U.S. Formally Ends War In Afghanistan

[NotfooledbyW]

I'm not arguing, just stating the facts.

If you think stating: "↑I guess he didn't send troops back to Iraq" is stating a fact then you cannot know very much about what a fact is.

 

[Carib Gyal]

I'm not arguing, just stating the facts.

If you think stating: "↑I guess he didn't send troops back to Iraq" is stating a fact then you cannot know very much about what a fact is.

He did send troops back to Iraq?

 

[NotfooledbyW]

BB 10435167

Hindsight is 20/20. Go back and review what was known and what was widely assumed.

Hindsight is not involved. The French along with the majority of nations on the UNSC were aware of the ongoing progress being made by the inspectors in Iraq. Any intelligent observer of those inspections would have chosen to let them continue rather than instigate the huge risks that starting a war were sure to bring. Turns out Bush was not intelligent enough to see the wisdom of exhausting the peaceful means as Senator
Kerry pointed out.

Even the US public nearly six out of ten preferred that Bush give the UN inspectors more time rather than starting the war in a March.

 

[NotfooledbyW]

Cari 10443591

He did send troops back to Iraq?

You are now stating a very obvious undisputed fact. What of it?

 

[Carib Gyal]

Cari 10443591

He did send troops back to Iraq?

You are now stating a very obvious undisputed fact. What of it?

It was a question, not a statement.

Would you say the thread title is a misnomer, since the formality of war might be over, but not the reality?

 

[NotfooledbyW]

BH 10435552

Don't really need to guess the Taliban will likely take control of large areas of the country again and in time it will become the home of Al-Qaeda or some type of Al-Qaeda off shoot.

When will this dire result happen *blackhawk? Does this happen before 2024?

 

[blackhawk]

BH 10435552

Don't really need to guess the Taliban will likely take control of large areas of the country again and in time it will become the home of Al-Qaeda or some type of Al-Qaeda off shoot.

When will this dire result happen *blackhawk? Does this happen before 2024?

I would say it's already happening Notfooled and yest it's possible it does happen before 2014.
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct...wQHq0znyymbkF6IrA&sig2=f9c0iNe3yLsUp5eshDDEpA

 

[NotfooledbyW]

BB 10435226

No, he opposed it out of knee jerk reaction of pacificism and anti-Bushism

These are by no means the words of a pacifist:

Imagine, for a moment, what we could have done in those days, and months, and years after 9/11.

We could have deployed the full force of American power to hunt down and destroy Osama bin Laden, al Qaeda, the Taliban, and all of the terrorists responsible for 9/11, while supporting real security in Afghanistan.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/15/us/politics/15text-obama.html?pagewanted=all

Obama called the war in Afghanistan "the good war" - no pacifist says that?

 

[Neil N. Blowme]

BB 10435167

Hindsight is 20/20. Go back and review what was known and what was widely assumed.

Hindsight is not involved. The French along with the majority of nations on the UNSC were aware of the ongoing progress being made by the inspectors in Iraq. Any intelligent observer of those inspections would have chosen to let them continue rather than instigate the huge risks that starting a war were sure to bring. Turns out Bush was not intelligent enough to see the wisdom of exhausting the peaceful means as Senator
Kerry pointed out.

Even the US public nearly six out of ten preferred that Bush give the UN inspectors more time rather than starting the war in a March.

Congress and the UN voted to invade.

 

[The Rabbi]

Cari 10443591

He did send troops back to Iraq?

You are now stating a very obvious undisputed fact. What of it?

It was a question, not a statement.

Would you say the thread title is a misnomer, since the formality of war might be over, but not the reality?

No, the war is over and Obama ended it.
Until it looks like a bad move and then the mess is Bush's fault.

 

[JakeStarkey]

The war is over until and if it starts up again.

 

[NotfooledbyW]

I would say it's already happening Notfooled and yest it's possible it does happen before 2014.
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct...wQHq0znyymbkF6IrA&sig2=f9c0iNe3yLsUp5eshDDEpA

So are you saying that those record millions that defied the Taliban by voting in a new government, and the 300,000 Afghan Army and Police and the 10,000 remaining US troops should surrender and turn the country over to the Taliban because they are going to take over again soon anyway?

Or should we continue to support those 300,000 Afghans in the Army and Police who are engaged in the fight?

 

[georgephillip]

Is the war in Afghanistan over or is that just another opium pipe dream?
"But the war is not over.

"The Obama administration said earlier this month it would leave a residual U.S. force of about 11,000 troops in Afghanistan for at least the first months of 2015 to assist Afghan security forces under the mission known as Resolute Support.

"And last month President Obama secretly extended the U.S. role in Afghanistan.

"According to The New York Times, he signed a classified order that ensures American troops will have a direct role in fighting.

"The order reportedly enables American jets, bombers and drones to bolster Afghan troops on combat missions.

"Under certain circumstances, it would apparently authorize U.S. airstrikes to support Afghan military operations throughout the country.

"Afghanistan’s new president, Ashraf Ghani, who took office in September, has also backed an expanded U.S. military role.

"This comes as 2014 marked the deadliest in Afghanistan since 2001. The United Nations reports nearly 3,200 Afghan civilians were killed in the intensifying war with the Taliban, a 20 percent rise from 2013.

"The national army and police also suffered record losses this year, with more than 4,600 killed."

The Afghan War is Not Over U.S. Ends 13-Year Combat Mission But 10 000 Troops Continue the Fight Democracy Now

 

[blackhawk]

I would say it's already happening Notfooled and yest it's possible it does happen before 2014.
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct...wQHq0znyymbkF6IrA&sig2=f9c0iNe3yLsUp5eshDDEpA

So are you saying that, record millions that defied the Taliban by voting in a new government, and the 300,000 Afghan Army and Police and the 10,000 remaining US troops should surrender and turn the country over to the Taliban because they are going to take over again soon anyway?

Or should we continue to support those 300,000 Afghans in the Army and Police who are engaged in the fight?

I'm saying when the U.S. is no longer taking the lead in combat missions and finally leave that is a very real possibility. Look what happened with the Iraqi army and police force when we left they collapsed when ISIS hit them. Just how much area can 10,000 U.S. troops cover and out of that 10,000 how many will be actual combat troops and how many support and rear echelon types? You might Recall after the Soviet Union was driven out the Taliban did not control the whole country then either but they controlled a large enough area of it to allow Al-Qaeda to train and operate freely and undisturbed.

 

[NotfooledbyW]

BB 10444267

Until it looks like a bad move and then the mess is Bush's fault.

Did Bush or did Bush not decide in March 2003 to replace 200 UN inspectors with 192,000 US combat troops into Iraq with the expectation that they would find stockpiles of WMD, be greeted as liberators and that no worries, Iraq's oil wealth would cover their expense? Did that soon turn into a mess commonly known as a quagmire? Did Bush or did Bush not pull military and intelligence resources out of Afghanistan in order to invade Iraq? Did the shortage of troops and equipment in Afghanistan contribute to the mess there that also became known as a quagmire.

Bush created two quagmires in five years. Of course those messes will always be Bush's fault. There is no one else to blame but the"decider" himself.

 

[Contumacious]

I would say it's already happening Notfooled and yest it's possible it does happen before 2014.
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct...wQHq0znyymbkF6IrA&sig2=f9c0iNe3yLsUp5eshDDEpA

So are you saying that those record millions that defied the Taliban by voting in a new government, and the 300,000 Afghan Army and Police and the 10,000 remaining US troops should surrender and turn the country over to the Taliban because they are going to take over again soon anyway?

Or should we continue to support those 300,000 Afghans in the Army and Police who are engaged in the fight?

Ohhhhhhhhh, the retards, gotta love them


Another Fake Afghan Election


Afghanistan’s national election held this week is a sham. A group of candidates, handpicked by the US, will pretend to compete in an election whose outcome has already been determined – by Washington.


The candidates include US groomed politicians, and drug-dealing warlords from the Tajik and Uzbek north. Chief among them, Rashid Dostam, a major war criminal and principal CIA ally who ordered the massacre of over 2,000 Taliban prisoners.


Such is the rotten foundation on which Washington is hoping to build a compliant Afghan “democracy” that will continue to offer bases to US troops and warplanes. Afghanistan’s majority, the Pashtun tribes, have little voice in the election charade.


If an open vote was held today, Taliban would probably win. Americans have no problem it seems working with Afghan Communists, war criminals, and drug kingpins. In fact, under American rule, opium, morphine and heroin production in Afghanistan has surged to all-time record highs. This is called “nation-building.”

 

[georgephillip]

"Across the province, hundreds of thousands of people were taking part in the largest opium harvest in Afghanistan's history. With a record 224,000 hectares under cultivation this year, the country produced an estimated 6,400 tons of opium, or around 90 percent of the world's supply."

Read more: Afghanistan The Making of a Narco State Rolling Stone
Follow us: @rollingstone on Twitter | RollingStone on Facebook

 

[NotfooledbyW]

NNBl 10444251

UN voted to invade

That's a lie.the UN never voted to invade Iraq.

 

[Neil N. Blowme]

NNBl 10444251

UN voted to invade

That's a lie.the UN never voted to invade Iraq.

Okay. They never voted against it.

 

[NotfooledbyW]

NNBl 10445038

Okay. They never voted against it.

There was no resolution with the option for military invasion and occupation to be voted for or against. Bush and Blair wrote and began curculating a draft resolution on around March 8 2003 giving the council ten days to find Iraq in full compliance or authorize war. The majority favored letting inspections continue - war was not necessary - so the Bush/Blair draft resolution was withdrawn and not voted upon. Peaceful inspection remained UNSC policy - not war. You are still wrong and grossly misinformed.