User Tag List

+ Reply to Thread
Page 1 of 4 1234 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 38

Thread: AfPak - 2014 "withdrawl date" is BS

  1. #1
    Points: 1,023, Level: 7
    Level completed: 25%, Points required for next Level: 227
    Overall activity: 1.0%
    Achievements:
    3 months registered1000 Experience Points
    annata's Avatar Member
    Karma
    52
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    165
    Points
    1,023
    Level
    7
    Thanks Given
    44
    Thanked 36x in 26 Posts
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    3

    AfPak - 2014 "withdrawl date" is BS

    KABUL, Afghanistan (AP) A new strategic partnership that commits the U.S. to defend Afghanistan militarily for 10 years after most foreign forces leave in 2014 is intended to signal that the U.S. will not tolerate a resurgent al-Qaida or attacks launched by militants from neighboring Pakistan.

    The agreement, parts of which were read out Monday in the Afghan parliament, is big on symbolism but light on substance. It leaves out specifics, including how much funding the U.S. will provide to support Afghan security forces or how many U.S. troops will stay on after the withdrawal deadline.

    Afghanistan, for its part, insisted on approving any American military operations after 2014 and barred the U.S. from using its soil to attack other countries, such as neighboring Pakistan, where the Taliban, al-Qaida and al-Qaida-linked militants all have staging bases.
    "In the end, of course, the U.S. and allied interests differ from those of most Afghans," said Andrew Exum, a senior fellow at the Center for a New American Security, a think tank in Washington.
    "The United States is most concerned with dismantling al-Qaida, while Afghans are most concerned with what infrastructure and financing the United States and its allies will provide beyond 2014."

    After 10 years of U.S.-led war, insurgents linked to the Taliban and al-Qaida remain a threat and as recently as a week ago launched a large-scale attack on the capital, Kabul, and three other cities. Both groups operate from within Afghanistan, as well as from across the border in Pakistan.

    It took 18 months of painstaking, often tense negotiations to hammer out the accord, which was reached Sunday and lays out for the first time the relationship the U.S. will have with Afghanistan once the majority of U.S. troops have gone home. It builds on hard-won understandings reached recently on the controversial issues of control over detainees and the conduct of night raids by U.S. special forces.

    Exum said the Obama administration had hoped to have the agreement finalized last summer, but Afghan leaders notably President Hamid Karzai were reluctant to agree to a continued U.S. military presence beyond 2014.
    "The United States and the government of Afghanistan were able to find enough common ground to get an agreement on tough issues such as detainees, basing rights, and the so-called night raids. This is a real diplomatic achievement for the Obama administration," Exum said.

    The accord is meant to reassure the Afghan people that the U.S. won't abandon them, to send a warning to the Taliban and to serve notice to Pakistan, which many analysts believe has been waiting for a U.S. withdrawal that would allow the Taliban to reassert power, giving Islamabad strategic control over its neighbor.

    There have also been fears that Afghanistan's rival ethnic groups, including those that make up the Northern Alliance that defeated the Pashtun Taliban, would again fight for power and influence. A similar struggle after the Soviets left Afghanistan in 1989 nearly destroyed the country.
    "This continued international military presence, however, will hopefully arrest some of the momentum toward another civil war and will also hopefully force Pakistani decision makers to re-examine their own long-standing assumptions about the long-term U.S. and allied commitment to Afghanistan," Exum said.

    The Afghan parliament got a first look at the strategic partnership agreement after the country's national security adviser read out portions of it Monday in the lower house. The full agreement has not been made public.
    The document which still has to go through internal reviews and be signed by Presidents Barack Obama and Karzai commits the U.S. to defend Afghanistan from any outside interference via "diplomatic means, political means, economic means and even military means," national security adviser Rangin Dadfar Spanta told the assembled parliamentarians. He stressed that any such actions would be taken only with Afghan agreement.
    The draft was initialed by U.S. Ambassador Ryan Crocker and Spanta on Sunday and is to be signed before a NATO summit in Chicago on May 20-21.
    Many Afghans have expressed worries that the U.S. wants permanent bases, a setup that would make it more of an occupying force than an ally. Spanta said that specific decisions about bases will be left to the later deal.
    http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/...3758b197441c24

  2. #2
    Points: 3,152, Level: 13
    Level completed: 21%, Points required for next Level: 398
    Overall activity: 1.0%
    Achievements:
    3 months registered1000 Experience Points
    keyser soze's Avatar Senior Member
    Karma
    65
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Posts
    695
    Points
    3,152
    Level
    13
    Thanks Given
    224
    Thanked 54x in 46 Posts
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    3
    It was all laid out years ago and one requirement was that we be in 'endless war'...

  3. #3
    Points: 1,023, Level: 7
    Level completed: 25%, Points required for next Level: 227
    Overall activity: 1.0%
    Achievements:
    3 months registered1000 Experience Points
    annata's Avatar Member
    Karma
    52
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    165
    Points
    1,023
    Level
    7
    Thanks Given
    44
    Thanked 36x in 26 Posts
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    3
    Quote Originally Posted by keyser soze View Post
    It was all laid out years ago and one requirement was that we be in 'endless war'...
    yeppers. "perpetual wars" is the term i've used -same thing -

    Quick Quiz: what is the legal basis for AfPak?? wasn't it some vague authorizaton over 10 years ago? (asking?)

  4. #4
    Original Ranter
    Points: 82,214, Level: 69
    Level completed: 91%, Points required for next Level: 236
    Overall activity: 0%
    Achievements:
    SocialRecommendation Second Class1 year registeredOverdriveTagger First Class50000 Experience Points
    MMC's Avatar Banned
    Karma
    2528
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    Chicago Illinois
    Posts
    22,709
    Points
    82,214
    Level
    69
    Thanks Given
    3,227
    Thanked 1,662x in 1,465 Posts
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by annata View Post
    yeppers. "perpetual wars" is the term i've used -same thing -

    Quick Quiz: what is the legal basis for AfPak?? wasn't it some vague authorizaton over 10 years ago? (asking?)

    Yes, and do you recall Obama's remarks when he gave the draw down date? Especially concenring Afghanistan and bringing the conflict to an end. Now do you think that when he goes on National Television he should be FORCED to watch his remarks with what he has said on the Campaign trail. So he can't play his deliberately stutter game while speaking and trying to show some fake correlation he has to others.

    Lets not forget McCain has consistently said that we would still be in Afghanistan even after Obama's draw down date. One thing is for certian Obama's Foreign Policy with these guys sucks.

  5. #5
    Points: 3,152, Level: 13
    Level completed: 21%, Points required for next Level: 398
    Overall activity: 1.0%
    Achievements:
    3 months registered1000 Experience Points
    keyser soze's Avatar Senior Member
    Karma
    65
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Posts
    695
    Points
    3,152
    Level
    13
    Thanks Given
    224
    Thanked 54x in 46 Posts
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    3
    Quote Originally Posted by annata View Post
    yeppers. "perpetual wars" is the term i've used -same thing -

    Quick Quiz: what is the legal basis for AfPak?? wasn't it some vague authorizaton over 10 years ago? (asking?)
    I hope someone with a better memory can answer your question...I'd have to root around the web and that isn't going to happen today, at least not right now. I was trying to remember the name of the document the neocons wrote that contained the entire plan and haven't done that yet...it was scrubbed but I know it's available if I can remember the name of the damned thing...*sigh*

    Personally I think the Afghan people want us out. They don't like being occupied and we've been a disaster to them...we've done very little to improve their lives and much to cause pain and suffering. This isn't about them...we don't care any more about them than we do our own people.

  6. #6
    Original Ranter
    Points: 82,214, Level: 69
    Level completed: 91%, Points required for next Level: 236
    Overall activity: 0%
    Achievements:
    SocialRecommendation Second Class1 year registeredOverdriveTagger First Class50000 Experience Points
    MMC's Avatar Banned
    Karma
    2528
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    Chicago Illinois
    Posts
    22,709
    Points
    82,214
    Level
    69
    Thanks Given
    3,227
    Thanked 1,662x in 1,465 Posts
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    0
    Yeah annata people think the Afghans want us out. Just like they wanted the Russians out. Also like they Wanted the Brits. The only diffenence is with us is.....the Afghans need our money. So they will play the game.....as the Dope dealing Karzai has played it. Albeit losing some of his family in the process.

  7. #7
    dadakarma
    dadakarma's Avatar Guest
    Quote Originally Posted by keyser soze View Post
    i hope someone with a better memory can answer your question...i'd have to root around the web and that isn't going to happen today, at least not right now. I was trying to remember the name of the document the neocons wrote that contained the entire plan and haven't done that yet...it was scrubbed but i know it's available if i can remember the name of the damned thing...*sigh*

    personally i think the afghan people want us out. They don't like being occupied and we've been a disaster to them...we've done very little to improve their lives and much to cause pain and suffering. This isn't about them...we don't care any more about them than we do our own people.
    Project for a New American Century (PNAC)

  8. #8
    Points: 3,152, Level: 13
    Level completed: 21%, Points required for next Level: 398
    Overall activity: 1.0%
    Achievements:
    3 months registered1000 Experience Points
    keyser soze's Avatar Senior Member
    Karma
    65
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Posts
    695
    Points
    3,152
    Level
    13
    Thanks Given
    224
    Thanked 54x in 46 Posts
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    3
    Quote Originally Posted by dadakarma View Post
    Project for a New American Century (PNAC)
    Project For A New American Century..that was it? OK..smarty with a memory...what was the name of the document that is no longer posted online that outlined the 'plan'...which included a false flag attack....

    Thanks by the way :0)

  9. #9
    dadakarma
    dadakarma's Avatar Guest
    Quote Originally Posted by keyser soze View Post
    Project For A New American Century..that was it? OK..smarty with a memory...what was the name of the document that is no longer posted online that outlined the 'plan'...which included a false flag attack....

    Thanks by the way :0)
    Wish I could say.

  10. #10
    Points: 3,152, Level: 13
    Level completed: 21%, Points required for next Level: 398
    Overall activity: 1.0%
    Achievements:
    3 months registered1000 Experience Points
    keyser soze's Avatar Senior Member
    Karma
    65
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Posts
    695
    Points
    3,152
    Level
    13
    Thanks Given
    224
    Thanked 54x in 46 Posts
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    3
    Quote Originally Posted by dadakarma View Post
    Wish I could say.
    Damn, that means I have to go on a search mission....Thanks anyway

    The Project for the New American Century seeks to establish what they call 'Pax Americana' across the globe. Essentially, their goal is to transform America, the sole remaining superpower, into a planetary empire by force of arms. A report released by PNAC in September of 2000 entitled 'Rebuilding America's Defenses' codifies this plan, which requires a massive increase in defense spending and the fighting of several major theater wars in order to establish American dominance. The first has been achieved in Bush's new budget plan, which calls for the exact dollar amount to be spent on defense that was requested by PNAC in 2000. Arrangements are underway for the fighting of the wars.[4]http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Project_for_the_New_American_Centu ry

    Among the key conclusions of PNAC's defense strategy document (Rebuilding America's Defenses) were the following [4]:
    • "Develop and deploy global missile defenses to defend the American homeland and American allies, and to provide a secure basis for U.S. power projection around the world."
    • "Control the new 'international commons' of space and 'cyberspace,' and pave the way for the creation of a new military service--U.S. Space Forces--with the mission of space control."
    • "Increase defense spending, adding $15 billion to $20 billion to total defense spending annually."
    • "Exploit the 'revolution in military affairs' [transformation to high-tech, unmanned weaponry] to insure the long-term superiority of U.S. conventional forces."
    • "Need to develop a new family of nuclear weapons designed to address new sets of military requirements" complaining that the U.S. has "virtually ceased development of safer and more effective nuclear weapons."
    • "Facing up to the realities of multiple constabulary missions that will require a permanent allocation of U.S. forces."
    • "America must defend its homeland" by "reconfiguring its nuclear force" and by missile defense systems that "counteract the effects of the proliferation of ballistic missiles andweapons of mass destruction."
    • "Need for a larger U.S. security perimeter" and the U.S. "should seek to establish a network of 'deployment bases' or 'forward operating bases' to increase the reach of current and future forces," citing the need to move beyond Western Europe and Northeast Asia to increased permanent military presence in Southeast Asia and "other regions of East Asia." Necessary "to cope with the rise of China to great-power status."
    • Redirecting the U.S. Air Force to move "toward a global first-strike force."
    • End the Clinton administration's "devotion" to the Anti-Ballistic Missile treaty.
    • "North Korea, Iran, Iraq, or similar states [should not be allowed] to undermine American leadership, intimidate American allies, or threaten the American homeland itself."
    • "Main military missions" necessary to "preserve Pax Americana" and a "unipolar 21st century" are the following: "secure and expand zones of democratic peace, deter rise of new great-power competitor, defend key regions (Europe, East Asia, Middle East), and exploit transformation of war."
    According to the PNAC report, "The American peace has proven itself peaceful, stable, and durable. Yet no moment in international politics can be frozen in time: even a global Pax Americana will not preserve itself." To preserve this "American peace" through the 21st century, the PNAC report concludes that the global order "must have a secure foundation on unquestioned U.S. military preeminence." The report struck a prescient note when it observed that "the process of transformation is likely to be a long one, absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event--like a new Pearl Harbor."

    Many of PNAC's conclusions and recommendations were reflected in the White House's National Security Strategy document of September 2002, which reflects the "peace through strength" credo that shapes PNAC strategic thinking.
    This is when they started to build their 'private' army...
    Last edited by keyser soze; 04-27-2012 at 01:52 PM.

+ Reply to Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts


Forum Topsite Critical Acclaim
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO