Trump surrenders to Taliban, well who is surprised.

We need a remake of the original https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Balance_of_Power_(video_game), ASAP, and get all heads-of-state to play it.

I would not be surprised if the cold war ended because of the help of this and other addenda of the era the world leaders were privy to, such as "The Day After" and "Wargames". Why not adapt Balance of Power to today? It was a hell of a game back then, it could be so in this new era.
 
jem said:
so lefties demand that we stay in Afghanistan and allow our troops to continue to sacrifice their lives and their limbs.

There was a post here a while ago where my I said my wife made it a point to thank service members when we see them in public. We learned over the years to leave it at that because so many are stealthy pissed their friends lives and bodies are being sacrificed for no reason.

So why don't you einstein foreign war experts tell us why we should continue to fight the war the way we have been fighting. I can tell from my experience talking to service men and women the vast majority of our service members are going to enthusiastically support this. It is my observation they currently hate this war - give the way it has been prosecuted.

Not because they are cowards but because for the last 20 or so years... our military leaders and our Presidents have conducted these wars with the wrong intentions and strategies, which had no reasonable chance of success by any useful definition. It was almost like these actions were designed to maintain the spending at the cost of the troops lives and bodies and many in our military knew it.

In the past in American liberals were anti war.
So if you are going to be pro war / pro military industrial complex...
at least tell us how you would prosecute this war effectively... and to what end.

Maybe then you sold out motherfuckers would have right to rip on the President from your chairs in foreign countries.

You all now... totally disgust me.
You have the souls of heartless psychotics to rip on the President for ending wars... and killings and limb destruction (on both sides) with no good plans.

Don't you morons realize this is just the military industrial complex feeding on the lives of our soldiers?
More...

Jem the greatest coward in all California (previously NY) is disgusted..

A keyboard warrior 'lawyer' with 19 years or so ratatating his bullshit and black holes..

Screenshot_20200229_232730.jpg


Not ending the war, just getting it wrong again.
 
Last edited:
when the morality of their political content is challenged... when their character is exposed by looking at their words... low character posters turn to attempting to dox.

I will take some time off... from this forum.
Not because you tried to dox me... I choose to return to my nick because my friend does not seem to running for local office this fall...

but because I don't like that I find myself responding to it in such uncharitable ways.


Bugenhagen said:
Jem the greatest coward in all California (previously NY) is disgusted..

A keyboard warrior 'lawyer' with 19 years or so ratatating his bullshit and black holes..

View attachment 220861

Not ending the war, just getting it wrong again.
More...
 
Last edited:
jem said:
when the morality of their political content is challenged... when their character is exposed by looking at their words... low character posters turn to attempting to dox.

I will take some time off... from this forum.
Not because you tried to dox me... I choose to return to my nick because my friend does not seem to running for local office this fall...

but because I don't like that I find myself responding to it in such uncharitable ways.
More...

How is bringing up publicly disclosed information "doxing"?
 
Here4money said:
I question the timing of the event. I reckon the threat of the Taliban to the west was never really there (as AlQueda was the culprit). I wonder what concessions we are making & how the Afghanis are going to get shafted by this if no guarantees were made. For reference, see Syria & the abandonment of our Kurdish allies.
More...
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/03/04/opinion/afghan-bargain-fail.html
An Afghan Bargain Likely to Fail
After 14 months, the United States would be left without any military or counterterrorism capacity in Afghanistan, effectively subcontracting America’s security to the Taliban.

Sometimes, foreign policy consists of trying to make lemonade out of lemons.

In the case of the recently signed U.S.-Taliban agreement on Afghanistan, President Trump provided the lemons, and the lead U.S. negotiator, Zalmay Khalilzad, and his team did the squeezing. Mr. Trump made clear that he intended to withdraw American forces from Afghanistan — with or without a “deal.” Then NATO partners pressured the United States not to reward the Taliban by conceding their long-held objective of forcing an American withdrawal for free. So, the president reportedly gave his negotiators a finite window to explore whether some deal was achievable.

Lacking the backing of a resolute American commander in chief, Mr. Khalilzad got what he could — a deeply flawed agreement that has the potential to lead to peace but is very unlikely to achieve it. In short, the United States gave away a lot and got relatively little in return.

To start, the United States dropped its longstanding, principled opposition to negotiating directly with the Taliban (including the terrorist Haqqani network, which has killed countless American service members) without our key partner, the Afghan government, at the table. Next, following a seven-day, roughly 80 percent “reduction in violence,” the United States acceded to the Taliban’s primary demand — that America fully withdraw all of its own and NATO forces as well as intelligence personnel from Afghanistan.

Mr. Trump agreed to draw down from our current force level of approximately 12,000 U.S. troops to 8,600 (the level he inherited from President Barack Obama) within four and a half months. Within 14 months, he will drop American and NATO troops to zero — leaving only an embassy-based diplomatic presence.

Senior U.S. officials insist that the American withdrawal is “conditions-based,” but no political or military requirements have been specified. Additionally, the United States announced it intended to lift all American and United Nations sanctions against the Taliban by the end of August.

In exchange, the Taliban pledged not to cooperate with, and to prevent the use of its territory by, terrorists who threaten or target the United States and our allies. The Taliban also agreed to enter intra-Afghan talks, including with government representatives, by March 10, to discuss a cease-fire and future political settlement. The start of talks seems contingent on the Afghan government releasing up to 5,000 Taliban prisoners, and the Taliban responding by freeing up to 1,000 government prisoners. However, Afghanistan’s president, Ashraf Ghani, has already balked, because he knows that releasing Taliban prisoners before negotiations would amount to relinquishing his minimal leverage in talks with the Taliban.

In assessing the U.S.-Taliban agreement, it is important to first acknowledge the positive results. Any end to the war in Afghanistan can come only through a settlement between the Afghan government and the Taliban. To the extent that the present document, barely four pages long, could become a first step that culminates in talks to discuss such a settlement, it is better than nothing. Moreover, if the reduction in violence by 80 percent is sustained and the Taliban curtail attacks not only against American and coalition forces, but also against Afghan government forces, it would lessen the bloodshed and help create conditions more conducive for negotiations.

Unfortunately, there are troubling early signs that the Taliban are already resuming attacks against civilians and Afghan forces.

And in the long run, the fundamental weaknesses of the U.S.-Taliban agreement will most likely endanger America’s national security and doom prospects for a just and lasting peace in Afghanistan.

Why is that? First, under President Trump, the United States is widely seen to be committed to withdrawing from Afghanistan under almost any circumstances. There are no indications of what “conditions” might slow or halt an American drawdown of troops short of a major attack by Al Qaeda launched with clear Taliban support. Not sustained violence against Afghan forces, nor smaller-scale terrorist attacks, nor continued Islamic State operations seem likely to prompt the United States to reverse course. The Taliban know this and so does the Afghan government, reducing nearly to nil America’s influence over events in Afghanistan.

For those reasons, intra-Afghan negotiations, if they begin, will strongly favor the Taliban. By cutting a deal with the Taliban that excluded (and even failed to mention) the Afghan government, the United States legitimated the Taliban and further weakened the Afghan government. In committing to the Taliban to end the American military presence and drop sanctions, the United States also sacrificed its remaining leverage to help the government in intra-Afghan negotiations achieve critical shared objectives, like protecting democratic gains and preserving the rights of women. Given that intra-Afghan talks will take many months, if not years, to yield any progress, the United States is likely to withdraw before any deal is done, abandoning Afghanistan to the Taliban wolves.

Worse, after 14 months, the United States will be left without any military or counterterrorism capacity in Afghanistan, effectively subcontracting America’s security to the Taliban. During the Obama administration, we considered and rejected the idea of reverting to a civilian U.S. Embassy-only presence, because we understood that such a posture would leave American diplomats highly vulnerable to attack and increase the prospect of a Vietnam-style withdrawal of Americans under fire.

Finally, in lauding his capitulation to the Taliban as a diplomatic triumph denied to his predecessors, Mr. Trump reiterated his intention to meet with Taliban leaders, potentially even at Camp David. Meanwhile, he bragged about his “very good” relationship with the Taliban leader after calling its senior leader on Tuesday. More shockingly, Mr. Trump also revealed his own true feelings about Afghanistan, stating: “We should never have gotten in in the first place.”

Now we know America is led in wartime by a commander in chief who not only cheapens the sacrifice of the 3,500 American and NATO service members who perished in Afghanistan. More dangerously, Mr. Trump told the world he believes that the terrorists who murdered 3,000 Americans on 9/11 never deserved to be fought.
 
Taliban were attacking Afghan forces prompting air strikes from the U.S.

You don't negotiate with terrorists just like you don't buy food a the drive thru, they fuck you every time.

FyhVtTy.png
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top