More Troops to Afghan

[Darth Omar]

It's a false question.

That's what you guys don't seem to get. You also told us a bunch of shite about the Iraq War - and with each, basically the opposite happened.

Apart from baseless optimism, why would anyone think Afghanistan won't devolve into another terrorist hell hole, if we withdraw from there?

[Truth Detector]

It's a false question.

That's what you guys don't seem to get. You also told us a bunch of shite about the Iraq War - and with each, basically the opposite happened.

^A leftist moron who thinks that the US started the wars. Yes, Liberals really are THAT F'ing stupid.

[cancel2 2022]

You'll never get a straight answer on that.

Sadly you are right.

[Cancel 2020.1]

Apart from baseless optimism, why would anyone think Afghanistan won't devolve into another terrorist hell hole, if we withdraw from there?

Who knows? We've been there 16 years. We could be there another 16, and maybe 16 after that. It's morally wrong to sacrifice young men & women with such uncertain outcomes, on the "hope" that you can prevent more terrorism.

What you're really talking about IS nation-building. Sorry - no way to spin that. We shouldn't be engaged in nation-building, particularly when it involves putting brave young Americans in harm's way, indefinitely, with no clear outcome and no threat to our homeland that is immediate and identifiable.

Period.

[Cancel 2020.1]

I just love being lectured to about the "what ifs" from the pom-pom carriers of the Iraq War.

[Darth Omar]

Who knows? We've been there 16 years. We could be there another 16, and maybe 16 after that. It's morally wrong to sacrifice young men & women with such uncertain outcomes, on the "hope" that you can prevent more terrorism.

What you're really talking about IS nation-building. Sorry - no way to spin that. We shouldn't be engaged in nation-building, particularly when it involves putting brave young Americans in harm's way, indefinitely, with no clear outcome and no threat to our homeland that is immediate and identifiable.

Period.

It's not nation building because the nation is pre-existent. Nation building is tied to regime change.

Nice try though.

But like I suspected, you don't have answer for it.

[Cancel 2020.1]

It's not nation building because the nation is pre-existent. Nation building is tied to regime change.

Nice try though.

But like I suspected, you don't have answer for it.

Drool some more. So, that nation is all set? Then why do we have to stay?

If they're not all set, it's nation-building. You have a capability for denial which I have never really seen on the board.

[Darth Omar]

Drool some more. So, that nation is all set? Then why do we have to stay?

If they're not all set, it's nation-building. You have a capability for denial which I have never really seen on the board.

You're ability to obfuscate on an issue is astounding---and tiresome.

Why can't you just admit that you're willing to roll the dice on Afghanistan becoming a terrorist hell hole? And that you can't come up with a single reason why that optimism is justified, based on our past experience in the region?

Including especially, with your favorite topic, Iraq.

[Phantasmal]

It's a false question.

That's what you guys don't seem to get. You also told us a bunch of shite about the Iraq War - and with each, basically the opposite happened.

I was just reading that UN has wanted a mission boost in Afghanistan, Nikki Haley also meet in June with the Afghan Ammbassador,

https://usun.state.gov/remarks/7870

NATO is not willing, but Trump has asked them to commit troops.
https://www.google.com/amp/www.teleg...n-troops/amp/p

[Phantasmal]

You're ability to obfuscate on an issue is astounding---and tiresome.

Why can't you just admit that you're willing to roll the dice on Afghanistan becoming a terrorist hell hole? And that you can't come up with a single reason why that optimism is justified, based on our past experience in the region?

Including especially, with your favorite topic, Iraq.

It already is and has been a terrorists hell hole, what has changed? What is our being there fighting them doing besides picking our pockets? If terrorism from there is so feared, why is NATO so reluctant to return?

[dukkha]

Who knows? We've been there 16 years. We could be there another 16, and maybe 16 after that. It's morally wrong to sacrifice young men & women with such uncertain outcomes, on the "hope" that you can prevent more terrorism.

What you're really talking about IS nation-building. Sorry - no way to spin that. We shouldn't be engaged in nation-building, particularly when it involves putting brave young Americans in harm's way, indefinitely, with no clear outcome and no threat to our homeland that is immediate and identifiable.

Period.

with Ayman al-Zawahiri (AQ Core) being sheltered by Pakistan's Inter-Services Intelligence agency (ISI)
since being kicked out of Afhanistan now in Karachi ; it's more then a good bet Afghanistan would go right back to international terrorism.

[dukkha]

For decades, Washington put up with Islamabad’s protection of Al-Qaeda, the bin Ladens and the Afghan Taliban (which the ISI sees as a bulwark against Indian influence in Afghanistan) because it viewed Pakistan as an ally, however inconsistent, in the U.S. “global war on terrorism.”
But Islamabad’s coddling of Al-Qaeda, its unrestrained production of nuclear weapons and its continuing attacks on U.S.-friendly India with ISI-backed militant groups has frayed its ties to Washington, especially with the Trump administration.

The administration has yet to announce its new posture toward Islamabad, but a likely first step will be further cuts in direct U.S. military assistance, which peaked at $1.6 billion in 2011, unless Pakistan changes its ways. Washington could go nuclear on Pakistan—diplomatically speaking—by declaring it a state sponsor of terrorism. In March, Republican U.S. Representative Ted Poe of Texas reintroduced his bill to do just that.

There’s no sign of changes in Pakistan’s behavior, says Riedel. Islamabad’s posture on al-Zawahiri remains as it was on Osama bin Laden: “‘We don't know him, he's never been here, and we'll never let him back in,’ or something like that. Their official position up until May 2011 was Osama bin Laden has never been in Pakistan, and moreover he's dead.”

Under the influence of Curtis, and with so many ex-generals populating the administration, Trump is likely to tell Pakistan that "we're not going to tolerate safe havens, and that means we'll be prepared to attack them with unilateral means,"
Something better work against Al-Qaeda, because it remains a potent force with the ambition and capability to launch another spectacular attack against the United States” According to a Western diplomat interviewed by Newsweek, who asked for anonymity in exchange for discussing sensitive information, Al-Qaeda also remains interested a carrying out attacks “related to airlines.”

Al-Zawahiri has been “surprisingly quiet about Trump,” Riedel says. And he vows he will never be captured alive, says the Islamist militant who talked with him months ago in the tribal areas. He’s in some large Pakistani city now, protected by the ISI, with a “desperate last wish,” says his militant friend, for one last big attack against America “before folding his eyes.”

How Trump will get Pakistan to turn on him is anyone’s guess—and may never happen. The White House did not respond to a request for comment. But with Curtis moving from the think tanks to the White House, the price Islamabad pays for harboring him will undoubtedly rise.
http://www.newsweek.com/ayman-al-zaw...akistan-587732

[dukkha]

Mr Trump’s decision to remain in Afghanistan risked angering supporters who voted for his ‘America First’ campaign promises to end US foreign interventions.
Breitbart, the conservative news website run by his former strategist Steve Bannon, called the new strategy a "flip-flop."

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017...nistan-troops/

[Truth Detector]

Who knows? We've been there 16 years. We could be there another 16, and maybe 16 after that. It's morally wrong to sacrifice young men & women with such uncertain outcomes, on the "hope" that you can prevent more terrorism.

It's dumber still to do nothing and allow another 9-11 event that killed 3,000 innocents. Dunce.

What you're really talking about IS nation-building. Sorry - no way to spin that.

Wrong again; but at least you are consistent. The correct term is protecting our interests and citizens.

We shouldn't be engaged in nation-building,

Why? Because you say so? Fuck Off.

particularly when it involves putting brave young Americans in harm's way,

I have to laugh when America hating lying liberals presume to speak for our military.

indefinitely, with no clear outcome and no threat to our homeland that is immediate and identifiable.

The outcome is clear; victory. We don't leave until it is secured indefinitely no matter how long it takes. You don't speak for the men and women who serve this country and volunteered to protect American interests. But I get it; you speak for the thugs, despots and terrorists who would like nothing more than see America retreat with its tail between its legs. Loser.

Period.

You're on your period? Most certainly you are!

[Truth Detector]

I just love being lectured to about the "what ifs" from the pom-pom carriers of the Iraq War.

That's all you have ThingTard; what ifs. But we know you love being a moron and wrong all the time. It is a stunning record of wrong only exceeded by the equally stupid and moronic uber leftist BucklyTard.