Page 8 of 9 FirstFirst ...
6
7
8
9
LastLast
  1. #141
    Exclusive: U.S. has intel Taliban doesn't plan to abide by peace deal

    RIP Taliban Peace Plan: February 29th 2019 to March 6th 2019.
    Democrats are the best! I will never ever question a Democrat again. I LOVE the Democrats!

  2. #142
    The Undying Breccia's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    NY, USA
    Posts
    39,907
    Quote Originally Posted by Paranoid Android View Post
    RIP Taliban Peace Plan: February 29th 2019 to March 6th 2019.
    From the cited article:

    The U.S. government has collected persuasive intelligence that the Taliban do not intend to honor the promises they have made in the recently signed deal with the United States, three American officials tell NBC News, undercutting what has been days of hopeful talk by President Donald Trump and his top aides.

    "They have no intention of abiding by their agreement," said one official briefed on the intelligence, which two others described as explicit evidence shedding light on the Taliban's intentions.

    Trump himself acknowledged that reality in extraordinary comments Friday, saying the Taliban could "possibly" overrun the Afghan government after U.S. troops withdraw from the country.

    "Countries have to take care of themselves," Trump told reporters at the White House. "You can only hold someone's hand for so long." Asked if the Taliban could eventually seize power, Trump said it's "not supposed to happen that way, but it possibly will."

    The intelligence described by the American officials is consistent with what Taliban sources have been telling an NBC News reporter in Pakistan. Those Taliban representatives say the Taliban views the peace process as a way of securing the withdrawal of American "occupiers," after which it will attack the U.S.-backed government in Afghanistan.

    Defense and intelligence officials told NBC News they believe Trump is determined to pull U.S. troops out of Afghanistan regardless of what the Taliban does.

    "Zal Khalilzad [Trump's special envoy] is trying to give Trump cover to get him through the election," former CIA official Doug London, who studied the Taliban closely while conducting counterterrorism operations, told NBC News.
    "But if they agree to --"

    Some experts have expressed skepticism that the Taliban will ever stop harboring terrorists, regardless of any paper agreement.

    Former CIA official London points out that that al Qaeda figures have married into Taliban families, cementing ties between the two groups.

    In October, when a joint U.S. and Afghan team hunted down and killed Asim Umar, al Qaeda's South Asia chief, they found him embedded with the Taliban in southern Afghanistan, officials said at the time.

    "The Taliban could not assure its followers abandonment of their terrorist guests even of they wanted," London said. "Many of these groups are inextricably tied through marriage, tribal ties and military interdependence."
    Bolded for emphasis. Bolded and orange for what some of you have been saying: this is not a peace deal, this is terms of surrender. The US appears planning to leave Afghanistan, and let the Taliban -- the terrorists who shielded bin Laden from us after 9/11, the terrorists fighting democracy every step of the way (yes, yes, contentious issue, but they have been fighting it), the terrorists with known plans to attack the government as soon as we leave -- take over the country, making every life spent by US, NATO, Afghani or other allied forces in vain.

    Trump's solution to the war never ending is to give up and go home. Anyone defending this move as "the lesser of two evils" or whatever must now admit this is giving up and going home. You can still support it, but you're supporting a surrender to terrorists.

    Where the fuck is @Skroe when you need him? I do have a fallback position:

    Signing this agreement with Taliban is an unacceptable risk to America's civilian population. This is an Obama-style deal. Legitimizing Taliban sends the wrong signal to ISIS and al Qaeda terrorists, and to America's enemies generally.
    Oh, as quoted above and just so we're clear: Trump legitimized the Taliban by dealing directly with them. Yes, directly is important. He negotiated with them, and not the Afghani government, which sends to the Taliban, the Afghan people, and the world that the Taliban are in charge here.

    "That's not what --"

    "'We will ask the Afghan leadership and other political factions that since the U.S. has accepted us and recognized our position, it is time for you to accept us and give us the country peacefully," one Taliban member who was not authorized to speak to the media told NBC News.
    As it says elsewhere in the article, the Taliban do not trust Trump. They are already suspicious that, if he wins the election, he simply won't withdraw troops. Which, in turn, means the signed agreement has nearly no troop draw-down before the election. Therefore, it's not just possible but likely that the Taliban will just assume they're going to be occupied either way and just start murdering people again. Or, and this is arguably worse, they could demand Trump withdraw more troops sooner, or they will start murdering people. Which would be the influence of a political situation through threats and violence. Literal terrorism.

    Which is far worse. The President of the United States being directly threatened by a terrorist group isn't exactly new. Doing so by the phone? That'd be new. Agreeing? That's horrifying. And it would be uniquely Trump's achievement.

  3. #143
    Quote Originally Posted by Breccia View Post
    snip.
    would be interested in what alternative you belive there is to dealing with the taliban?

  4. #144
    The Undying Breccia's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    NY, USA
    Posts
    39,907
    Quote Originally Posted by jonnysensible View Post
    would be interested in what alternative you belive there is to dealing with the taliban?
    That's not a defense of negotiating with terrorists. It's especially not a defense against surrendering to terrorists. Trump's the one who ran on the promise of bringing troops back from the Middle East, and did so by surrendering to terrorists, legitimizing them on the world stage, and handing them a country. That's appalling. Why don't you find it appalling?

  5. #145
    Quote Originally Posted by Breccia View Post
    That's not a defense of negotiating with terrorists. It's especially not a defense against surrendering to terrorists. Trump's the one who ran on the promise of bringing troops back from the Middle East, and did so by surrendering to terrorists, legitimizing them on the world stage, and handing them a country. That's appalling. Why don't you find it appalling?
    You dodged my question of how you would solve the afganistan problem, by basically saying Im morally flawed. Thats fucking lazy.
    Afganistan isnt the ME also...

    The reality on the ground is America wants out. The taliban control most of the country as a shadow government, and Afgan government only really exists inside the green zone. Whats the game plan here if you cant deal with the taliban?

  6. #146
    The Undying Breccia's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    NY, USA
    Posts
    39,907
    Quote Originally Posted by jonnysensible View Post
    You dodged my question of how you would solve the afganistan problem, by basically saying Im morally flawed.
    Nope. I responded by saying it wasn't a defense and that it was Trump's job. Then asked why you weren't appalled. Feel free to respond, since you seem so concerned about dodging questions. Feel free so say "I am appalled". That's your right.

    Trump has the State Department, Pentagon, dozens if not hundreds of ambassadors, and multiple intelligence agencies, not to mention Bolton and Pence. Despite all that, he chose to hand Afghanistan over to the Taliban, over the protests of the Afghani government, concede surrender, and leave -- no matter if the Taliban live up to their agreement or not. You don't get to score bonus points by saying "a public school math teacher couldn't think of anything better in half an hour".

    Asking if I have a better idea isn't a defense for what actually happened. I didn't doge your question. You aimed at the wrong target.

  7. #147
    Quote Originally Posted by Breccia View Post
    Nope. I responded by saying it wasn't a defense and that it was Trump's job. Then asked why you weren't appalled. Feel free to respond, since you seem so concerned about dodging questions. Feel free so say "I am appalled". That's your right.

    Trump has the State Department, Pentagon, dozens if not hundreds of ambassadors, and multiple intelligence agencies, not to mention Bolton and Pence. Despite all that, he chose to hand Afghanistan over to the Taliban, over the protests of the Afghani government, concede surrender, and leave -- no matter if the Taliban live up to their agreement or not. You don't get to score bonus points by saying "a public school math teacher couldn't think of anything better in half an hour".

    Asking if I have a better idea isn't a defense for what actually happened. I didn't doge your question. You aimed at the wrong target.
    no one handed Afganistan over. They took it. Its been coming ever since the first American bomb dropped. The agreement is awful, but the facts on the ground havent changed. The Taliban know the USA can always go home, and there is no reason for them not to keep pushing against a government so corrupt that as soon as the US leave it will fall apart. Again it is awful the taliban started out as reactionaries, moved into nihilism and now look like the Eastern Camorra. They fucking blow.

    You seem to think there is a silver bullet here. There isnt. Any solution to Afganistan involves the Taliban, they are needed to fight ISIS and again they control most of the country already. Given the other plan was Eric Princes viceroy scheme this really isnt that bad.

  8. #148
    The Undying Breccia's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    NY, USA
    Posts
    39,907
    President Trump's Disgraceful Peace Deal with the Taliban

    There is a difference between peace and retreat. The Trump administration’s agreement with the Taliban represents a full retreat. It’s an agreement that most Republicans would deplore if a Democrat president made the deal, and they’d be right to be angry.

    Let’s begin with the elephant in the room. There is no meaningful argument that the fate of Afghanistan is somehow irrelevant to our national security. The War in Afghanistan was no “war of choice.” On 9/11 our nation suffered its worst attack since Pearl Harbor. It suffered its worst attack on an American city since the British burned Washington D.C. on August 24, 1814, and the Taliban were intimately involved. That attack came from an enemy operating with the permission and under the protection of the same Taliban the Trump administration deals with today.

    It is true that the conflict in Afghanistan has been long (19 years), deadly (more than 2,400 Americans have lost their lives), and frustrating. It is true that Americans want it to end. And a true peace deal would bring welcome relief not just to the United States, but also to an Afghan nation that has seen indescribable pain and suffering. But there is no hope for peace when your opponent intends to continue the fight, and the hope for peace diminishes further still when the proposed peace agreement diminishes allies and strengthens your enemies.

    If you read the peace agreement itself, you’ll note immediately that it gives the Taliban a series of concrete, measurable gifts. First, there’s an immediate allied withdrawal – down to 8,600 American troops (and proportionate numbers of allied troops) within 135 days. The remainder of American and allied forces will leave within 14 months.

    At the same time, the United States will immediately and substantially reinforce the Taliban by seeking the release of 5,000 Taliban prisoners by March 20. Even worse, the United States further agreed to a goal of “releasing all remaining prisoners over the course of the subsequent three months.” It will do this at the same time that it commits to the “goal” of removing sanctions from members of the Taliban that include travel bans, asset freezes, and an arms embargo.

    The combination of the planned American retreat and the planned prisoner release would represent a substantial change in the balance of forces in Afghanistan. This would come without any agreement by the Taliban to cease hostilities against our allies.

    At this point, the deal looks worse than a simple withdrawal. America can leave all on its own without also agreeing to seek the release of Taliban prisoners. It can leave all on its own without promising to ease sanctions. So why agree to the additional concessions?

    America is making these concrete concessions in exchange for unenforceable promises from an untrustworthy enemy. The Taliban promise that they will not allow its members or members of al-Qaeda to use Afghan soil to threaten American national security. The promise to “send a clear message” that those who threaten the United States “have no place in Afghanistan.” Yet the agreement released to the public provides no verification or enforcement provisions for these assurances, and once America is out of Afghanistan, our ability to enforce those promises absent a new, substantial military buildup will be limited to nonexistent.

    In other words, we will be placing our faith in the Taliban to help protect American national security.

    There are frustrated Americans who will accept this agreement regardless of the terms. They’ll consent to the betrayal of our allies and the reinforcement of our enemy because they believe we’ve “failed” and that it’s time to end the “endless war.” But we must reject the narrative of failure, and phrases like “endless war” shed more heat than light.

    The American military in Afghanistan has not failed in its ultimate objective since 9/11. It has kept America safe from any terrible repeat of that dreadful day. It has removed the Taliban from power, and denied Al-Qaeda and other enemies the safe havens they need to reconstitute and re-emerge as a worldwide terrorist menace. No, we have not extinguished the Taliban, and no we have not transformed Afghanistan. But we have defended our nation, and we are now defending our nation while suffering only a small fraction of the casualties (and deploying a fraction of the troops) from the height of the Afghan war.

    And debates about “endless war” all too often presume that our conflicts with jihadists can end on our command. They cannot. If jihadists do not choose to lay down their arms, our best efforts to end America’s long conflict will come to naught. Indeed, our very effort to extricate ourselves from these conflicts can end up bolstering our enemies and harming our national security.

    We’re forgetting the lessons of our recent past. In 2011, the Obama administration removed the last remaining military footprint from Iraq. It did so when American enemies in Iraq were far weaker than American enemies in Afghanistan. And, unlike the Trump administration, it did not deliberately seek to reinforce those enemies as it left. Yet three years later, American forces were back. The rise of ISIS led to killing on a mass scale and metastasized the international terror threat under ISIS. America was compelled to respond.

    The bad faith of the Taliban is already evident. There are reports today of renewed fighting between the Taliban and Afghan security forces, and the Taliban have reportedly already rejected any talks with the Afghan government until the Afghans release 5,000 Taliban prisoners. The Afghan government is understandably reluctant to simply give thousands of reinforcements back to its deadly enemy.

    A war-weary American public should resist the Trump administration’s retreat. It should not tolerate any agreement that reinforces and strengthens the Taliban. There are things that are worse than “endless war,” and if we doubt that truth, there is a memorial in downtown Manhattan that should remind us that mortal threats can emerge even from the farthest reaches of the earth.
    Bolded for emphasis. Bolded and orange for "only Trump would negotiate with terrorists and still fail" Bolded and green for "you can't prove a negative" and I disagree with the author on that one.

  9. #149
    Quote Originally Posted by Tiredofamericanhypocrisy View Post
    However, they eliminated heroin trafficking, paedophilia and corruption from Afghan society. The Afghan government brought all those things back.
    This is only half true. They are massively involved in trafficking, they did hate noncing, and they didnt exactly get rid of corruption they disbanded all social and poltical programs, under the taliban there is only the purest form of capitalism and commerce, which obvious leads to murderous corruption.

  10. #150
    Its funny. People keep saying "stop all these foreign wars!" And support it unanimously, but then when we actually start stopping a war then people complain. Media propaganda is doing a good job of keeping us in the middle east for decades for some reason.
    Last edited by GreenJesus; 2020-03-08 at 05:19 PM.

  11. #151
    Quote Originally Posted by GreenJesus View Post
    Its funny. People keep saying "stop all these foreign wars!" And support it unanimously, but then when we actually start stopping a war then people complain. Media propaganda is doing a good job of keeping us in the middle east for decades for some reason.
    Well, I think it's because they expect us to win to get out of the war. Surrendering to get out of foreign wars doesn't sound very 'Merican.

  12. #152
    Quote Originally Posted by solinari6 View Post
    Well, I think it's because they expect us to win to get out of the war. Surrendering to get out of foreign wars doesn't sound very 'Merican.
    Yeah, we were unwilling to publicly admit to an L in Vietnam, but all the same we lost. The main question in Afghanistan, much like Vietnam, is how long you're willing to keep pouring blood and treasure into a land that no one in the United States much cares about just to avoid admitting that there is no path to anything that looks like victory.

  13. #153
    Quote Originally Posted by GreenJesus View Post
    Its funny. People keep saying "stop all these foreign wars!" And support it unanimously, but then when we actually start stopping a war then people complain. Media propaganda is doing a good job of keeping us in the middle east for decades for some reason.
    Because this isn't stopping a foreign war. As was shown with it not lasting a fucking week.

  14. #154
    Quote Originally Posted by Orbitus View Post
    Because this isn't stopping a foreign war. As was shown with it not lasting a fucking week.
    ??? If we aren't there anymore, then the war is over. Afghans can handle their own civil war. Not our problem anymore. Our country wants healthcare.

  15. #155
    Quote Originally Posted by GreenJesus View Post
    ??? If we aren't there anymore, then the war is over. Afghans can handle their own civil war. Not our problem anymore. Our country wants healthcare.
    Cowtowing to terrorists, isn't a good idea. They will just take over the country again, and we will be right back to where we started and they will start bombing our interests again.

  16. #156
    Quote Originally Posted by Orbitus View Post
    Cowtowing to terrorists, isn't a good idea. They will just take over the country again, and we will be right back to where we started and they will start bombing our interests again.
    So how much longer do we need to stay there? When do we "win"?

  17. #157
    Quote Originally Posted by GreenJesus View Post
    So how much longer do we need to stay there? When do we "win"?
    We can leave, but if we do it to the government of the country, not a fucking terrorist organization.

  18. #158
    Quote Originally Posted by Orbitus View Post
    Cowtowing to terrorists, isn't a good idea. They will just take over the country again, and we will be right back to where we started and they will start bombing our interests again.
    the taliban didnt bomb 'US interests'. That was AQ.

  19. #159
    The Undying Breccia's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    NY, USA
    Posts
    39,907
    Quote Originally Posted by GreenJesus View Post
    People keep saying "stop all these foreign wars!" And support it unanimously, but then when we actually start stopping a war then people complain.
    It's funny, people keep saying "I wish I didn't have to wait in line at the DMV" but when I murder the front 10 in each line, somehow I'm the bad guy.

    Even people who want a Kit Kat won't pay $500 for one. The price is too high.

    Even people who want to play Call of Duty: Modern Borefare won't accept 1,500ms latency to play. The price is too high.

    Even people who want out of Middle East wars won't negotiate with the terrorists who started it to leave. The price is too high. Well, too high for me, at least. Some people seem okay with negotiating with terrorists.

  20. #160
    Quote Originally Posted by Breccia View Post
    It's funny, people keep saying "I wish I didn't have to wait in line at the DMV" but when I murder the front 10 in each line, somehow I'm the bad guy.

    Even people who want a Kit Kat won't pay $500 for one. The price is too high.

    Even people who want to play Call of Duty: Modern Borefare won't accept 1,500ms latency to play. The price is too high.

    Even people who want out of Middle East wars won't negotiate with the terrorists who started it to leave. The price is too high. Well, too high for me, at least. Some people seem okay with negotiating with terrorists.
    Sunk cost. Just because we have been there for so long doesnt mean we have to stay there until we "win" for some moral victory. Who's terrorist and who isnt in that desert shithole anyway? I dont think even the experts have the answer to that. Assad is technically the official government of Syria, but I would say he is a terrorist. The "afgan government" has no power. There isnt really a point in negotiating with them.
    Last edited by GreenJesus; 2020-03-08 at 07:34 PM.

Posting Permissions

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