# Afghanistan 2024



## Navy1960 (May 2, 2012)

In a signing ceremony, Obama and Karzai agreed on a strategic partnership that would allow U.S. troops to stay on the ground until 2024. The deal allows Afghanistan to keep control of its country, and doesnt commit the U.S. to any specific troop presence or spending.  

It does allow the U.S. to potentially keep troops in Afghanistan after the war ends for two reasons, continued training of Afghan forces and targeted operations against Al Qaeda after the completion of NATO's combat role in 2014.
U.S. troops to have access to Afghanistan until 2024 - KSWB

Frankly  there are many opinions on this issue, but  my humble opinion on this issue is that we can be in that nation till 2100 and the day we leave it will revert to exactly the way it was the day we entered.  That nation or region if you will  has been known for it's  "tribal" nature and  your more likely to have more  loyality to the man next door and hate the man 10 miles from you and this has been the same for thousands for years.  This concept of  "nation building" was not and has been accomplished by anyone in that region from the Persians, Alexander, Russia, Great Britian, former Soviet Union, and any number of  nations that have invaded it  over thousands of years. After  over 1500 plus  of our young warriors  dead and 15,000 wounded in a nation buliding effort, perhaps we use  that skill of those warriors  building this nation for the next 10 years  rather than one that can never be rebuilt.  As for our long term secuirty. with the long reach of US Power containing those who would wish us harm in that part of the world  is done with one US Warship or sortie of B-2's  from MO. here in the US.   In other words these young warriors have done an  outstanding job in that part of the world, they have accomplished everything asked of them and destroyed  Al-Quida  in that region to the point where is a shell of it former self.  It's time we honored those young people and  brought them home not 10 years from now, but now and  concentrate on  "building this nation"


----------



## High_Gravity (May 2, 2012)

2024? oh hell no.


----------



## bucs90 (May 2, 2012)

So the anti-war president, in his reelection year, extends troops in Afghanistan for 12 more years?

Is the left outraged yet?


----------



## WillowTree (May 2, 2012)

Afghans are shooting our troops in the back of the head and doofus keeps us there until 2024?  REMEMBER THAT ON YOU WAY TO THE POLLS.


----------



## WillowTree (May 2, 2012)

bucs90 said:


> So the anti-war president, in his reelection year, extends troops in Afghanistan for 12 more years?
> 
> Is the left outraged yet?



remember when they were bitching about JOhn McCain?


----------



## High_Gravity (May 2, 2012)

What exactly will be accomplished by 2024? bring our men and women home!


----------



## Luissa (May 2, 2012)

Aren't we in this mess because Reagan pulled out too soon? 

If we supply them with weapons this time I would rather stay around awhile....Nothing like arming your future enemy again.


----------



## High_Gravity (May 2, 2012)

```

```



Luissa said:


> Aren't we in this mess because Reagan pulled out too soon?
> 
> If we supply them with weapons this time I would rather stay around awhile....Nothing like arming your future enemy again.



We shouldn't have gave them anything, we should have let the Soviets have that shit hole.


----------



## Luissa (May 2, 2012)

High_Gravity said:


> ```
> 
> ```
> 
> ...



But they have one thing that is very popular in the US right now. I wonder if big pharma plans on pumping money in?


----------



## Navy1960 (May 2, 2012)

$524,891,108,005 Thats how much the war  there has cost in terms of dollars not counting the human costs and costs to the  15000 plus wounded warriors and their families.   I cannot imagine  why our nation would not want to use our limited resources and those young people  here to  help rebuild this nation. Imagine if we put that sort of effort into this nation.   While  the aim is to train local troops and have a base for  American response to Al-Quida   in the region,  it would seem that this can be accomplished  without the need for  US Forces  based there.


----------



## High_Gravity (May 2, 2012)

Luissa said:


> High_Gravity said:
> 
> 
> > ```
> ...



That place is just not worth the blood and treasure we have invested.


----------



## Luissa (May 2, 2012)

Navy1960 said:


> $524,891,108,005 Thats how much the war  there has cost in terms of dollars not counting the human costs and costs to the  15000 plus wounded warriors and their families.   I cannot imagine  why our nation would not want to use our limited resources and those young people  here to  help rebuild this nation. Imagine if we put that sort of effort into this nation.   While  the aim is to train local troops and have a base for  American response to Al-Quida   in the region,  it would seem that this can be accomplished  without the need for  US Forces  based there.



This is how I see it...We have two options. Finish up in the near future, then just deal with the fact that some sort of rebel leader  could take over, or inspire a group of people, and we deal with another attack. Or we bomb the shit out of them, and stay there for the next 50 years.

Personally I would rather take the risk of having another attack.


----------



## Navy1960 (May 2, 2012)

Luissa said:


> Navy1960 said:
> 
> 
> > $524,891,108,005 Thats how much the war  there has cost in terms of dollars not counting the human costs and costs to the  15000 plus wounded warriors and their families.   I cannot imagine  why our nation would not want to use our limited resources and those young people  here to  help rebuild this nation. Imagine if we put that sort of effort into this nation.   While  the aim is to train local troops and have a base for  American response to Al-Quida   in the region,  it would seem that this can be accomplished  without the need for  US Forces  based there.
> ...



Luissa  to be honest,  I cannot think of any task from a response or defense standpoint that cannot be accomplished now from any number of places other than Afghanistan.  Including right here at home, when the war first started, B-2 mission were being flown from this nation round trip there and for the most part the war there an air-campaign and SpecOps war  in conjuntion with locals.  I see no purpose for  basing US Forces there other than to make local officals  stay in power at the expense of young Americans as we have shown quite well that hunting Al Quida  can be done and is done just about anywhere.  Once we have left. no matter if it's now or  2024 local tribal factions will once again revert back to previous  ways they have been for thousands of years.  After all I was under the impression we went there to hunt down Al Quida and the Taliban simply got in the way, and the two of them are pretty much forced together by us, none of them would exist without Pakistan helping them and in turn our supplying  Pakistan 6 Billion a year in Military Aid. So in the end it would serve our nation as a whole much better to just move along.


----------



## ima (May 10, 2012)

This mission would be over if not for the incompetence of the US army.


----------



## High_Gravity (May 10, 2012)

ima said:


> This mission would be over if not for the incompetence of the US army.



You are a fucking idiot, its the incompetence of the politicians in the White House and the Pentagon that have prolonged this war not our troops, you are a real bitch for typing that rubbish.


----------



## Crackerjack (May 10, 2012)

There have been 1,337 fatalities in Afghanistan since Obama took office.  That's over twice as many in his one term than there were in Dubya's two terms (630).

Enjoy your "change" ...


----------



## ScienceRocks (May 11, 2012)

Get out, get out NOW. Tell them if you attack us, we will react with nukes. End of story.


----------



## ima (May 11, 2012)

High_Gravity said:


> ima said:
> 
> 
> > This mission would be over if not for the incompetence of the US army.
> ...



C'mon man, the troops themselves are awesome, but the leaders? Geez, they have the world's most sophisticated and powerful army under their control and can't even take a huge pile of sand (Afghanistan) filled with guys running around in their PJs and slippers, who have pretty much nothing to fight back with, and who all all strung out on heroin.


----------



## ima (May 11, 2012)

Luissa said:


> *Aren't we in this mess because Reagan pulled out too soon? *
> 
> If we supply them with weapons this time I would rather stay around awhile....Nothing like arming your future enemy again.



That's not what Nancy would say!


----------



## ima (May 11, 2012)

Ok, I'll explain to you all what's up with Afghanistan. They've discovered a shitload of minerals... there and we have to wait for a republican government to be re-elected so that Haliburton and their buddies can come in and clean the place out. So we're stuck in neutral for a while there.


----------



## High_Gravity (May 11, 2012)

ima said:


> High_Gravity said:
> 
> 
> > ima said:
> ...



Thats because the guys in charge are not interested in beating them.


----------



## Sallow (May 11, 2012)

High_Gravity said:


> ```
> 
> ```
> 
> ...



Frankly..one of the stupidiest moves in US history.

The CIA had to intervene because the muj were torturing the captured soviets so badly..that the soviets would shoot themselves rather then be captured.

And you can't get good intel from a dead soviet.


----------



## High_Gravity (May 11, 2012)

Sallow said:


> High_Gravity said:
> 
> 
> > ```
> ...



Whatever the case may be we should have just let the Soviets keep Afghanistan, the Taliban emerged from the aftermath of our involvement in that conflict. Who knows, maybe Afghanistan would have been a better place under the Russians thumb.


----------



## Sallow (May 11, 2012)

High_Gravity said:


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



Actually..it was..

It was the Taliban that brought on the stone age.


----------



## High_Gravity (May 11, 2012)

Sallow said:


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



Its really a crying shame, I wish there was someway to go back in time and take back all our involvement in that shit hole and just let the Russians have it.


----------



## ima (May 11, 2012)

High_Gravity said:


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



Maybe we shouldn't have helped Osama beat the Russians?


----------

