Obama extends Afghanistan war until "at least" 2016

Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by aaronvan, Mar 25, 2015.

  1. aaronvan Suspended

    aaronvan

    Joined:
    Dec 21, 2011
    Location:
    República Cascadia
    #1
    Mr. Obama on Tuesday announced that he would leave 9,800 American troops in Afghanistan until at least the end of the year...a necessary response to the expected springtime resurgence of Taliban aggression and the need to give more training to the struggling Afghan security forces.

    http://www.nytimes.com/2015/03/25/w...ghanistan-wants-us-troops-to-stay-longer.html

    Well, at least Obama "promises" to withdraw "most" American troops by the time he leaves office. Yea......
     

    Attached Files:

  2. jkcerda macrumors 6502

    jkcerda

    Joined:
    Jun 10, 2013
    Location:
    Criminal Mexi Midget
    #2
    par for the course for the war monger.

    the only time most liberals are anti war is when a republican is in charge, GOD forbid they call out a war mongering constitution crapping due process bypassing democrat.... well at least SOME do have the courage to do so.
     
  3. Renzatic Suspended

    Renzatic

    Joined:
    Aug 3, 2011
    Location:
    Gramps, what the hell am I paying you for?
    #3
    Obama pulls troops out of Iraq, fulfilling campaign promise: accused of indirectly creating ISIS.

    Obama keeps troops in Afghanistan, running counter to his campaign promise: accused of lying, further accusations of warmongering will commence once jkcerda shows up in the tread.

    Seems he's damned if he does, damned if he doesn't.

    MISSED IT BY ONE MINUTE!
     
  4. aaronvan thread starter Suspended

    aaronvan

    Joined:
    Dec 21, 2011
    Location:
    República Cascadia
    #4
    We still have several thousand special forces troops in Iraq, and hundreds of sorties bombing, strafing, and droning every day over Iraq.

    Yet somehow, the narrative is that Obama extricated America from Iraq...?
     
  5. jkcerda macrumors 6502

    jkcerda

    Joined:
    Jun 10, 2013
    Location:
    Criminal Mexi Midget
    #5
    I got here before you did. pray/say tell how do you excuse away Libya? Syria? that is all on his own.

    replacing the leader of Libya and looking to displace the one from Syria. the man IS a war monger.

    ----------

    don't be silly, there is no "War" if its not 24/7 on the news like it was when Bush was in office, once war monger in chief was elected Cindy Sheenan & the rest of the anti-war activist ceased to be relevant.
     
  6. aaronvan thread starter Suspended

    aaronvan

    Joined:
    Dec 21, 2011
    Location:
    República Cascadia
    #6
    We learned the hard way that the best defense against radical Islam in Iraq was Saddam.

    We learned the hard way that best defense against radical Islam in Libya was Qaddafi.

    Yet the administration's only policy towards Syria remains "remove Assad."
     
  7. jkcerda macrumors 6502

    jkcerda

    Joined:
    Jun 10, 2013
    Location:
    Criminal Mexi Midget
    #7
    wonder how the women & gays are doing under the thumb of the Muslim brotherhood in Libya, guess a little oppression is ok as long as a democrat gets it done.
     
  8. rdowns macrumors Penryn

    rdowns

    Joined:
    Jul 11, 2003
    #8

    Thank you for posting this.

























    For the 87th time.
     
  9. jrswizzle macrumors 603

    jrswizzle

    Joined:
    Aug 23, 2012
    Location:
    McKinney, TX
    #9
    Iraq is the only time in our nation's history where we haven't left a peacekeeping force installed....

    He deserves criticism for Iraq, not Afghanistan. Whether the war was justified or not, you can't just abandon it now. We've seen what happens when we do.
     
  10. jkcerda macrumors 6502

    jkcerda

    Joined:
    Jun 10, 2013
    Location:
    Criminal Mexi Midget
    #10
    have you watched it?
     
  11. Renzatic Suspended

    Renzatic

    Joined:
    Aug 3, 2011
    Location:
    Gramps, what the hell am I paying you for?
    #11
    I'm not talking about the niceties of reality, more the preconceptions thereof some people tend to take.

    Obama, like any president, is far from being a blameless or beyond reproach. He's done some pretty dumb things in the last 6 years. But I find it harder and harder to accept criticism from some people because it seems to me that they're throwing out accusations just for the simple sake of it.
     
  12. rdowns macrumors Penryn

    rdowns

    Joined:
    Jul 11, 2003
    #12
    Yes, I have. You should take my post as a plea to get some new material already. Posting the Maddow video and your endless cries of warmonger is so very tired.
     
  13. jkcerda macrumors 6502

    jkcerda

    Joined:
    Jun 10, 2013
    Location:
    Criminal Mexi Midget
    #13
    because when you see something wrong being done by the previous administration the correct course of action is to continue?:rolleyes:

    wonder how many here criticized bush for the war & have no problems justifying obama for the same things.
     
  14. jrswizzle macrumors 603

    jrswizzle

    Joined:
    Aug 23, 2012
    Location:
    McKinney, TX
    #14
    They were withdrawn - all of them in 2011.

    We've only recently sent troops back (starting in June 2014) because of ISIL and at the invitation of the Iraqi government.
     
  15. jkcerda macrumors 6502

    jkcerda

    Joined:
    Jun 10, 2013
    Location:
    Criminal Mexi Midget
    #15
    no promises Rdowns, but I will try.
     
  16. jrswizzle macrumors 603

    jrswizzle

    Joined:
    Aug 23, 2012
    Location:
    McKinney, TX
    #16
    That's an incredibly simplistic and quite frankly dangerous way of looking at the situation.

    Whether or not the war was justified, the fact was we toppled a dictator and were responsible for what happened next. Never in our nation's history have we completely pulled every troop out of a country we invaded until Iraq.

    We're all witnessing the wonderful repercussion of that blunder....and of course, we've had to go back into Iraq to help fix the problem.

    Criticism of the Iraq and Afghan wars is justified. But the circumstances now are different than they were when this all began and we have a responsibility to clean up the mess we made. You don't do that by simply pulling out and giving up.

    FWIW, from a conservative - Obama and Bush are far more alike than anyone here likely cares to admit. The only difference I can tell is I truly felt/feel Bush did things in the interest of protecting the US. I get the sense Obama and his administration have their own agendas.

    Whether that's right or not, you can argue if you'd like. It's my own opinion and I don't have "facts" to back it up. Neither were good presidents.
     
  17. jkcerda macrumors 6502

    jkcerda

    Joined:
    Jun 10, 2013
    Location:
    Criminal Mexi Midget
    #17
    1.How many troops did we leave in Libya after we toppled kadaffy duck? how many will be sent to Syria when we help topple Assad?
    2 I don't think there is a way of fixing it
    3 nor by continuing to mess things up.
    4. nice.
    5 BOTH are terrible, they should be sharing a jail cell along with most of congress and the VP's.
     
  18. jrswizzle macrumors 603

    jrswizzle

    Joined:
    Aug 23, 2012
    Location:
    McKinney, TX
    #18
    Considering roughly 400 marines and a handful of CIA operatives were sent I'd say zero. The US contributed naval and airforce support, not ground troops.

    That may very well be the case. But the alternative is turning over the region to mass murdering terrorists and Iran....that's a terrifying alternative.

    Agreed. Please note I'm not saying Obama is doing the right thing. Merely that pulling out completely was a huge mistake in Iraq and would be so in Afghanistan.


    Ha, I'm not as melodramatic. Personally, I just think they should all be voted out. Term limits for congress.
     
  19. Happybunny macrumors 68000

    Joined:
    Sep 9, 2010
    #19
    IMO The US foreign policy has been defect for some time. This going back to the 1980’s and Lebanon.

    The US always looks for quick fixes and short term objectives. The Middle East has is neither of these, it has long term hatred, and very idealistic goals, plus it has the added problem of militant islam, and oil.

    Because of the US unwavering support for Israel, no Country or leader really trusts you in the rest of the Middle East, so you are forced to go it alone, or equally problematic, made to support repressive regimes.

    Afghanistan everybody knows if the US left today, by next week the Taliban would be in power. Those 2,000 US military would have died for nothing in the longest war in US history.


    Where ever the US puts boots on the ground in the area, the general population within time turns on them. Or they stage an uprising to overthrow the pro US government.

    In Afghanistan in last few years US casualties are nearly always caused by so called friendly fire.

    Of course like Vietnam in a few years Hollywood will re-write history and the US will win on the silver screen.
     
  20. Anonymous Freak macrumors 601

    Anonymous Freak

    Joined:
    Dec 12, 2002
    Location:
    Cascadia
    #20
    ftfy.
     
  21. rdowns macrumors Penryn

    rdowns

    Joined:
    Jul 11, 2003
    #21
    Pardon me for interrupting another of your rants, but what exactly would you charge the VP with? What about Congress?
     
  22. citizenzen macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Mar 22, 2010
    #22
    I agree. And for those who think liberals are in lockstep with Obama, they'd be mistaken. While he did campaign on the promise to be "as careful getting out of Iraq as it was careless getting in," I've been very disappointed in his decisions such as the Surge, and his slow withdrawal.
     
  23. Scepticalscribe, Mar 25, 2015
    Last edited: Mar 26, 2015

    Scepticalscribe Contributor

    Scepticalscribe

    Joined:
    Jul 29, 2008
    Location:
    The Far Horizon
    #23
    Happybunny, while I rarely disagree with you, here, on this occasion, I must.

    To be honest, I very much doubt that the Taliban 'by next week would be in power'; they have no support in the north, centre, and west of the country, (where the population are Tadjik, Hazara, Uzbek) and they have difficulty in holding some of the areas they operate in.

    While they are very strong in parts of the south and east of Afghanistan, and have considerable support from much (though not all) of the Pashtun population in those areas, (roughly, the areas adjacent to Pakistan), I would argue that while they cannot be defeated in those areas, equally, they cannot achieve victory in the others.

    The Taliban themselves face challenges, from a few moderates who may seek political solutions, - terrorist movements always have a few with a political cast of mind - from the attraction of ISIL for some of their young radicals meaning that they are no longer the most radical kid on the block, to the fact that opinion is divided in Pakistan (partly on account of the Peshawar killings) as to the degree of support they should continue to receive from that quarter.

    While the Taliban cannot be defeated militarily, they cannot win by military means either, and much of the population loathes them. A civil war is a far more likely outcome than a Taliban victory. Economic stability (which could only be brought about by political stability) will take the sting out of much of the Taliban; employed youngsters with proper career paths do not often become disaffected revolutionaries.

    Re what President Obama has offered, and what the current Government of Afghanistan have requested, I think some on this thread misunderstand what is actually taking place here.

    Formally, the US combat mission was supposed to have ended last year, with around 10,000 troops remaining until the end of 2016. These were to be further drawn down so that half - approximately 5,000 - would still be in place by next December, with the remainder departing by the end of 2016, leaving a small force of around 1,000 to secure the Embassy.

    The new Afghan Government has requested that this drawdown take place over a longer period - in other words, that troop numbers are not cut in half by the end of this year.

    As of now, most US troops are still scheduled to leave by December 2016, but most of those who are still there will remain in the country until the end of 2016, rather than leaving by the end of this year. That is what was requested (by the Afghans) and was offered (by the US Government, in this instance, President Obama) - and accepted - this week.
     
  24. citizenzen macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Mar 22, 2010
    #24
    Thanks for offering the fuller context.
     
  25. bradl macrumors 68040

    bradl

    Joined:
    Jun 16, 2008
    #25
    From off the cuff and fanaticism:

    To context and rationalism:

    in less than one page of the thread. I'm impressed.

    BL.
     

Share This Page