Obama/Karzai Agreement

Discussion in 'Clean Debate Zone' started by daphillenium, Sep 13, 2012.

  1. daphillenium
    Offline

    daphillenium Member

    Joined:
    Sep 9, 2012
    Messages:
    62
    Thanks Received:
    20
    Trophy Points:
    21
    Location:
    Illinois
    Ratings:
    +20
    Sorry for the late post on here, I just joined the Forum about a week ago. Anyway, back in May Obama and Karzai signed an agreement. This was well hidden under the news. In fact, I don't remember seeing any coverage of it.

    This has been one of my reasons I am not happy with his foreign policies. I'm all for bringing all our troops home.

    But to me, and others as well, this agreement seems more like we're going to be there for awhile.

    Also, I had always felt that a TRUE reason we were actually over there was the wealth of resources they had under their feet over there. The agreement talks about trade partnerships and us "helping" them develope their resources.

    It also seems like a "check" spot for us over there. The agreement talks about not having any U.S. Bases, but being able to operate out of their bases.

    Any thought on this?

    Here's a few links and one with the actual agreement. Read it. It's pretty intersting.

    Obama's agreement with Karzai in Afghanistan short on specifics (+video) - CSMonitor.com

    Fact Sheet: The U.S.-Afghanistan Strategic Partnership Agreement | The White House

    http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/2012.06.01u.s.-afghanistanspasignedtext.pdf
     
  2. FA_Q2
    Offline

    FA_Q2 Gold Member

    Joined:
    Dec 12, 2009
    Messages:
    14,271
    Thanks Received:
    2,083
    Trophy Points:
    255
    Location:
    Washington State
    Ratings:
    +4,299
    I would agree that getting out of there after the job is done would be the favorable outcome but I don’t see how that can be done without actually working with the Afghanis and that is going to require agreements in writing as well as open relationships. As far as us operating out of their bases, that is a dumb move. I can tell you that because I have been there and can say that in Iraq where we took care of our own base defense there were zero problems inside of base and yet where we don’t take care of the base defense or do so cooperatively… the results are less than stellar. That includes joint coalition bases by the way. These moves are usually to foster better relationships. They don’t accomplish that goal.

    I don’t think that this is indicative of a greater plan to have a permanent presence there though I would be willing to bet we will. This order in of itself does not lead to that conclusion; it simply does not eliminate it. I believe we will have a permanent presence there though because history has shown me that we NEVER leave once we are there. Can you name a time we left? I can only think of Vietnam, and we left because we LOST.
     

Share This Page