# Obama strongly considers withdrawing ALL troops from Afghanistan in 2014



## Sunni Man (Jul 9, 2013)

(CNN) -- President Barack Obama is seriously considering withdrawing all U.S. troops from Afghanistan in 2014, a senior administration official told CNN.

The official's comments came after The New York Times reported the administration was looking at speeding up the troop withdrawal to the "zero option," leaving no troops in Afghanistan.

Until now, U.S. and Afghan officials had been discussing plans to keep a small force behind to fight insurgents and to train Afghan security personnel.

But Obama has, in recent months, grown increasingly frustrated in dealing with Afghan President Hamid Karzai.

 A "zero option" has always been among the scenarios the United States envisioned. But the new revelation means that it could be a very possible one now.

Obama considering withdrawing all troops from Afghanistan in 2014 - CNN.com


----------



## Sallow (Jul 9, 2013)




----------



## High_Gravity (Jul 9, 2013)

Good idea, bring everyone home.


----------



## Sallow (Jul 9, 2013)

High_Gravity said:


> Good idea, bring everyone home.



We can't get out of there, soon enough.

2013 would be better.


----------



## Desperado (Jul 9, 2013)

It would be the smart thing to do, unfortunately Obama does not do smart.
Just have to hope for the best.


----------



## TakeAStepBack (Jul 9, 2013)

Who will protect and help transport the poppy industry though?

I dont see that happening until all contracts for raw materials have been established in Afghan. There are trillions in element in those mountains. Why did you think we were theere? To fight terrorists?


----------



## Peter Dow (Jul 9, 2013)

> New York Times: *U.S. Considers Faster Pullout in Afghanistan *
> 
> *President Obama, frustrated in his dealings with President Karzai, is considering speeding up troop withdrawals from Afghanistan and even leaving no American troops after 2014 *
> 
> ...



Peace talks with the enemy is where poor generals with a failed war strategy end up.

Weak strategic thinking and planning by US and then NATO generals has dragged out the Western intervention in Afghanistan since 2001 and caused far more casualties to our soldiers than was ever necessary.

The military general staff has lacked vision about the enemy and failed to comprehend and react appropriately to intelligence reports that Al Qaeda, the Taliban and other jihadi terror groups are proxies for hostile states, typically managed from Pakistan and funded from Saudi Arabia.

Military strategic essentials have been neglected, such as - when occupying territory, always ensure secure supply routes from one strong point to another.

Instead NATO-ISAF forces in Afghanistan have been deployed in isolated bases, deployed more like tethered goats as bait for the enemy than a conquering or liberating army.

Some combination of military incompetence by the generals and a preference for appeasement on the part of the civilian political leadership has perversely left the West bribing our enemies within the Pakistani terrorist-proxy-controlling state and continuing business-as-usual with our enemies in the Saudi jihadi-financing state.

Its never too late to learn lessons and adopt an alternative competent and aggressive military strategy and to that end, I have published a detailed improved AfPak military strategy in this topic in the USMB Military forum.

*http://www.usmessageboard.com/milit...istan-pakistan-and-win-the-war-on-terror.html*


----------



## Peter Dow (Jul 9, 2013)

Peace talks and bringing the troops home without winning the war is a dumb idea.

Not being in Afghanistan didn't stop Pakistan sponsoring their terrorist proxies to do 9/11 and so what's to stop them doing it again?

Don't you think the Pakistani ISI can find another one like Bin Laden to do the same again? After all, they've still got Ayman Al-Zawahiri stashed away somewhere. Remember him, the old Al Qaeda number 2, now number 1?
















(First image I posted didn't display next time I looked, so now adopting triple modular redundancy approach!)

Then where will your "brilliant" "just bring the boys home" idea have got you then, huh?


----------



## Katzndogz (Jul 9, 2013)

The last phone call between obama and Karzai was so acrimonious the two are barely speaking.  obama is insisting that the taliban be able to set up a government in exile in Qutar.  Karzai doesn't want the taliban at all.   If obama can't force the taliban back into power we will leave and Karzai will be fighting them again.  obama wins either way.


----------



## Sunni Man (Jul 9, 2013)

When the Russians withdrew from Afghanistan. 

The puppet dictator they had installed to run the country was assassinated in short order.

I have no doubt that after we leave Karzai will meet the same fate.   ..


----------



## Peter Dow (Jul 9, 2013)

Sunni Man said:


> When the Russians withdrew from Afghanistan.
> 
> The puppet dictator they had installed to run the country was assassinated in short order.
> 
> I have no doubt that after we leave Karzai will meet the same fate.   ..


So if the Taliban murder an elected president you'd be cool about that?

What kind of American are you, the Lee Harvey Oswald kind?

Are you cool about shooting schoolgirls as well?

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ngAIoxzIBzM]Malala Yousufzai - Free Pakistan - Kill the Taliban - YouTube[/ame]

As a Taliban sympathizer, shouldn't you been on some kind of FBI watch list?


----------



## Sunni Man (Jul 9, 2013)

Peter Dow said:


> Sunni Man said:
> 
> 
> > When the Russians withdrew from Afghanistan.
> ...


Karzai is just a puppet dictator installed by the U.S.

His demise after we withdraw is just my opinion based on the fate of the Russian puppet dictator.

And no, I am not a Taliban sympathizer.  

Although, the U.S. government seems to like them; and wants to have talks with them.   ..


----------



## Peter Dow (Jul 10, 2013)

Katzndogz said:


> The last phone call between obama and Karzai was so acrimonious the two are barely speaking.  obama is insisting that the taliban be able to set up a government in exile in Qutar.  Karzai doesn't want the taliban at all.   If obama can't force the taliban back into power we will leave and Karzai will be fighting them again.  obama wins either way.


Obama, the US and allies lose, *we all lose,* if the Taliban get back into Afghanistan but this is Obama trying to negotiate surrender terms with Pakistan, to save face, instead of being unceremoniously booted out.



> *New York Times*
> 
> Mr. Karzai, according to those sources, accused the United States of trying to negotiate a separate peace with both the Taliban and their backers in Pakistan, leaving Afghanistan&#8217;s fragile government exposed to its enemies.



The Taliban's backers in Pakistan are the military forces of Imperial Pakistan who want to get Afghanistan back as a client state that Pakistan controls once more.

The Taliban could be described as irregular, auxiliary or paramilitary forces operating for and on behalf of the military forces of imperial Pakistan.

You'd know that if you'd watched SECRET PAKISTAN, a BBC documentary. Here it is in 2 x 1 hour parts.

*BBC Panorama's "SECRET PAKISTAN - Part 1 Double-Cross"*

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qSinK-dVrig]Secret Pakistan : Documentary by BBC Part 1 (Double Cross) - YouTube[/ame]

*BBC Panorama's "SECRET PAKISTAN - Part 2 Backlash"*

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G5-lSSC9dSE]Secret Pakistan : Documentary by BBC Part 2 (Backlash) - YouTube[/ame]

So we need our suspicion and hatred of the Taliban to transfer onto our updated view of the Pakistani military, who we should stop trusting.

We don't want our innocent, trusting, child-like view of the Pakistani military to transfer onto an updated view of the Taliban.

We were right about the Taliban all along. They are the enemy.

We were wrong about the Pakistani military all along. Some of them, the ISI, have been behaving like the enemy too.

Any co-operation we've ever got from Pakistan has cost us billions of dollars and so we've given Pakistan every financial incentive to keep supporting terrorism because it pays big rewards when they help us shoot at terrorists they've trained up. It's like a billion-dollar quail or pheasant shooting business for Pakistan but with the Taliban as the game birds.

So quit paying Pakistan billions of dollars in aid and IMF bailouts then think about the acts of war we can take, against the Taliban and their backers in Pakistan, to pressure the Pakistani military to act to crush the Taliban from the ground while we crush them from the air, in Pakistan. *Stop paying up, time for pay-back!*

Pakistan could crush the Taliban but we need to turn the screws on them to make them do it.

This war needs to be won, in Pakistan.

So leave Karzai to one side for now to do his own thing and let's finish off the enemy in Pakistan.


----------



## Caroljo (Jul 10, 2013)

I hope this is true.....my son is supposed to be heading there very soon.  We should have left a long time ago, when the ones our soldiers were over there training started turning on them and murdering them.


----------



## Synthaholic (Jul 10, 2013)

TakeAStepBack said:


> Who will protect and help transport the poppy industry though?
> 
> I dont see that happening until all contracts for raw materials have been established in Afghan. There are trillions in element in those mountains. Why did you think we were theere? To fight terrorists?


So, you are putting yourself on record as saying Bush didn't invade Afghanistan in response to the 9/11 attack, he just used that as an excuse to gain access to raw materials for U.S. corporations?

I think you are full of shit.


----------



## Synthaholic (Jul 10, 2013)

I would urge all of you to watch this clip from last night's Rachel Maddow Show:


Subtext seen in conflicting reports of US Afghanistan exit - Video on NBCNews.com


She offers a different take:  that this story in the NY Times may have been a plant, from the White House or some other, designed to be a trial balloon to gauge public response to an early pull-out from Afghanistan.

For the ADD-afflicted:  it's only 4 minutes long.


----------



## Sunni Man (Jul 10, 2013)

Synthaholic said:


> TakeAStepBack said:
> 
> 
> > Who will protect and help transport the poppy industry though?
> ...


Basically, that is the truth.

We didn't need to invade a whole country in order to find 1 man.

But the invasion did give us access to Afghanistan's vast untaped mineral resources.

Which in reality explains the invasion and subsequent occupation.  ..


----------



## Synthaholic (Jul 10, 2013)

Sunni Man said:


> Synthaholic said:
> 
> 
> > TakeAStepBack said:
> ...



Liberals have been arguing that since Day 1.  

But not because of your conspiracy theory.


----------



## Desperado (Jul 10, 2013)

Peter Dow said:


> > New York Times: *U.S. Considers Faster Pullout in Afghanistan *
> >
> > *President Obama, frustrated in his dealings with President Karzai, is considering speeding up troop withdrawals from Afghanistan and even leaving no American troops after 2014 *
> >
> ...



No there no winning in Afghanistan.  The longer we stay the more it cost us and the more we lose.
Anyone that thinks that there is a way to win in Afghanistan is delusional.  I commend you on your work planning the win in the Afghanistan but your time would be better spent playing Stratego.
At least in that game you can win.


----------



## Peter Dow (Jul 10, 2013)

Desperado said:


> Peter Dow said:
> 
> 
> > > It&#8217;s never too late to learn lessons and adopt an alternative competent and aggressive military strategy and to that end, I have published a detailed improved AfPak military strategy in this topic in the USMB Military forum.
> ...


----------



## Desperado (Jul 10, 2013)

Peter Dow said:


> But any AfPak strategy does require that our political leaders at least name, declare Pakistan to be a state sponsor of terrorism.
> 
> To my knowledge, no NATO leader has yet done that. It's treating Pakistan with kid gloves and paying them billions of dollars which is making the war in Afghanistan so difficult to bring to a successful conclusion and simply withdrawing and allowing the Taliban to re-take Afghanistan would be a serious defeat for us all, Americans, British, the West, Afghans - even Pakistanis have more to gain in the long run by having their own military brought into proper democratic control by a regime change war.



Declaring Pakistan to be a state sponsor of terrorism is not going to happen as long as we are giving them $3Billion dollar in aid a year.  Makes you wonder why?  It should be more than enough proof that we should as they say cut our losses and run.  No sense in throwing good money after bad.

U.S. Aid to Pakistan Cost: $2,965,029,000*

Pakistan is one of the largest recipients of U.S. assistance. Nearly $3 billion in U.S. aid to Pakistan is planned for fiscal 2012. About $1.6 billion of the FY2012 funds are security-related and most of the remaining $1.4 billion is for economic development. Pakistan has received over $20 billion in military and non-military aid since 2001. About $9 billion of that total went to reimburse Pakistan for its expenses incurred in supporting U.S. military operations.
U.S. Aid to Pakistan (FY2012 Request)


----------



## Peter Dow (Jul 10, 2013)

Desperado said:


> Peter Dow said:
> 
> 
> > But any AfPak strategy does require that our political leaders at least name, declare Pakistan to be a state sponsor of terrorism.
> ...



It's like I explained in post #13.



Peter Dow said:


> Any co-operation we've ever got from Pakistan has cost us billions of dollars and so we've given Pakistan every financial incentive to keep supporting terrorism because it pays big rewards when they help us shoot at terrorists they've trained up. It's like a billion-dollar quail or pheasant shooting business for Pakistan but with the Taliban as the game birds.
> 
> So quit paying Pakistan billions of dollars in aid and IMF bailouts then think about the acts of war we can take, against the Taliban and their backers in Pakistan, to pressure the Pakistani military to act to crush the Taliban from the ground while we crush them from the air, in Pakistan. *Stop paying up, time for pay-back!*



It looks like the Pakistani military got Bin Laden to do 9/11 and to leave evidence pointing back to Afghanistan as hosting Al Qaeda bases as a red rag to our military bull to draw us into Afghanistan, I think, because they thought they could make billions of dollars out of the West, the US in particular, who would pay Pakistani for assistance to fight their terrorists in Afghanistan, like the US paid them to fight the Soviets in Afghanistan.

If that's what they planned the Pakistanis have been proved right in the short term, if you can call 12 years "short term".

There's no greater encouragement we could have given Pakistan, to encourage them to sponsor terrorism, than to tell them that if they get their proxy terrorists to attack the US then we'll give them billions of dollars for their "help" in fighting those self-same terrorists.

It's like we went to Pakistan before 9/11 with suitcases full of billions of dollars saying_ "all this money can be yours Pakistan - all you have to do is attack the US using terrorists but claim you didn't. How about it, do you want the money, will you get terrorists to attack us? Oh, go on - after all you need the money. Just one attack, knock down a few skyscrapers - the money is all yours if you do"_

Paying Pakistan is the dumbest of dumb policies.

Of course we need to stop paying them aid and IMF bailouts. *The US especially needs to stop paying Pakistan any money for "security-related" funding and "expenses incurred in supporting US military operations". That money especially is the money Pakistan has tricked out of the US by sponsoring terrorism against the US. *

Of course we need to name them as a state sponsor of terrorism.

We need to do both. Both actions are required. Both actions are part of a sound anti-terror strategy. We name them state sponsors of terrorism, because that's what they are, and because we really need to stop paying them money because they are sponsoring terrorism against us so as to get our money.


Further, since the US has been tricked out of that _"$9 billion of that total went to reimburse Pakistan for its expenses incurred in supporting U.S. military operations"_ then the US ought to demand that $9 billion back from Pakistan, and if Pakistan can't pay - which I know they can't - then the US needs to do $9 billion worth of damage on the Pakistani military. Bomb Pakistan air defences, military aircraft, tanks, missiles, navy vessels, etc - bomb their military and do about $9 billion worth of damage - so they don't make a profit out of tricking the US. Maybe if they hand over their nuclear weapons we could give them a discount on the money owed?


----------



## JakeStarkey (Jul 10, 2013)

Sunni Man said:


> (CNN) -- President Barack Obama is seriously considering withdrawing all U.S. troops from Afghanistan in 2014, a senior administration official told CNN.
> 
> The official's comments came after The New York Times reported the administration was looking at speeding up the troop withdrawal to the "zero option," leaving no troops in Afghanistan.
> 
> ...



Let's hope it happens.


----------



## High_Gravity (Jul 11, 2013)

Sallow said:


> High_Gravity said:
> 
> 
> > Good idea, bring everyone home.
> ...



We should have started leaving after we killed OBL.


----------



## TakeAStepBack (Jul 11, 2013)

Synthaholic said:


> Sunni Man said:
> 
> 
> > Synthaholic said:
> ...



Oh, sure. That's why they all (except 1...yep 1) voted for invading Afghanistan.

What a liar you are....then again,. You're LOLberal. It comes with the territory.


----------



## Sallow (Jul 11, 2013)

Caroljo said:


> I hope this is true.....my son is supposed to be heading there very soon.  We should have left a long time ago, when the ones our soldiers were over there training started turning on them and murdering them.



I seriously hope your son doesn't have to go to that crap hole.

If he does let him know to keep his head down and return safe.


----------



## Sallow (Jul 11, 2013)

TakeAStepBack said:


> Synthaholic said:
> 
> 
> > Sunni Man said:
> ...



I had no problem whatsoever with invading and clearing out the camps. And actually Bush was quite reasonable with the Taliban and gave them first crack at it. They refused.

It's the occupation and nation building I had a big problem with.


----------



## High_Gravity (Jul 11, 2013)

Sallow said:


> TakeAStepBack said:
> 
> 
> > Synthaholic said:
> ...



"Nation building" needs to be a two way street and imo needs to take place after the war is over, you can't re-build a nation when your bombing the fuck out of it!


----------



## TakeAStepBack (Jul 11, 2013)

Sallow said:


> TakeAStepBack said:
> 
> 
> > Synthaholic said:
> ...



Oh, you must mean clearing out the mt fortresses.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sEJe5l_ELSA]Rumsfeld: Bin Laden's Mountain Fortress's - YouTube[/ame]


----------



## JakeStarkey (Jul 11, 2013)

We should not be neo-con nation rebuilding because we won't put the appropriate resources into it and because we wrongly farm out essential tasks to private industry, which cares nothing except for profit.


----------



## Sallow (Jul 11, 2013)

High_Gravity said:


> Sallow said:
> 
> 
> > TakeAStepBack said:
> ...



You can't really build other people's nation's unless they have a buy in.

It worked in Japan and Germany because they realized they were wrong..or at least they conceded they lost the war. And in the end, they got their nation's back.


----------



## High_Gravity (Jul 11, 2013)

Sallow said:


> High_Gravity said:
> 
> 
> > Sallow said:
> ...



Exactly, both parties have to want it for nation building to work. In Iraq and Afghanistan we started the nation building part when the fighting was still going on.


----------



## Luddly Neddite (Jul 11, 2013)

Rs will never let it happen. They want to stay past President Obama's planned date and will fight against withdrawal any earlier.


----------



## TakeAStepBack (Jul 11, 2013)

Luddly Neddite said:


> Rs will never let it happen. They want to stay past President Obama's planned date and will fight against withdrawal any earlier.



Yeah! Just like in Iraq!


----------



## Synthaholic (Jul 11, 2013)

TakeAStepBack said:


> Synthaholic said:
> 
> 
> > Sunni Man said:
> ...




No, moron.  Liberals have been arguing since day one that this should have been dealt with by the CIA and the FBI, etc. not the military.

You're other dumbass view is that all the Democrats in Congress are Liberals.


----------



## Synthaholic (Jul 11, 2013)

TakeAStepBack said:


> Sallow said:
> 
> 
> > TakeAStepBack said:
> ...


You do know that the CIA built those caves, right?


----------



## TakeAStepBack (Jul 11, 2013)

Synthaholic said:


> TakeAStepBack said:
> 
> 
> > Synthaholic said:
> ...



So only you know who the LOLberals are now? 

You're a fucking retard. It's really that simple.

Democrats are the LOLberals. These are the people LOLberals vote for at the ballot box. They voted to INVADE Afghanistan. With the exception of one. 

DO yourself a favor and speak only for yourself if you dont want to eat your own foot.


----------



## Synthaholic (Jul 11, 2013)

TakeAStepBack said:


> Synthaholic said:
> 
> 
> > TakeAStepBack said:
> ...


To claim that all Democrats in Congress are Liberals just confirms that you're an ignoramus.


----------



## TakeAStepBack (Jul 11, 2013)

To claim that liberals were saying we shouldnt invade afghanistan from the start only shows what a lying moron you truly are. Because the facts speak a different story entirely. Then you want to move the goal posts by saying ALL democrats aren't LOLberals. In Synthia's mind, there was only one liberal in congress at that time.

Again, if you dont want to eat foot, speak only for yourself next time, dullard.


----------



## TakeAStepBack (Jul 11, 2013)

Synthaholic said:


> TakeAStepBack said:
> 
> 
> > Sallow said:
> ...



You want to back that up with some cite sourcing? I didnt think so...


----------



## Synthaholic (Jul 11, 2013)

TakeAStepBack said:


> Synthaholic said:
> 
> 
> > TakeAStepBack said:
> ...


You are one dumb motherfucker.



The first time bin Laden had seen the Tora Bora caves, he had been a  young mujahedeen fighter and a recent university graduate with a degree  in civil engineering. It had been some 20 years before, during  Washington's first Afghan war, the decade-long, *C.I.A.-financed jihad* of  the 1980's against the Soviet occupation. Rising to more than 13,000  feet, 35 miles southwest of the provincial capital of Jalalabad, Tora  Bora was a fortress of snow-capped peaks, steep valleys and fortified  caves. *Its miles of tunnels, bunkers and base camps, dug deeply into the  steep rock walls, had been part of a C.I.A.-financed complex built for  the mujahedeen.



http://www.nytimes.com/2005/09/11/magazine/11TORABORA.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0*


----------



## Synthaholic (Jul 11, 2013)

How about Air Force Magazine?


During Afghanistan&#8217;s long war with the Soviet Union, CIA money helped  build up the cave complex at Tora Bora for use by Afghan resistance  fighters. Maps originally designated the area Tora Gora, but for unknown  reasons CENTCOM and others redesignated it Tora Bora in December 2001.


----------



## TakeAStepBack (Jul 11, 2013)

Synthaholic said:


> TakeAStepBack said:
> 
> 
> > Synthaholic said:
> ...



Oh, really? 

Battle of Tora Bora - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Tora Bora "fortress"[edit]Tora Bora was variously described by the western media to be an impregnable cave fortress housing 2000 men complete with a hospital, a hydroelectric power plant, offices, a hotel, arms and ammunition stores, roads large enough to drive a tank into, and elaborate tunnel and ventilation systems.[13] Both the British and American press published elaborate plans of the base. When presented with such plans in an NBC interview on Meet the Press, Donald Rumsfeld, the US Secretary of Defense, said, "This is serious business, there's not one of those, there are many of those".[14][15][16]

When Tora Bora was eventually captured by the U.S. and Afghan troops, no traces of the supposed 'fortress' were found despite painstaking searches in the surrounding areas. Tora Bora turned out to be a system of small natural caves housing at most, 200 fighters. While arms and ammunition stores were found, there were no traces of the advanced facilities claimed to exist.[17][16]

In an interview published by the Public Broadcasting Service, a Staff Sergeant from the U.S. Special Forces Operational Detachment Alpha (ODA) 572, who had been in the Battle of Tora Bora described the caves:

"Again, with the caves, they weren't these crazy mazes or labyrinths of caves that they described. Most of them were natural caves. Some were supported with some pieces of wood maybe about the size of a 10-foot by 24-foot room, at the largest. They weren't real big. I know they made a spectacle out of that, and how are we going to be able to get into them? We worried about that too, because we see all these reports. Then it turns out, when you actually go up there, there's really just small bunkers, and a lot of different ammo storage is up there.  Jeff, Staff Sgt. ODA 572[18]





Try again, dullard.


----------



## Synthaholic (Jul 11, 2013)

TakeAStepBack said:


> Synthaholic said:
> 
> 
> > TakeAStepBack said:
> ...


Why should I try again?  You didn't refute anything, idiot!


----------



## TakeAStepBack (Jul 11, 2013)

The fortress caves that never were.


----------



## TakeAStepBack (Jul 11, 2013)

There were no fortress caves. They were natural caves held up at best by wood posts and housed some ammo caches.



From the rest of your article cherry pick:



> During Afghanistan&#8217;s long war with the Soviet Union, CIA money helped build up the cave complex at Tora Bora for use by Afghan resistance fighters. Maps originally designated the area Tora Gora, but for unknown reasons CENTCOM and others redesignated it Tora Bora in December 2001.
> 
> Few knew the complex better than bin Laden himself. A US Senate report contended that in the late 1980s, bin Laden had assisted with many of the construction projects such as building the rough road from Jalalabad to Tora Bora and supervising excavation of the connecting tunnel system within the caves.
> 
> Bin Laden made more improvements to the Tora Bora hideout after leaving Sudan for Afghanistan in 1996. *He "began expanding the fortress at Tora Bora, building base camps at higher elevations for himself, his wives, and numerous children and other senior al Qaeda figures," said the Senate report. A report in The Guardian stated bin Laden "used much of his personal fortune to enlarge and equip these caves for use as a military stronghold*."



All secondhand debunked information. There was nothing up there except soem natural caves used as ammo/weapon caches. It's all bullshit.


----------



## TakeAStepBack (Jul 11, 2013)

> "Again, with the caves, they weren't these crazy mazes or labyrinths of caves that they described. Most of them were natural caves. Some were supported with some pieces of wood maybe about the size of a 10-foot by 24-foot room, at the largest.



[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ueywqUBW3oM]YOU GOT FAIL HORN'D! - YouTube[/ame]


----------



## TakeAStepBack (Jul 11, 2013)

Synthaholic said:


> TakeAStepBack said:
> 
> 
> > Synthaholic said:
> ...





> Tora Bora was a fortress of snow-capped peaks, steep valleys and fortified caves. Its miles of tunnels, bunkers and base camps, dug deeply into the steep rock walls, had been part of a C.I.A.-financed complex built for the mujahedeen. Bin Laden had flown in dozens of bulldozers and other pieces of heavy equipment from his father's construction empire, the Saudi Binladin Group, one of the most prosperous construction companies in Saudi Arabia and throughout the Persian Gulf. According to one frequently told story, bin Laden would drive one of the bulldozers himself across the precipitous mountain peaks, constructing defensive tunnels and storage depots.
> 
> Indeed, by December 2001, when the final battle of Tora Bora took place, the cave complex had been so refined that* it was said *to have its own ventilation system and a power system created by a series of hydroelectric generators; bin Laden is believed to have designed the latter. Tora Bora's walls and the floors of its hundreds of rooms were finished and smooth and extended some 350 yards into the granite mountain that enveloped them.




[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ueywqUBW3oM]YOU GOT FAIL HORN'D! - YouTube[/ame]


----------



## Peter Dow (Jul 11, 2013)

High_Gravity said:


> Sallow said:
> 
> 
> > High_Gravity said:
> ...


Because why exactly? Do you imagine OBL was the only enemy? Al Qaeda was a one-man band? Now we've killed OBL that's it, the enemy is no more? No-way could someone step in to become the new Al Qaeda number 1, do OBL's old job?



Peter Dow said:


> Peace talks and bringing the troops home without winning the war is a dumb idea.
> 
> Not being in Afghanistan didn't stop Pakistan sponsoring their terrorist proxies to do 9/11 and so what's to stop them doing it again?
> 
> ...



What about the Pakistani state sponsors of Al Qaeda, HG? Are you just going to leave the sponsors of terrorism alone to sponsor even more terrorists after the troops go home?

Getting OBL was a break-through in the war on terror but don't think that's it, war over, because terrorists are still coming for us and even more worryingly, the US is still paying Pakistan billions of dollars despite their duplicity and double dealing over this.

I don't see your plan to stop another 9/11 HG. Do you have a plan?


----------



## JakeStarkey (Jul 11, 2013)

> These are the people LOLberals vote for at the ballot box. *They voted to INVADE Afghanistan*. With the exception of one.



And excellent example above of the foolishness that the GOP has to counter when it comes to election time.  People listen to that nonsense and say "where are the Pubs in this?" and don't realize that TASB and others are plants for the DNC.


----------



## Peter Dow (Jul 11, 2013)

Sallow said:


> TakeAStepBack said:
> 
> 
> > Synthaholic said:
> ...


The biggest problem with the occupation and nation building plan in Afghanistan was across the border, the Pakistani state was determined to tear down any Afghan nation we helped build up.

Also, Pakistan has terror training camps in Pakistan. We've not cleared those out, not stopped Pakistan building more.

The problem is we've never confronted Pakistan. Taking the equipment home via Pakistani roads and ports doesn't confront Pakistan either.

It's looks like a surrender to Pakistan, or am I wrong?

I mean, I'd like to be wrong. Be nice if there was a plan to confront Pakistan. I've got a plan to do that, to confront Pakistan, but you lot aren't mentioning any plan except withdrawal.

So is your plan surrender to Pakistan and simply go home and wait for the next 9/11 when the Pakistani ISI thinks the time is right to attack the US again for whatever demand it is they want?

What's the thinking guys?


----------



## Peter Dow (Jul 11, 2013)

TakeAStepBack said:


> Sallow said:
> 
> 
> > TakeAStepBack said:
> ...


What needs to be cleared out is the Pakistani ISI, the Pakistani military intelligence agency which sponsors terrorists on behalf of the Pakistani state. The ISI's critical role in sponsoring terrorism, is documented in this British TV documentary broadcast first in 2011.

*BBC Panorama's "SECRET PAKISTAN - Part 1 Double-Cross"*

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qSinK-dVrig]Secret Pakistan : Documentary by BBC Part 1 (Double Cross) - YouTube[/ame]

*BBC Panorama's "SECRET PAKISTAN - Part 2 Backlash"*

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G5-lSSC9dSE]Secret Pakistan : Documentary by BBC Part 2 (Backlash) - YouTube[/ame]


----------



## JakeStarkey (Jul 11, 2013)

No matter how bad the ISI may be, we won't be going to war: end of that.


----------



## Peter Dow (Jul 11, 2013)

JakeStarkey said:


> We should not be neo-con nation rebuilding because we won't put the appropriate resources into it and because we wrongly farm out essential tasks to private industry, which cares nothing except for profit.


It's not a total resource problem. The US has spent billions on this. The problem is the US has been resourcing the Taliban at the same time as resourcing our efforts to rebuild Afghanistan.

The US has given $9 billion in military aid to Pakistan, for so-called "help" in fighting the Taliban but Pakistan has secretly been spending some of that US money on resourcing the Taliban to fight our troops in Afghanistan.

So the US has been resourcing *both sides* in this war - our side and the side of the enemies that we have inside the Pakistani state.

If we simply quit resourcing our Pakistani enemies and start fighting them, not funding them, this war will be efficiently won.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Jul 11, 2013)

You are wrong, but I am not going to argue it further.

No more neo-con imperialism.


----------



## Peter Dow (Jul 11, 2013)

JakeStarkey said:


> No matter how bad the ISI may be, we won't be going to war: end of that.


Well the Pakistani ISI is at war with us. The ISI is the logistics army in the enemy's rear behind the Taliban's front line and hosting Al Qaeda's global HQ.

So instead of a war on terror, defeating the ISI masterminds of terror, you advocate what? Turn the other cheek?

Not saying that's morally wrong, turning the other cheek and all,  but it would be new for the US, wouldn't it?

I don't remember too many cheeks being turned after the Japanese bombed Pearl Harbor.


----------



## TakeAStepBack (Jul 11, 2013)

JakeStarkey said:


> > These are the people LOLberals vote for at the ballot box. *They voted to INVADE Afghanistan*. With the exception of one.
> 
> 
> 
> And excellent example above of the foolishness that the GOP has to counter when it comes to election time.  People listen to that nonsense and say "where are the Pubs in this?" and don't realize that TASB and others are plants for the DNC.



What are you babbling about?


----------



## Peter Dow (Jul 11, 2013)

JakeStarkey said:


> You are wrong, but I am not going to argue it further.


Won't or can't?



JakeStarkey said:


> No more neo-con imperialism.


The imperialism is Pakistan's, not ours.

The ISI is tasked by Pakistani imperialists, to further Pakistan's imperial ambitions - not just into Afghanistan, where until we deposed it, Pakistan had established an imperial vassal state, under their agents, the Taliban.

The ISI also furthers Pakistan's imperial ambitions in other countries by sponsoring terrorism there - for example, to regain Bangladesh and to acquire Kashmir from India for the Pakistani empire.

We have no imperial ambitions. We had no imperial designs on Iraq.

We have delivered in Iraq its first democratic national independence, an independence denied to the Iraqis by the Saddam dictatorship and it is our intention to help Afghanistan regain its national independence.

What prevents Afghanistan becoming truly independent is the imperialism of Pakistan, as prosecuted by the Taliban with support from the Pakistani ISI.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Jul 11, 2013)

No more neo-con imperialism that has destabilized Syria, Egypt, has made Iraq a close ally to Iran, has destabilized Afghanistan, ruined our foreign policy with Pakistan, nearly ruined our economy, and devastated our NG and AR units for a decade.

The USA cannot afford neo-conservatism.  Out of Afghanistan, now.


----------



## Sunni Man (Jul 11, 2013)

Our beloved Pres. Obama is making the right decision by leaving Afghanistan and letting our vaunted ally Pakistan police the region.  ..


----------



## Peter Dow (Jul 11, 2013)

JakeStarkey said:


> No more neo-con imperialism that has destabilized Syria, Egypt, has made Iraq a close ally to Iran, has destabilized Afghanistan, ruined our foreign policy with Pakistan, nearly ruined our economy, and devastated our NG and AR units for a decade.


That reads very much like you are listing events which occurred in recent years while the White House has been occupied by President Obama.

This is 2013 and President Obama became president first in 2009, which is 5 years ago now so current events would tend to be more his responsibility, than say President Bush's responsibility right?

Do you mean Obama policies which, according to you _"destabilized Syria, Egypt, has made Iraq a close ally to Iran, has destabilized Afghanistan, ruined our foreign policy with Pakistan, nearly ruined our economy, and devastated our NG and AR units for a decade"?_

I've never quite understood the utility of the "neo-con" label (literally it means "new conservative", right?) but I tended to assume the term was often used as a somewhat confusing label for President Bush era foreign policies used by those who were not Bush supporters.

But by "neo-con" do you also mean Obama policies too?

I do know what the word "imperialism" means and I know for sure that US policies have not been imperialism, either under President Bush or President Obama.

For the events in (and the policies of) Syria, Egypt, Iraq and Pakistan the key players are the generals and politicians in those countries.

Well as much as I would like to answer all questions in US politics - to do with the economy etc, this would take too long and go very far off topic.



JakeStarkey said:


> The USA cannot afford neo-conservatism.  Out of Afghanistan, now.


The USA cannot afford another 9/11. We need the Afghan war brought to a successful conclusion, not Afghanistan handed back to the Taliban to host more terror training camps.


----------



## Peter Dow (Jul 11, 2013)

Sunni Man said:


> Our beloved Pres. Obama is making the right decision by leaving Afghanistan and letting our vaunted ally Pakistan police the region.  ..


Would that be the Pakistani so-claimed "ally" which 

sponsored Bin Laden and Al Qaeda to do 9/11 and other acts of terror world-wide
sponsored the Taliban to kill thousands of US and NATO troops in Afghanistan,
dishonestly took $9 billion from the US to fund the very same Pakistani military whose intelligence service the ISI was sponsoring terrorism against the US?

As this news report said many years ago, with "allies" like Pakistan and Saudi Arabia, the USA doesn't need any enemies.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T1dcwrucnAk]America's 'allies' Saudi & Pakistan: 'enemies' more like! - YouTube[/ame]


----------



## JakeStarkey (Jul 11, 2013)

Peter Dow said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> > No more neo-con imperialism that has destabilized Syria, Egypt, has made Iraq a close ally to Iran, has destabilized Afghanistan, ruined our foreign policy with Pakistan, nearly ruined our economy, and devastated our NG and AR units for a decade.
> ...



Your way has proved a failure in both Iraq and Afghanistan.

No.  You don't get another chance.


----------



## Desperado (Jul 11, 2013)

Peter Dow said:


> We need the Afghan war brought to a successful conclusion, not Afghanistan handed back to the Taliban to host more terror training camps.



A successful conclusion for the United States would be to remove all our men and material from the Middle East then cut all foreign aid to ALL countries in the area.  We gain nothing by staying there.


----------



## Peter Dow (Jul 11, 2013)

JakeStarkey said:


> Peter Dow said:
> 
> 
> > JakeStarkey said:
> ...


My way has *never* been tried, in either Iraq or Afghanistan.

My name is "Peter Dow" not "George Bush" nor "Barack Obama". It's their way which has been tried, not mine.

My way is posted in another topic, and it is different in many respects.

So you didn't follow the link to that topic which I posted earlier?



Peter Dow said:


> It&#8217;s never too late to learn lessons and adopt an alternative competent and aggressive military strategy and to that end, I have published a detailed improved AfPak military strategy in this topic in the USMB Military forum.
> 
> *http://www.usmessageboard.com/milit...istan-pakistan-and-win-the-war-on-terror.html*



Well if clicking that link is too much effort here's a quote from that topic ...



Peter Dow said:


> My 4-point plan to beat the Taliban and win the war on terror
> 
> It's never too late to learn lessons and adopt an alternative competent and aggressive military strategy. I have already mentioned the outline points of my plan but I will explain those in a little more here and then provide a lot more detail in subsequent posts.
> 
> ...





JakeStarkey said:


> No.  You don't get another chance.


I've not even had one chance doing it my way.

It's the poor generals who been appointed by the Presidents and Prime Ministers who have had all the chances.

Now, if and when I am appointed as the Deputy Supreme Allied Commander Europe (DSACEUR) the 2nd most senior NATO general, and the highest command position in our alliance which is open to a Briton - the top general is always by convention an American - then I'll get my chance.

Oh, by the way, I'd like to be deputy to Condoleezza Rice who I'd propose to be appointed as the Supreme Allied Commander Europe (SACEUR), if she is available and wants the job.

Although Condi has had her chance as a senior diplomat, she'd not had a chance as a senior military commander though she'd have my confidence in that job.


----------



## Sunni Man (Jul 11, 2013)

Peter Dow said:


> I've not even had one chance doing it my way.
> 
> It's the poor generals who been appointed by the Presidents and Prime Ministers who have had all the chances.
> 
> ...


Please contact your mental health professional and have your meds adjusted....ASAP   ..


----------



## Peter Dow (Jul 11, 2013)

Desperado said:


> Peter Dow said:
> 
> 
> > We need the Afghan war brought to a successful conclusion, not Afghanistan handed back to the Taliban to host more terror training camps.
> ...


Well that's pretty much what the Jihadis are looking for because that's what they want - the US to look the other way while they wipe Israel off the map.

After they've smoked Israel, I wouldn't count on the jihadis not making any further demands on the USA though.



Desperado said:


> We gain nothing by staying there.


What about secure oil supplies from the Persian Gulf? The West gains that with the US 5th fleet based in Bahrain with supporting armoured divisions as required to put down the likes of Saddam Hussein.

Well maybe you don't need Saudi oil so much these days?

Have you got that shale gas fracking sorted out yet?


----------



## Desperado (Jul 11, 2013)

Peter Dow said:


> Have you got that shale gas fracking sorted out yet?



Actually it is working out quite well thanks

US shale output erodes Opec&#8217;s oil market share

By Ajay Makan in London

Oil supply from countries beyond the Opec producers&#8217; cartel is set to grow by the most in two decades next year on the back of the US shale revolution, according to the International Energy Agency. ...
US shale output erodes Opec?s oil market share - FT.com

As far a Israel goes, they have nukes and can protect themselves without our help. They will be fine.


----------



## Peter Dow (Jul 11, 2013)

Desperado said:


> Peter Dow said:
> 
> 
> > Have you got that shale gas fracking sorted out yet?
> ...



Promising but we are still looking at 2020 before the US can relax about needing the Middle East's oil and gas supplies.



> Drilling Contractor - Analyst: Numbers show that US is drilling its way to zero net oil imports
> 
> 
> 
> ...



So it's perhaps several years too early to consider beginning to pull out the 5th Fleet from Bahrain?

I can think of a couple of powers who might make Bahrain an offer for the 5th fleet base facilities if and when the US does pull out.

France tends to be low on their own oil reserves and depends a lot on nuclear power. Germany doesn't have oil reserves either and they are going off nuclear power. I can see France and Germany leading the European Union to making a bid to take over security over-watch duties in the Persian Gulf if and when the US pulls out the 5th Fleet.

But the new bad boy in the Middle East to look out for in the long term could be China. There will come a day when China could probably use every drop of oil the Arabs and Iranians can pump. They've no naval "fleet" as such to sail from Bahrain, not yet, but one day ...



Desperado said:


> As far a Israel goes, they have nukes and can protect themselves without our help. They will be fine.


Wouldn't you rather wait until you hear that self-confidence from an Israeli prime minister or president before you go assuming it?

For generations to come it is likely the Jews will remain vastly outnumbered by Muslims in the world so a few nukes don't really provide all the protection Israel would like from its potential enemies in the region.

Well of course, we all know that Islam is said to be a religion of peace and therefore should offer no threat to Jews having their own Israeli state in peace and security.

But that doesn't seem to be the way Israel has been treated by surrounding Arab countries over the years.

Well the Arab spring has still to play out so things may change but right now I don't think Israel would welcome a _"You're on your own"_ message from the USA.


----------



## Desperado (Jul 11, 2013)

Peter Dow said:


> So it's perhaps several years too early to consider beginning to pull out the 5th Fleet from Bahrain?


Relax,  Do yourself a favor and see where the US imports the majority of its oil.
(http://www.npr.org/2012/04/11/150444802/where-does-america-get-oil-you-may-be-surprised)


Peter Dow said:


> Wouldn't you rather wait until you hear that self-confidence from an Israeli prime minister or president before you go assuming it?



You will never hear it from them.  They would never say anything that would jeopardize their welfare checks, I mean foreign aid checks.



Peter Dow said:


> For generations to come it is likely the Jews will remain vastly outnumbered by Muslims in the world.


Jews are less that 3% of the World's population, of course they are going to be vastly outnumbered by just about anyone.  So what, let them deal with it.


----------



## Bleipriester (Jul 12, 2013)

I heard about that but they said it wasn confirmed by the White House. Germany is also leaving the country by the way.


----------



## Peter Dow (Jul 14, 2013)

Looks like Obama is getting some "Dark Counsel" as regards pulling out from Afghanistan.

First to explain the phrase "Dark Counsel". Have you seen Lord of the Rings? Remember King Theoden and his adviser, Grima Wormtongue, who told him he was weak, could not fight and hope to win, turned out Grima was secretly an agent for Saruman?







OK remember now? That's "dark counsel".

So who is giving Obama, "dark counsel", who is his Grima Wormtongue?

Well maybe a lady called Robin Raphel, a former agent for Pakistan, a Washington Lobbyist in the pay of the Pakisan state. Obama has taken her on into her team, in charge of non-military aid to Pakistan, that's billions of dollars worth.








> Wikipedia: Robin Raphel
> Robin Lynn Raphel (born 1947) is a career diplomat who is currently the coordinator for non-military assistance to Pakistan with the rank of ambassador.
> 
> She was appointed by President Clinton as first Assistant Secretary of State for South Asia, a newly created position, where her tenure was highly controversial. Regularly throughout her career, Raphel was described as being "warm" to totalitarian and military regimes, such as the the military governments in Pakistan, and conversely "cool" towards human rights considerations.
> ...



Raphel is the enemy within. I would not let this woman within a mile of the White House, but there again, I'm not King Theoden, I mean, President Obama.


[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PY9eRkdIeuk]The Lord of the Rings: The Two Towers (2002) - Gandalf Releases Theoden - YouTube[/ame]


----------



## sambino510 (Oct 13, 2013)

We should get every single American troop out of Afghanistan. Yes, the Taliban are awful people, who do awful things, but it is brave, young, progressive minds like Malala Yousafzai, with their non-violent protest, who should fight this fight, and will win this fight, not our bullets and bombs. Even if non-violent protest does not prevail, it is still the Afghan people who should fight for their own freedom, not a country from thousands of miles away. We've fired at the hillsides of this country for over a decade and, most would argue, have accomplished relatively little. 

This War on Terror, including the war on the Taliban, is a war of the minds, and thus must be fought in our minds. We must look at the terrorist acts around the world and in our own country and not let them provoke us into rash decision making. As we rampage through the Middle East and North Africa we are playing into the terrorists' hands. They WANT us to bankrupt ourselves on our military operations abroad. They WANT us to travel halfway around the world and completely destroy our image as a peaceful, helpful country. They WANT us to continue to take off our shoes and use full body scanners at airports. They are sitting in their caves or huts in Afghanistan, Yemen or Pakistan and laughing their ass off at how sensitive the framework of American society is, where some fool can strap explosives to his shoes or his underwear and all of the sudden they've drastically changed American travel policy. 

Frankly, the War on Terror ended on September 12th, 2001, and we weren't the victors. 
If only these terror groups knew just how easy it is to unseat the Western world. We'd be in real trouble then.


----------



## Synthaholic (Oct 13, 2013)

Kerry and Karzai are working on an agreement that would keep some troops there, but has stated repeatedly (and again yesterday) that it's a dead deal unless Karzai agrees to a SOFA that subjects U.S. troops to U.S. law, not Afghan law.


----------



## Trajan (Oct 13, 2013)

this is just getting ahead of a failed status of forces agreement, since he blew the first one in Iraq, whose consequences are now evident.


----------



## Bloodrock44 (Oct 14, 2013)

He should bring every one of them home today. I'm as right wing as you can get but I was 100% against putting one boot on the ground. Bomb the piss out of them hell yes. But no invasion. After watching the Russians bogged down there for 10 years and seeing their troops and convoys being ambushed day after day what made us think we could do any better? 12 years later and what have we accomplished? 2300 dead. Every single life wasted. Many thousands more lives destroyed. And what the fuck will we eventually do? Declare victory and pull out. I ask you again. What have we accomplished, and what do we think we will accomplish before we pull out, that was worth the lives we have wasted?


----------



## bianco (Oct 14, 2013)

Bloodrock44 said:


> He should bring every one of them home today. I'm as right wing as you can get but I was 100% against putting one boot on the ground. Bomb the piss out of them hell yes. But no invasion. After watching the Russians bogged down there for 10 years and seeing their troops and convoys being ambushed day after day what made us think we could do any better? 12 years later and what have we accomplished? 2300 dead. Every single life wasted. Many thousands more lives destroyed. And what the fuck will we eventually do? Declare victory and pull out. I ask you again. What have we accomplished, and what do we think we will accomplish before we pull out, that was worth the lives we have wasted?



Nothing...I say.

And Amen to the rest of your post.


----------



## Caroljo (Oct 15, 2013)

Sallow said:


> Caroljo said:
> 
> 
> > I hope this is true.....my son is supposed to be heading there very soon.  We should have left a long time ago, when the ones our soldiers were over there training started turning on them and murdering them.
> ...




Just an update.....he shipped out yesterday 
At least I know he's with a good group - he's part of Psy Ops.  He's says they're going over to tie up loose ends and prepare to move everything out.  Of course I don't always believe everything he tells me, since he can't tell me much!


----------



## Caroljo (Oct 15, 2013)

Bloodrock44 said:


> He should bring every one of them home today. I'm as right wing as you can get but I was 100% against putting one boot on the ground. Bomb the piss out of them hell yes. But no invasion. After watching the Russians bogged down there for 10 years and seeing their troops and convoys being ambushed day after day what made us think we could do any better? 12 years later and what have we accomplished? 2300 dead. Every single life wasted. Many thousands more lives destroyed. And what the fuck will we eventually do? Declare victory and pull out. I ask you again. What have we accomplished, and what do we think we will accomplish before we pull out, that was worth the lives we have wasted?




My son just left yesterday for the beautiful poppy fields of Afghanistan.  

They're supposed to be cleaning up and getting ready to move everything back.  We'll see.  He's with Psy Ops, so not sure what all they need to do there...of course I wouldn't know since he can't really talk about things.  All I know is I'm much more nervous about this deployment than I was with his 3 to Iraq.  Well...except when he was in Baghdad for a year in 2006, that wasn't good at all!!  Thankfully this is only supposed to be 6 months, or less.  

I agree....just bring them all home.  We are NEVER going to change people in the ME, they are never going to stop killing eachother, and there is nothing we can do to change them.  They don't want it.  But Obama keeps them over there, no matter how many of our men and women have died by the hands of the very people we're trying to help.


----------



## Katzndogz (Oct 15, 2013)

It would be a good idea IF we stopped ALL immigration from muslim countries including visitor and student visas.


----------



## TakeAStepBack (Oct 15, 2013)

Synthaholic said:


> Kerry and Karzai are working on an agreement that would keep some troops there, but has stated repeatedly (and again yesterday) that it's a dead deal unless Karzai agrees to a SOFA that subjects U.S. troops to U.S. law, not Afghan law.



Which is the only reason we withdrawed all troops in Iraq and sent in the mercs. Otherwise we'd still have a lot of troops there too.


----------



## High_Gravity (Oct 15, 2013)

Lets bring them home, how can we afford to keep them there anyways?


----------



## sambino510 (Oct 15, 2013)

Katzndogz said:


> It would be a good idea IF we stopped ALL immigration from muslim countries including visitor and student visas.



Why would that be a good idea, or even a necessary idea? Statistically, have Muslims done more harm to our country than anybody else? I doubt it.


----------



## bianco (Oct 15, 2013)

Katzndogz said:


> It would be a good idea IF we stopped ALL immigration from muslim countries including visitor and student visas.



It would.

Not on the soil, they can't blow it and the people up.


----------



## Moonglow (Oct 15, 2013)

When they all get back home they can get unemployment benefits and the RWer's can bitch.


----------



## Caroljo (Oct 15, 2013)

Moonglow said:


> When they all get back home they can get unemployment benefits and the RWer's can bitch.



No not all....many will still be in the military.  My son will be retiring from there eventually, so nobody has to worry about him mooching off anyone.  He's not one to sit on his ass and do nothing anyway.


----------



## Moonglow (Oct 15, 2013)

unemployment is not mooching.


----------



## Caroljo (Oct 15, 2013)

Moonglow said:


> unemployment is not mooching.



Unemployment is not mooching if it's to people that really need it.  
I know most do really need it.....I also know there are quite a lot that abuse it.
And we pay for their abuse.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Oct 15, 2013)

Obama strongly considers withdrawing ALL troops from Afghanistan in 2014 

Excellent.  That will minimalize neo-con efforts to an extent and will lead to downsizing DoD.


----------



## Luddly Neddite (Oct 21, 2013)

If the damn traitorous Rs would get out of the way, there is plenty of work that needs doing. 

Infrastructure comes to mind.
Railroads to take the place of over the road trucks. Truck drivers could drive goods from a centralized hub. 

Whatever else is true, being in Afghanistan doesn't really accomplish anything.


----------



## Peter Dow (Oct 21, 2013)

Luddly Neddite said:


> Infrastructure comes to mind.
> Railroads to take the place of over the road trucks. Truck drivers could drive goods from a centralized hub.


Ooooh. I've been taking some time out of discussing military & political strategy for Afghanistan for a while - I've suggested a tougher stance against elements in the Pakistani state who oppose us, even risking escalation and the use of nukes for example against the Pakistani ISI HQ for their duplicity in supporting the Taliban and Al Qaeda.

But my hawkish stance is not in favour in the White House so I've been doing other things recently.

But ---- but --- if you are talking Afghanistan transport network, securing that against ambush, road-side bombs from the Taliban then - boy oh boy - do I have a plan for you! 

As I say, I can't really bear to watch the news these days because I just can't stand to watch our president ... 

(well Obama's *your* president actually - as a Scot I'm not allowed to have a president - so Obama will have to stand in for "my" president for this post anyway)

... treat Pakistan so softly with velvet gloves when a very firm smash from the iron fist would do the deep state of Pakistan (the unelected state, the state which sponsors the Taliban and Al Qaeda) wonders to achieve the required attitude adjustment.

But as well as a much stronger offense against the enemy in Pakistan, I do have a plan for a much stronger defence for our friends in Afghanistan as well, which doesn't per se lay waste to Pakistan so that's perhaps more likely to be politically acceptable right now? 

OK so check out my topic

How to beat the Taliban in Afghanistan / Pakistan (and win the war on terror)

and my posts from #4 onwards include lots of details for a secure Afghan supply network - road and rail - and how that fits in to an overall plan to secure Afghanistan.

Secure supply routes is fairly traditional military theory, which doesn't seem to be taught or at least remembered by our generals from military academy considering our troop deaths to road-side bombs in Afghanistan and Iraq.



Luddly Neddite said:


> Whatever else is true, being in Afghanistan doesn't really accomplish anything.


Afghanistan is right next door to the enemy bases in Pakistan so if we use Afghanistan for forward operations against those Pakistani bases, supply our Afghan forces from the northern road and rail networks, keep in with the ex-Soviet countries to the north, use air and missile power, smash the Pakistani ISI and jihadist sentiment in Pakistan, force a revolution in the Pakistani deep state, wipe out all our enemies there, get Pakistan to spend its money on education and hydroelectric power schemes instead of on nuclear weapons to be as big and as bad as India - then being in Afghanistan makes strategic sense, it helps us accomplish victory in the war on terror.

Being in Afghanistan just to be at the mercy of Pakistan as is, to get their permission to get supplies in and out via Pakistan as they back-stab us by sponsoring terror - that doesn't accomplish much - except show up what strategic idiots our generals are - and that's worth learning for any president.


Or were you talking about upgrading the *American* railroad infrastructure?

If so maybe I can interest you in the *Afghan* rail network with this video?

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nbs-hZ8xl_0]Despite terrorists, Asia's trains do the locomotion with Condoleezza Rice.[/ame]

Sigh, those happy, happy days when secretaries of state acted like real men ...


----------



## Katzndogz (Nov 8, 2013)

obama will do whatever Iran tells him to do.


----------



## Vikrant (Nov 16, 2013)

Condoleezza Rice would have been a much better candidate than Romney. I think she should run for the office in the next election. She would make a great president.


----------



## Peter Dow (Nov 16, 2013)

Vikrant said:


> Condoleezza Rice would have been a much better candidate than Romney. I think she should run for the office in the next election. She would make a great president.


Agreed. We are discussing RICE 2016 in this thread.

The most significant 2013 Inauguration - Condoleezza Rice as CBS News Contributor


----------



## Vikrant (Nov 16, 2013)

Every time I see candidates like Bachman and Romney, I go like why the heck Condoleezza Rice is not running for the office. She would have been a better candidate than even Obama himself.


----------



## Peter Dow (Nov 17, 2013)

Vikrant said:


> Every time I see candidates like Bachman and Romney, I go like why the heck Condoleezza Rice is not running for the office. She would have been a better candidate than even Obama himself.


OK my friend we are agreed on that but this thread is about : "Obama strongly considers withdrawing ALL troops from Afghanistan in 2014"

I provided a link to a more suitable thread to continue discussing RICE 2016 Here is that link again.

The most significant 2013 Inauguration - Condoleezza Rice as CBS News Contributor

So why didn't you post your latest post in that other (I would have thought) more suitable thread?

You have 1600+ posts in USMB so I presume you are aware that you are drifting off topic? Or are you wanting to discuss what Condi would do as an alternative in Afghanistan and that's why you are sticking to this thread?


----------



## Desperado (Nov 17, 2013)

Vikrant said:


> Condoleezza Rice would have been a much better candidate than Romney. I think she should run for the office in the next election. She would make a great president.



Do we really need another neo-con in the President's Office?
Didn't work out well the last time, don't see it working any better the second time around.


----------



## Peter Dow (Nov 17, 2013)

Desperado said:


> Vikrant said:
> 
> 
> > Condoleezza Rice would have been a much better candidate than Romney. I think she should run for the office in the next election. She would make a great president.
> ...


Do we really need to derail this topic about Afghanistan by discussing RICE 2016 when there is a perfectly good thread about that already?

The most significant 2013 Inauguration - Condoleezza Rice as CBS News Contributor


----------



## Bloodrock44 (Nov 20, 2013)

So now there's a deal brewing to keep troops there after 2014? WTF? More precious treasure to die for what? Jesus H. Christ!


----------



## Desperado (Nov 20, 2013)

Bloodrock44 said:


> So now there's a deal brewing to keep troops there after 2014? WTF? More precious treasure to die for what? Jesus H. Christ!



Obama breaks another promise: Endless Afghanistan? US-Afghan agreement would keep troops in place and funds flowing, perhaps indefinitely....... Isn't this exactly what McCain was saying before he lost the election?

Endless Afghanistan? US-Afghan agreement would keep troops in place and funds flowing, perhaps indefinitely - World News


----------



## High_Gravity (Nov 20, 2013)

We are never leaving there, the Afghans will be wearing skinny jeans, listening to Molly Cyrus, skate boarding and singing hip hop by the time we pack up and leave.


----------



## Sallow (Nov 20, 2013)

Sunni Man said:


> (CNN) -- President Barack Obama is seriously considering withdrawing all U.S. troops from Afghanistan in 2014, a senior administration official told CNN.
> 
> The official's comments came after The New York Times reported the administration was looking at speeding up the troop withdrawal to the "zero option," leaving no troops in Afghanistan.
> 
> ...



He should have got them out 5 years ago. Definitely after Osama Bin Laden was offed.


----------



## Sallow (Nov 20, 2013)

High_Gravity said:


> We are never leaving there, the Afghans will be wearing skinny jeans, listening to Molly Cyrus, skate boarding and singing hip hop by the time we pack up and leave.



That would be a huge improvement.


----------



## High_Gravity (Nov 20, 2013)

Sallow said:


> High_Gravity said:
> 
> 
> > We are never leaving there, the Afghans will be wearing skinny jeans, listening to Molly Cyrus, skate boarding and singing hip hop by the time we pack up and leave.
> ...



I agree.


----------



## irosie91 (Nov 20, 2013)

High_Gravity said:


> Sallow said:
> 
> 
> > High_Gravity said:
> ...




Even in my memory----during my life-time-----the few afghanis I encountered---
    long ago -------were normal people-----but way back then----so were Iranians


----------



## High_Gravity (Nov 20, 2013)

irosie91 said:


> High_Gravity said:
> 
> 
> > Sallow said:
> ...



Those countries were better off in the 70s than they are now.


----------



## hangover (Nov 20, 2013)

So after twelve years, what did we win? Oh I know, a bunch of dead heroes!
After twelve years, what did we learn? Oh I know, we're dumber than the Russians!
I guess we didn't convince them that we were killing them for their own good.
Just wait till you see how the cons fuck the fifty thousand heroes that came back with only half their body parts, and are now welfare cases.


----------



## Desperado (Nov 20, 2013)

hangover said:


> So after twelve years, what did we win? Oh I know, a bunch of dead heroes!
> After twelve years, what did we learn? Oh I know, we're dumber than the Russians!
> I guess we didn't convince them that we were killing them for their own good.
> Just wait till you see how the* cons *fuck the fifty thousand heroes that came back with only half their body parts, and are now welfare cases.



Really??? the "Cons"  Afghanistan is Obama's war.  Wake Up,  The Dems control the presidency and the Senate so don't even try blaming the "Cons" for this screw up.


----------



## Caroljo (Nov 20, 2013)

Sallow said:


> Sunni Man said:
> 
> 
> > (CNN) -- President Barack Obama is seriously considering withdrawing all U.S. troops from Afghanistan in 2014, a senior administration official told CNN.
> ...



Just found this....Kerry negotiated to keep some military there past 2014.  This really pisses me off! 

ecretary of State John Kerry announced Wednesday that he and Afghan President Hamid Karzai have reached an agreement on a critical security pact governing the presence of U.S. troops in Afghanistan beyond 2014. 
Kerry: Agreement reached on US-Afghan security pact, no 'apology' | Fox News


----------



## Amelia (Nov 20, 2013)

Sunni Man said:


> (CNN) -- President Barack Obama is seriously considering withdrawing all U.S. troops from Afghanistan in 2014, a senior administration official told CNN.
> 
> The official's comments came after The New York Times reported the administration was looking at speeding up the troop withdrawal to the "zero option," leaving no troops in Afghanistan.
> 
> ...





Translation:  Once again Obama's diplomacy fails and he tries to sell the failure as a feature.


----------



## Peter Dow (Nov 20, 2013)

hangover said:


> So after twelve years, what did we win? Oh I know, a bunch of dead heroes!
> After twelve years, what did we learn? Oh I know, we're dumber than the Russians!
> I guess we didn't convince them that we were killing them for their own good.


It's more that we've been *paying* the Taliban's sponsors - Pakistan - for their own good.

We've paid our enemies in Pakistan and that's convinced Pakistan that we are weak and at Pakistan's mercy.

What we've not done as yet is to kill our enemies in Pakistan, the Pakistani military intelligence agency, the ISI, who provided a base for Bin Laden near the Pakistani military academy.

Guys, military 101. You win wars by killing the enemy. You lose wars by paying the enemy.

Now, watch these videos, all the way through. 2 hours well spent.




> What needs to be cleared out is the Pakistani ISI, the Pakistani military intelligence agency which sponsors terrorists on behalf of the Pakistani state. The ISI's critical role in sponsoring terrorism, is documented in this British TV documentary broadcast first in 2011.



*BBC Panorama's "SECRET PAKISTAN - Part 1 Double-Cross"*

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qSinK-dVrig]Secret Pakistan : Documentary by BBC Part 1 (Double Cross) - YouTube[/ame]

*BBC Panorama's "SECRET PAKISTAN - Part 2 Backlash"*

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G5-lSSC9dSE]Secret Pakistan : Documentary by BBC Part 2 (Backlash) - YouTube[/ame]



hangover said:


> Just wait till you see how the cons fuck the fifty thousand heroes that came back with only half their body parts, and are now welfare cases.


You win a war by sending in the ground forces after you have *strategically bombed* the enemy.

You lose a war by sending in the ground forces after you have *paid* the enemy.

Strategic bombing of the enemy, first, wins the war, OK?

Not foolish bribing of the enemy, first. That loses the war, OK?


----------



## hangover (Nov 21, 2013)

Desperado said:


> hangover said:
> 
> 
> > So after twelve years, what did we win? Oh I know, a bunch of dead heroes!
> ...



Yo wing nut, Shrub invaded Afghanistan in 2001. You really are a moron.


----------



## Desperado (Nov 21, 2013)

hangover said:


> Desperado said:
> 
> 
> > hangover said:
> ...




And as of today, Obama has been president for 4 years 306 days and we are still in Afghanistan..... Waiting to hear your excuse for that.  Now to top that off Obama and his crew have signed a treaty that keeps us in Afghanistan till 2024 and beyond! I know Obama was just doing his John McCain impression and people took him seriously?  Right?  Oh by the way, did you know that in the 12-Year War: 73% of U.S. Casualties in Afghanistan were on Obama's Watch?  That little fact must drive you nuts.

Read More about it here:
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/11/21/world/asia/afghan-pact-kerry-apology-.html
and
http://cnsnews.com/news/article/den...war-73-us-casualties-afghanistan-obamas-watch


----------

