afghanistan are "invaders" and the fact that they have already shown once that you cannot fight a local population into submission when they don´t want to go that way.

Avatar image for leftrightdivide
LeftRightDivide

66

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 5

#50 LeftRightDivide
Member since 2020 • 66 Posts

@comp_atkins said:

if we could figure out how to make trump think climate change is in his interest we'd be in better shape

American policy has nothing to do with Trump. He takes his orders from those that got him elected.

America won't cut it's oil and natural gas production because of the petrodollar. Instead they will bomb countries, block pipelines with NGO's to prevent other countries from producing oil and gas.

The value of American currency depends on this. It's why you had to bomb and occupy all those countries in the middle east.

If the American Empire were to lose reserve currency status, your dollar wouldn't be worth the paper it is printed on.