US-Afghanistan withdrawal in 6-Months?, page 5

privacy

Pages: << 2 3 4 5 6 >>
ATS Members have flagged this thread 21 times

reply posted on 6-11-2009 @ 01:24 AM by SLAYER69

U.N. official admonishes Karzai to enact reforms

Reporting from Kabul, Afghanistan - The top United Nations official in Afghanistan on Thursday issued an unusually pointed warning to President Hamid Karzai to enact major political reforms or risk losing the support of the international community.

"There is a belief among some that the international commitment to Afghanistan will continue whatever happens because of the strategic importance of Afghanistan," Kai Eide, the U.N. special representative, said at a news conference. "I would like to emphasize that this is not correct.

reply posted on 6-11-2009 @ 08:34 AM by Blue_Jay33

This article says it all

www.foreignpolicy.com...

The points about Vietnam, very interesting. All that blood and treasure perpetually wasted.

Furthering debt financed by taxes from the poor and middle class.

America is war weary, this war on terror has gone on longer than the WW2 now, with no winnable outcome, such a waste.

reply posted on 7-11-2009 @ 10:57 AM by SLAYER69

Situation Update

PM: I will not risk British lives if Afghans do not end corruption

Britain "cannot, must not and will not walk away" from Afghanistan, Gordon Brown said today.

The prime minister also gave the Kabul government a stern warning that it had to clean up and reform if it was to continue receiving international help.

In a pre-Remembrance Day speech in London, hastily arranged following numerous British deaths in Afghanistan this week, Brown insisted the Afghan campaign was "prosecuted out of necessity" to protect the UK and wider world from the threat of terrorism.

He cited terror attacks in recent years, including those in New York, Bali, Baghdad and London, adding: "When people ask why are we in Afghanistan ... I ask them to look at this list of terrible atrocities."

reply posted on 9-11-2009 @ 11:03 AM by SLAYER69

Britain reportedly urges Karzai to make peace with Taliban

Hamburg - Britain has quietly urged Afghan's newly re-elected president, Hamid Karzai, to make peace with the less radical part of the Taliban, a German magazine, Stern, claimed Monday.

In a story on its website, stern.de, it said that London's confidential message had identified the so-called Quetta Shura, based in Pakistan, as the Taliban supreme authority and called on Karzai to make peace with it.

Previously, London had merely urged Karzai to amnesty Taliban fighters and their regional commanders. Stern said it was now pressing for the Taliban's senior commanders and shadow governors to be amnestied.

Read more: www.monstersandcritics.com...

reply posted on 9-11-2009 @ 11:17 AM by jam321

reply to post by SLAYER69

I don't know Slayer. They send all these troops in to accomplish a mission, limit them on their ability to accomplish the mission, lose some good lives because of the leaders inability to set goals to accomplish the mission, and then in the end try to make deals with the devil to end the mission knowing damn well that the same problems will arise again in the future.

Just doesn't make sense to go to war in the first place if you aren't 100% committed.

reply posted on 12-11-2009 @ 12:48 PM by SLAYER69

Obama Orders Revisions to Afghan Options

A senior White House official says U.S. President Barack Obama is calling on his national security team to revise the options for the U.S. war strategy in Afghanistan.

Mr. Obama asked for the changes Wednesday during the latest review of his Afghanistan policy. The official says the president wants his advisors to determine how and when U.S. troops can hand over security responsibility to the Afghan government. Administration officials say Mr. Obama wants to make clear to Afghan President Hamid Karzai that the U.S. commitment in Afghanistan is not "open-ended."

reply posted on 12-11-2009 @ 12:52 PM by centurion1211

Originally posted by jam321
reply to post by SLAYER69

I don't know Slayer. They send all these troops in to accomplish a mission, limit them on their ability to accomplish the mission, lose some good lives because of the leaders inability to set goals to accomplish the mission, and then in the end try to make deals with the devil to end the mission knowing damn well that the same problems will arise again in the future.

Just doesn't make sense to go to war in the first place if you aren't 100% committed.

Now, for the first time in the war on terror, that does sound similar to what happened with Viet Nam. The soldiers weren't sent to win, or allowed to win by the politicians, they were basically just sent there to die if "necessary".

reply posted on 12-11-2009 @ 01:07 PM by SLAYER69

reply to post by centurion1211

reply to post by jam321

----------------------------------------------------------------------------

There are many signs that a deal will be made. We didn't go into Afghanistan to fight the Taliban. But to hunt for and remove Al-Qaeda training camps. Mission accomplished IMO. It's going to take a few years so I'm thinking we will not see any major change in the situation until reelection.

reply posted on 12-11-2009 @ 02:45 PM by JayinAR

IMO we DID NOT go into Afghanistan to remove Al Qaeda training camps. We went over there because of its geographical proximity to Iran.

When the Iranians opened the commodities exchange trading oil on the Euro we pretty much lost both conflicts. When Saudi Arabia dropped the USD in favor of the Euro we lost any reason to keep a presence in the region.

Did anyone read MaxMars' thread about George Soros? I don't really agree with Maxmars on a few points in his analysis, but one thing is absolutely true. The US has now lost its economic leverage in the world.
Since this has happened, we can no longer weild wreckless abandon militarily. We must now take a more diplomatic stance in these regards.

As I said on page two of this thread, we will pull out of both Iraq and Afghanistan. We will not move into Pakistan either. We are pretty much done in the region. We don't have any leverage.

This movement by the Brits pretty much seals the deal in my mind.

Thanks for the update Slayer.

reply posted on 12-11-2009 @ 03:35 PM by Helmkat

reply to post by SLAYER69

The situation continues to prove itself more complex then any of the "armchair" Generals can predict. Why are we there? I don't really care anymore, we just need to get them on their feet and get the heck out as fast as possible. To much blood and treasure has been spent, to many lost lives and limbs. There needs to be some accounting for the crimes and a time a heal.

reply posted on 12-11-2009 @ 04:03 PM by grantbeed

I think theres a number of reasons why we possibly went into Afghanistan. Its going to become much more apparent what those reasons are/were as time goes on.

Oil/Gas
Al Qaeda
Close Proximity to Iran
Close proximity to Future Players such as Khazakstan
Protection of Pakistans Nukes
etc
etc

Theres got to be questions asked when the Top Army dog is calling for 60,000 extra troops, and the president is talking of an exit strategy. Sounds like there are many conflicting positions within the military and the government.

reply posted on 12-11-2009 @ 04:06 PM by JayinAR

reply to post by grantbeed

What that indicates is that the General is focused on trying to win the fight and the administration doesn't care about the fight anymore.
That should tell you that it is about money and that we can't make any more money there no matter what the course.

So, might as well pull out.

reply posted on 12-11-2009 @ 04:31 PM by jam321

reply to post by SLAYER69

Sounding more and more like a withdrawal plan to me.

Guess this isn't a necessary war after all.

reply posted on 12-11-2009 @ 07:14 PM by JayinAR

reply to post by jam321

If we are to say that this war wasn't a war of necessity, what does that say about the "conspiracy" reports that Afghanistan was on the war-table in advance of September 11, 2001?
Holy smokes?!
Or not?

reply posted on 12-11-2009 @ 07:30 PM by Beefcake

If we actually pull out of Afghanistan which we won't imo then we better look out because we'll be at war with Iran inside of a year.

That being said this is just posturing we will be sending probably 40k more troops and will have an indefinite occupation in Afghanistan and like i said if we do withdraw it will just be because they are planning a war with Iran and will need the resources.

Most uninformed are so easily gamed by their gov't it is almost effortless for them. We pull out there will be a False flag in the US a few months later then they say "see it is because we pulled out" then we either go back and "finish the job" with new national support or peg Iran as the real source and we attack them.

There will be no end to the wars over there people. War is the only thing driving the US economy they must be perpetual.

Sorry

reply posted on 12-11-2009 @ 08:51 PM by JayinAR

reply to post by Beefcake

Are you kidding me? The US has been beating the war-drum at Iran for eight years now.
Hasn't happened, won't happen.

Not only can the US *not* win a war in Iran, it would quickly become an embarassment.

One only needs to look at how the Iranians repelled the US backed Iraqis to see how it would end up. The US would immediately become the international "bad-guy" when they were forced to slaughter countless thousands of Iranian youths armed with nothing more than a copy of the Koran.

The terrain is inhospitable and nearly impenetrable. Combine that with the near STRANGLEHOLD that the Government has on the people ideologically (religion) and you have something that you cannot defeat with smart bombs. You have a country that must be taken by force and cannot be unless you are willing to kill everything that moves.

In an increasingly Globalistic world, this is completely unacceptable. Especially when you consider that the Iranians only recently positioned themselves to become a major economic power with their oil trading platform.

You may call it blind.

So be it.

Beat that drum, buddy!

reply posted on 15-11-2009 @ 08:40 PM by SLAYER69

Clinton: only goal in Afghanistan is ousting al Qaeda

The United States has no long-term commitment to Afghanistan other than to root al Qaeda from the war-torn nation, Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton said Sunday.

Mrs. Clinton also cautioned against propping up any corrupt government and reiterated U.S. demands that the recently returned government of Hamid Karzai make clear steps to increase transparency and reduce corruption.

"We're not interested in staying in Afghanistan. We have no long-term stake there. We want that to be made very clear," Mrs. Clinton said on ABC's "This Week."

reply posted on 15-11-2009 @ 08:56 PM by JayinAR

reply to post by SLAYER69

I see only two problems with that theory.
1) It is being relayed to you by a politician.
2) It is being relayed to you by a politician through the MSM.

Of course you wouldn't expect to see them out-and-out tell you that tey are there for USD Hegemony, but they lie quite often.

reply posted on 15-11-2009 @ 09:14 PM by Donny 4 million

I noticed this thread started out at a maximum of six month for with drawl.
It's eight or so now. No change so far eh. I hate predictions.
Just a question, Wasn't end time for Iraq last July?
Rational, would suggest, Iraqi first, Afghanistan second, NO?
Have the sheeple been so mesmerized by the Afghan BS that they have lost their way yet again?
Liberman and the media don't want out.

reply posted on 15-11-2009 @ 09:21 PM by SLAYER69

reply to post by Donny 4 million

Iraq is 2011.

As far as Afghanistan. It was not a prediction.