Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
There are still 11,000 pairs of boots on the ground which will be remaining for the next two years.PerfectAnyone care to hazard a guess at what's to come?
Sure.
The minute our troops are all gone from Stan the Taliban will take the country over again.
Karsai will flee or be killed and anyone who thinks the Afghan army trained by us will keep the country from falling to the Taliban is in for a rude awakening.
The Taliban will once again rule Afghanistan.
The only part you left out was where American troops will be sent back. These will be called advisers, and not boots on the ground.
Good. I agree with this. If Obama had done the same with Iraq as his own cabinet members recommended, there would be no ISIS right now.There are still 11,000 pairs of boots on the ground which will be remaining for the next two years.PerfectAnyone care to hazard a guess at what's to come?
Sure.
The minute our troops are all gone from Stan the Taliban will take the country over again.
Karsai will flee or be killed and anyone who thinks the Afghan army trained by us will keep the country from falling to the Taliban is in for a rude awakening.
The Taliban will once again rule Afghanistan.
The only part you left out was where American troops will be sent back. These will be called advisers, and not boots on the ground.
Well Intentioned? It was an outright lie!There was no pressing reason to go into Iraq when we did. Should have waited to deal with Saddam until after Afghanistan was settled.Care to expound?It shows the folly of invading Iraq before Afghanistan was settled.
I agree that 9/11 was used as an excuse to invade Iraq, rather than to eliminate some immediate security threat. GW's well-intentioned, if unrealistic, goal was to create a new kind of Arab democracy that could serve as a model to break the unending conflicts in that region. A more practical (and less costly) goal would have been to depose Saddam and divide that "country"* into several administrative districts which could decide to unify or remain independent at some future date. In the meantime, we would have been able to establish a permanent military presence to counter Iranian threats to that region.
*Created out of thin air by British and French diplomats by drawing lines on a map in 1919 (Treaty of Versailles)
Remember During the 2000 campaign, George W. Bush argued against nation building and foreign military entanglements. In the second presidential debate, he said: "I'm not so sure the role of the United States is to go around the world and say, 'This is the way it's got to be.'"
So what happened?
Haha. The same people who were criticizing Obama for not getting us out of Afghanistan are now criticizing him for getting us out of Afghanistan.
Classic derangement from the usual suspects.
A) Not trueThere was no pressing reason to go into Iraq when we did. Should have waited to deal with Saddam until after Afghanistan was settled.Care to expound?It shows the folly of invading Iraq before Afghanistan was settled.
The war in Afghanistan, fought for 13 bloody years and still raging, came to a formal end Sunday.
U.S. Formally Ends War In Afghanistan
The Iraq and Afghanistan conflicts, taken together, will be the most expensive wars in US history—totaling somewhere between $4 trillion and $6 trillion. Every hour, taxpayers in the United States paid $10.17 million for Cost of War in Afghanistan since 2001. So, what did we accomplish?
Taloiban will come back into power, erasing all gains over the past 9 years.Anyone care to hazard a guess at what's to come?
And the same people who credited Obama with getting out of Iraq until that looked like a bad decision are crediting him with getting out of Afghanistan. Until that looks like a bad decision. Those people incliude Obama, btw.Haha. The same people who were criticizing Obama for not getting us out of Afghanistan are now criticizing him for getting us out of Afghanistan.
Classic derangement from the usual suspects.
If it's true that 11,000 - COMBAT READY - US troops will remain, that is something to consider. A reaction force may be all that is needed. But of course that remains to be seen.Taloiban will come back into power, erasing all gains over the past 9 years.Anyone care to hazard a guess at what's to come?
Thanks, Obama!
So what does that have to do with Iraq and Nation Building?Well Intentioned? It was an outright lie!There was no pressing reason to go into Iraq when we did. Should have waited to deal with Saddam until after Afghanistan was settled.Care to expound?It shows the folly of invading Iraq before Afghanistan was settled.
I agree that 9/11 was used as an excuse to invade Iraq, rather than to eliminate some immediate security threat. GW's well-intentioned, if unrealistic, goal was to create a new kind of Arab democracy that could serve as a model to break the unending conflicts in that region. A more practical (and less costly) goal would have been to depose Saddam and divide that "country"* into several administrative districts which could decide to unify or remain independent at some future date. In the meantime, we would have been able to establish a permanent military presence to counter Iranian threats to that region.
*Created out of thin air by British and French diplomats by drawing lines on a map in 1919 (Treaty of Versailles)
Remember During the 2000 campaign, George W. Bush argued against nation building and foreign military entanglements. In the second presidential debate, he said: "I'm not so sure the role of the United States is to go around the world and say, 'This is the way it's got to be.'"
So what happened?
The 9/11 attacks happened in 2001, Brainiac.
The Afghan government will negotiate a truce with the Taliban over US objections. Then kick us out Basically there is no way to avoid that as the Taliban represent much of the country,If it's true that 11,000 - COMBAT READY - US troops will remain, that is something to consider. A reaction force may be all that is needed. But of course that remains to be seen.Taloiban will come back into power, erasing all gains over the past 9 years.Anyone care to hazard a guess at what's to come?
Thanks, Obama!
Certainly US troops are the reason the Taliban have not already taken over the country.
The Great Game 2.0.A 'Pipe Dream', as in Pipeline. We'll be in Afghanistan for the foreseeable future. Do people really believe the Globalist Elites are finished plundering Afghanistan's resources?
This is also a possibility. Worst case scenario is a concerted terrorist attack, or series of attacks, that wipe out most of the US troops.The Afghan government will negotiate a truce with the Taliban over US objections. Then kick us out Basically there is no way to avoid that as the Taliban represent much of the country,If it's true that 11,000 - COMBAT READY - US troops will remain, that is something to consider. A reaction force may be all that is needed. But of course that remains to be seen.Taloiban will come back into power, erasing all gains over the past 9 years.Anyone care to hazard a guess at what's to come?
Thanks, Obama!
Certainly US troops are the reason the Taliban have not already taken over the country.
A series of attacks to drive out the US, ala Beirut during Reagan's term. That's a possibility too.This is also a possibility. Worst case scenario is a concerted terrorist attack, or series of attacks, that wipe out most of the US troops.The Afghan government will negotiate a truce with the Taliban over US objections. Then kick us out Basically there is no way to avoid that as the Taliban represent much of the country,If it's true that 11,000 - COMBAT READY - US troops will remain, that is something to consider. A reaction force may be all that is needed. But of course that remains to be seen.Taloiban will come back into power, erasing all gains over the past 9 years.Anyone care to hazard a guess at what's to come?
Thanks, Obama!
Certainly US troops are the reason the Taliban have not already taken over the country.
So what does that have to do with Iraq and Nation Building?Well Intentioned? It was an outright lie!There was no pressing reason to go into Iraq when we did. Should have waited to deal with Saddam until after Afghanistan was settled.Care to expound?
I agree that 9/11 was used as an excuse to invade Iraq, rather than to eliminate some immediate security threat. GW's well-intentioned, if unrealistic, goal was to create a new kind of Arab democracy that could serve as a model to break the unending conflicts in that region. A more practical (and less costly) goal would have been to depose Saddam and divide that "country"* into several administrative districts which could decide to unify or remain independent at some future date. In the meantime, we would have been able to establish a permanent military presence to counter Iranian threats to that region.
*Created out of thin air by British and French diplomats by drawing lines on a map in 1919 (Treaty of Versailles)
Remember During the 2000 campaign, George W. Bush argued against nation building and foreign military entanglements. In the second presidential debate, he said: "I'm not so sure the role of the United States is to go around the world and say, 'This is the way it's got to be.'"
So what happened?
The 9/11 attacks happened in 2001, Brainiac.
So WWII is still going?If it is over, than we should be bringing all the troops and equipment home.
If we are not, than, it is not over, no matter what they say.
And the same people who credited Obama with getting out of Iraq until that looked like a bad decision are crediting him with getting out of Afghanistan. Until that looks like a bad decision. Those people incliude Obama, btw.Haha. The same people who were criticizing Obama for not getting us out of Afghanistan are now criticizing him for getting us out of Afghanistan.
Classic derangement from the usual suspects.
