Forum Index Tips & Rules
SelectSmart.com®
Before you decide
Over 20,000 selectors

Join to post comments.

Is your name welcomed below? Then you are invited to post in these forums: Politics Philosophy Diversions Theology
Welcome! » Log In » Create A New Profile

Well, our Nobel Peace Prize president just signed a deal to keep us in Afghanistan for another 12 years.

Posted by Mulva 
Really?

Still being there is a form of getting out?

Tell that to the Japanese.

So what do you think the expansion of the drone wars in countries we're not even at war with means for the future? Don't you think it's a bit stupid to go around targeting people we don't even have any intell on and don't even know who they are?

Perhaps you don't see the drone wars as actual wars...

Maybe you think keeping US forces in Afghansitan is a form of, what, modern day barn dances?
Cascade Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Really?
>
> Still being there is a form of getting out?
>
> Tell that to the Japanese.

So what's your point about Japan? Are you implying that our continued presence is tantamount to still being at war with Japan?
No.

But at least we declared war on Japan and had someone to treat with to end the war.

In Afghanistan we're simply occupiers.
What do you mean "treat with"?
Cascade Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> What do you mean "What"?


What we've got here is... failure to communicate.
treaty

"I hate it when people compare Dick Cheney to Darth Vader. Vader never avoided military service." -John Fugelsang
Ponderer Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> treaty


Oh thanks. I was thinking maybe he meant "threat" but that didn't make any sense either.

So I still don't get Cascade's point. A treaty is an agreement. Obama signed an agreeement with Karzai yesterday.
No, I meant "treat"

As in To treat.

To engage in negotiations, as to reach a settlement or agree on terms: "Both sides nonetheless are quite willing to treat with [the king]" (Gregory J. Wallance).

[www.thefreedictionary.com]
I think having most American troops get out is a form of getting out, yes.

____________________________________________
Start calling young men "Spiderman" even if they're black..
You're an idiot then.

If I stormed your house with a thousand people and then told you we were leaving only to leave behind a hundred people to keep you confined to a single room would you think that we had left?

On top of that, what Obama didn't mention is that the Talliban is still there and gearing up for more attacks because of the way we have handled the "war".

What Obama didn’t mention in Kabul
Just outside the Afghan capital, the Taliban is in control and preparing for a wider war
[www.salon.com]
"If I stormed your house with a thousand people and then told you we were leaving only to leave behind a hundred people to keep you confined to a single room would you think that we had left? "


What that has to do with most American forces pulling out of Afghanistan, I do not know.

____________________________________________
Start calling young men "Spiderman" even if they're black..
DId you read the agreement highlights? There's no garantee that any troops will pull out.
When the US withdraws from Afghanistan, the Taliban will end up back in control.
EVERYONE involved knows this.
Obama knows it, Karzai knows it, the Taliban know it, and the Afghani people know it.


Mac
Mac is of course correct. I called it Kabuki theater but in the end it is nothing but a delusion that we have some control over events. But we do not. The country is run by a bunch of badit warlords and Karzai is little more than the Mayor of Kabul. There is no economy except for the drug trade. And at last we are begining to see the tawdry end game beingplayed out with the same people as victims, the people of Afghanistan. We are no different than the Taliban or al-qaeda, in that it is the innocents that pasy the price
US-Afghan Pact Won’t End War or Night Raids

The optics surrounding the Barack Obama administration’s “Enduring Strategic Partnership” [.pdf] agreement with Afghanistan and the memorandums of understanding (MOU) accompanying it emphasize transition to Afghan responsibility and an end to U.S. war.

But the only substantive agreement reached between the U.S. and Afghanistan — well hidden in the agreements — has been to allow powerful U.S. Special Operations Forces (SOF) to continue to carry out the unilateral night raids on private homes that are universally hated in the Pashtun zones of Afghanistan.

The presentation of the new agreement on a surprise trip by President Obama to Afghanistan, with a prime-time presidential address and repeated briefings for the press, allows Obama to go into a tight presidential election campaign on a platform of ending an unpopular U.S. war in Afghanistan.

It also allows President Hamid Karzai to claim he has gotten control over the SOF night raids while getting a 10-year commitment of U.S. economic support.

But the actual text of the agreement and of the MOU on night raids included in it by reference will not end the U.S. war in Afghanistan, nor will they give Karzai control over night raids.

The Obama administration’s success in obscuring those facts is the real story behind the ostensible story of the agreement.

[original.antiwar.com]
they've spent all of these years building hundreds of bases in the region, now you want them to leave? how many soldiers does each drone replace?

==============================================================================

"The masses... do not conceive any ideas, sound or unsound. They only choose between the ideologies developed by the intellectual leaders of mankind. But their choice is final and determines the course of events. If they prefer bad doctrines, nothing can prevent disaster."
Cascade,
Why don't you quote the section of the agreement that allows "the powerful U.S. Special Operations Forces (SOF) to continue to carry out the unilateral night raids on private homes"? Also show us the wording that allows "President Hamid Karzai to claim he has gotten control over the SOF night raids while getting a 10-year commitment of U.S. economic support".

That would be valuable and credible information, rather somebody's say-so of what it says.
[www.whitehouse.gov]

See III, 2, c.

Hell, read the thing yourself.

There's lots of good stuff in there but knowing how we've treated agreements with occupied countries before I doubt that Afghanistan would have any recourse if we were to simply ignore the whole thing.
Cascade,
I read the agreement before I asked you about it. That section doesn't say what you said or think it does. I'm guessing that's why you don't quote it.
Curt Anderson Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Cascade,
> I read the agreement before I asked you about it.
> That section doesn't say what you said or think it
> does. I'm guessing that's why you don't quote
> it.


so you think antiwar.com made all of that up? mighty risky to do something like that

==============================================================================

"The masses... do not conceive any ideas, sound or unsound. They only choose between the ideologies developed by the intellectual leaders of mankind. But their choice is final and determines the course of events. If they prefer bad doctrines, nothing can prevent disaster."
I read the agreement before I asked you about it. That section doesn't say what you said or think it does. I'm guessing that's why you don't quote it. - Curt

That article was written by Gareth Porter. If he says it's in there, it's in there.

And it is.

The Enduring Strategic Partnership references the Memorandum of Understanding between The Islamic Republic of Afghanistan and the United States of America On Afghanization of Special Operations on Afghan Soil which begins:

The Government of the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan (hereinafter “Afghanistan”) and the Government of the United States of America (hereinafter “United States”), hereinafter known collectively as “Participants” and represented respectively by the Minister of Defense of the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan and the Commander, U.S. Forces-Afghanistan;

Recognizing the principles and provisions of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan;

Recognizing the progress already made in their partnership aimed at combating international terrorism and extremism and stabilizing Afghanistan;

Building on the progress of the ongoing Transition of lead responsibility in the security sector to the Afghan National Security Forces (ANSF) in accordance with the principles of the Lisbon Declaration;

Highlighting the United States’ full respect for Afghanistan’s sovereignty;

Recalling the recommendations of the November 2011 Traditional Loya Jirga, with particular focus on the recommendation that “night operations conducted by the American forces must be Afghanized as soon as possible”;

Taking note of the progress that has already been made on the Afghanization of special operations;

Have reached the following understandings:


[www.afghanistan-un.org]



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 05/03/2012 08:00PM by Mulva.
TXcup,
Not that risky. It's pretty obvious that antiwar.com has an agenda and they know what their readers want to hear. I generally agree with their views, but groups like this are more interested in zealously promoting their agenda than worrying about getting the facts straight. Not to mention I read the agreement, so I knew what it really said.

But more than that logic told me that they were BSing. Nothing in that agreement "allows" or even addresses the notion of the US to carrying out unilateral night raids on private homes. That's like the saying the US Constitution allows Congress to boil live kittens in a caldron--because it doesn't specifically prohibit it.
And here's the reference in the Enduring Strategic Partnership:

III. Advancing Long-Term Security

2. In order to strengthen security and stability in Afghanistan , contribute to regional and international peace and stability, combat al-Qaeda and its affiliates, and enhance the ability of Afghanistan to deter threats against its sovereignty, security, and international integrity, the Parties shall continue to foster close cooperation concerning defense and security arrangements, as may be mutually determined.

c. The conduct of ongoing military operations shall continue under existing frameworks, which include the Memorandum of Understanding on the Transfer of U.S. Detention Facilities (2012) and the Memorandum of Understanding on the Afghanization of Special Operations (2012), until superseded by the Bilateral Security Agreement or other arrangements, as mutually determined. This obligation is without prejudice to the status, commitments, and understandings of those frameworks, until superseded as noted above.

[www.whitehouse.gov]



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 05/03/2012 08:24PM by Mulva.
Mulva,
Read what you just posted. It says "close cooperation" and "mutually determined". By definition it's not unilateral.
Curt,

As Mulva pointed out the article is written by Gareth Porter. If you don't respect antiwar.com then you must respect Gareth Porter.

And as Mulva pointed out to you, the wording IS in there.

"The conduct of ongoing military operations shall continue under existing frameworks"

This includes night raids and drones as are being carried out under existing frameworks.
Read the whole thing.

From the Memorandum of Understanding [www.afghanistan-un.org] :

U.S. Forces are expected to continue to support such operations and the relevant Afghan participating institutions with the full range of support necessary for those operations and institutions to be successful. This may include but is not limited to providing intelligence and intelligence analysis to the KAQ/QKA in order to give them full operational capability, as well as helicopter and fixed-wing lift, fires support, MEDEVAC, and security. [emphasis mine]
"to foster close cooperation concerning defense and security arrangements, as may be mutually determined."

Foster: To promote the growth and development of, to cultivate.

This is vague on purpose. This allows the US to continue opperations as they stand while pretending to "foster" a working relationship.

The wording is meant to appease those who oppose night raids and drone strikes while not dedicating to ending either.
What's happening is that the U.S. has been conducting the night raids, but they're transitioning to turn those operations over to the Afghani security forces. The new agreement is saying that the U.S. will continue in that role until its able to turn all security over to Afghanistan, which could take another 12 years.
Cascade Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Curt,
>
> As Mulva pointed out the article is written by
> Gareth Porter. If you don't respect antiwar.com
> then you must respect Gareth Porter.
>

I must respect Gareth Porter? Sorry, I don't hold him in esteem as you apparently do. Porter has been a denier of the genocide committed by Pol Pot in Cambodia.
Democracy Now! had a great interview with Tariq Ali (author of Bush In Babylon) and Col. Ann Wright on yesterday's show.

From the interview:

TARIQ ALI: Well, Amy, I mean, A, why is he there? It’s clearly a lot more to do with the re-election campaign, where the execution of Osama bin Laden is obviously going to be a key feature, and they’ve started using it, and secondly, to pretend that somehow this war is over. But it’s not over, because the United States can stay there or use the so-called Afghan bases until 2024. And forgotten, Amy, are the pools of blood, the embers, the cries of rage, the sobbing of women and children, and the horrors that have been inflicted on that country. And this is what the real cause for continuing terrorism is. I noticed the President saying, "I am in Bagram Air Base, 7,000 miles away." He could have said, "And not far from here is Bagram Prison, where prisoners are still being tortured without any recourse to law at all." So it’s essentially a PR visit designed to aid the re-election campaign. As far as Afghanistan is concerned, everyone, including the Pentagon, knows that this war is unwinnable.

NERMEEN SHAIKH: But Tariq, can you say something, Tariq, about the actual agreement that was signed, because a number of people have pointed out that key issues have not been resolved, including how long some U.S. forces will stay in the country even after the formal withdrawal in 2014?

TARIQ ALI: Well, you know, formal withdrawals are useless, because essentially what the agreement—Karzai has signed. And who does he speak for? He’s not a sovereign leader. Afghanistan is not a sovereign state; it’s an occupied state. So having President Obama go there and sign a deal with a puppet president who represents nobody and who can barely travel inside the country itself is a joke. And for this guy to agree that U.S. forces can use the bases 'til 2024 is a total joke, because he won't be there. If the Americans really leave Afghanistan, they’d be well advised to take him with them.

AMY GOODMAN: Well, let’s talk about President Hamid Karzai for a minute. During an interview with Christiane Amanpour on CNN, he talked about the massacre of 17 Afghan villagers earlier this year. He denied calling U.S. soldiers demons but said the killings were an act of intentional terrorism.

PRESIDENT HAMID KARZAI: Demons, I have never used the word "demon" in the English language. The word "intentional terror," yes, I did use in the English language. It was my input into the statement that we made. This was intentional. When someone walks out of a military barrack and goes to kill villagers, that’s intentional, and that’s terrorism.

AMY GOODMAN: That’s Afghanistan’s president, Hamid Karzai. Tariq Ali?

TARIQ ALI: I know. Well, what else could he say, Amy, when it was such an obvious, blatant violation of everything the West is supposed to stand for? And, of course, pretending that this is an individual act by one guy, not part of a general problem. I mean, this is one guy doing it. Essentially, U.S. military policy in the region is to do it systematically in different parts of the country. That’s the real problem. And the fact that Karzai has to come out and say this in these conditions shows how much anger there is. And by the way, 60 percent of U.S. citizens, according to the last Pew foundation opinion pollings, are against carrying on in that country. So the Afghans don’t want it, American citizens don’t want it, but the United States president is carrying on.

NERMEEN SHAIKH: But one of the points that Obama made in his speech last night was that the U.S. will work with Afghanistan over the next decade, but will not be establishing permanent bases in the country.

TARIQ ALI: Well, I mean, you know, their bases are already there.

PRESIDENT BARACK OBAMA: We will work with the Afghans to determine what support they need to accomplish two narrow security missions beyond 2014: counterterrorism and continued training. But we will not build permanent bases in this country, nor will we be patrolling its cities and mountains. That will be the job of the Afghan people.

NERMEEN SHAIKH: Tariq, your response?

TARIQ ALI: It’s, you know, surreal. The Afghan people have made it clear they don’t want them. The training he talks about, the number of incidents there have been of trained Afghan soldiers actually then breaking loose and carrying out attacks on the occupying armies in Afghanistan are now legion. The special agents they have trained have turned on intelligence agents from the West and killed them. And the reason for that is that large numbers of Afghans join the army and the police forces to get training, because that is what the insurgent leadership tells them to do, and then they turn these guns on the occupiers. So the notion that everything is calm and that Karzai somehow represents something is a totally grotesque analysis.

[www.democracynow.org]
Porter rejected the initial reports of the killings and he cited reporting by reputable news outlets in support of this position. But he also stated that they were responsible for mass killings and mass starvations.

That's a far cry from being a "denier of the genocide".

Porter is a very well respected investigative journalist. And his work is some of the best out there.
Prolonging America's military involvement in Afghanistan for another day let alone another 12 years is unconscionable. If there was ever a reason for the Nobel committee to revoke a Peace Prize, this is it.

Tariq Ali ends with the following statement:

Well, I mean, this is part of the cycle of war, vengeance, terror, response from insurgents, more war, more vengeance, more terror. These drone attacks, we know full well—anyone in Pakistan will tell you about them—kill large numbers of innocents. Now, by "large numbers," I don’t mean tens of thousands, obviously, but I mean several hundreds, occasionally more than that, over a year and a half. And Obama has upped the drone attacks. During his period in office, the number of drone attack—during his first year in office, there were more drone attacks in Pakistan than during the previous five years of the Bush administration. So here he’s been much worse, much more aggressive, and much more militaristic.

And the real problem, apart from all the moral and ethical problems, is they have nil impact. They kill people, they kill innocents, and they create more problems for the United States. As for the notion that these drone attacks somehow are defending the United States and making it safe against terror, that is so crazy. It really is crazy thinking. And if these people still haven’t realized it, I don’t know whether they ever will. These drone attacks, most people, many, many international lawyers regard them as illegal anyway. Targeting your own citizens abroad, targeting your own citizens where they are, is an added dimension to this. This is the first president who’s now acquired the right, the legal right, to order the targeting and killing of any U.S. citizen without recourse to law. This has happened under this particular president



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 05/03/2012 11:28PM by Mulva.
Interesting question: Will Afghanistan be a better place overall if all American forces leave? Anyone ready to defend the Taliban as the kind of folks we'd want running a government?

____________________________________________
Start calling young men "Spiderman" even if they're black..
News flash, we were the ones who supported, trained, armed and paid the Talliban. We supported the Talliban against the Russians and then decades after.

It was only after they declined to support the pipeline that we invaded.

And, unless you want to be in Afghanistan forever, some kind of agreement will have to be made with the religious tribes.
Newsflash. There was some trouble with jetliners flying into buildings, I believe.

____________________________________________
Start calling young men "Spiderman" even if they're black..
And I believe we've knocked off most of the AQ leadership by now. There was that thing with assassinating OBL if you remember.

Read Tariq Ali's last statement which I posted above. He was born and raised in Lahore, Afghanistan. He understands the situation thoroughly.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 05/03/2012 11:27PM by Mulva.
NEwsflash HHH, the hijackers were Saudi and the Talliban offered to give us Osama if we only presented proof that he carried out 9/11.

But you must have missed those facts at some point over the last ten years.
People who get all their news from the U.S. corporate media are more misinformed than people who don't follow the news at all.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 05/03/2012 11:31PM by Mulva.
Sorry, only registered users may post in this forum.

Click here to login


This forum powered by Phorum