President of Afghanistan to NATO and the USA: End the war in Afghanistan NOW
Options
kingblaze84
Members Posts: 14,288 ✭✭✭✭✭
Wow, even the crooked President of Afghanistan wants NATO troops, including Americans, to end operations in his country. Can Obama and his corporate puppet masters PLEASE get out of Afghanistan now????
http://www.channelnewsasia.com/stories/afp_asiapacific/view/1116063/1/.html
End operations in Afghanistan, Karzai tells NATO
Posted: 12 March 2011 1733 hrs
ASADABAD, Afghanistan: Emotional Afghan President Hamid Karzai on Saturday urged international troops to "stop their operations in our land", his strongest salvo yet in a row over mistaken civilian killings.
Karzai's comments came after a week in which a relative of his was killed in a raid by foreign forces and he rejected an apology by the US commander of troops General David Petraeus for the deaths of nine children in a NATO strike.
"I would like to ask NATO and the US with honour and humbleness and not with arrogance to stop their operations in our land," Karzai said, visiting the dead children's relatives in Kunar province, eastern Afghanistan.
"We are very tolerant people but now our tolerance has run out."
He added that Kabul and his Western backers in the war against the Taliban were well aware that Pakistan's border areas, where insurgents have hideouts, ought to be the focus of international military campaigns.
Karzai also met relatives of those caught up in another incident in Kunar in which Afghan officials say 65 people died but NATO's International Security Assistance Force (ISAF) says left up to nine people injured.
The president cried as he held a girl who he said had her leg amputated following the latter attack.
A spokeswoman for ISAF could not immediately comment.
The latest Kunar incident, which happened as the children gathered firewood, forced the always-sensitive issue of civilian casualties caused by international troops back to the top of the political agenda in Afghanistan.
Karzai had already angrily rejected a public apology from Petraeus, the US commander of foreign troops, over the deaths.
US Defense Secretary Robert Gates also said he was sorry personally to Karzai during a visit to Afghanistan Monday.
Then on Thursday, it emerged that Karzai's father's cousin had been shot dead near his home in the family's village in Kandahar province, southern Afghanistan.
Karzai's spokesman Waheed Omer said the president was "extremely sad" at the news and "once again calls on NATO forces to avoid killing civilians."
A UN report Wednesday revealed that the deaths of Afghan civilians in the war had increased 15 percent to a record high last year, adding that insurgents were responsible for three-quarters of the killings.
The report recorded 2,777 civilian deaths last year, underscoring the level of violence in the country as foreign troops prepare to start handing control of security to Afghan forces in some areas from July.
Afghan security forces are due to take responsibility for security across the country by 2014, allowing international combat forces to withdraw.
There are currently around 140,000 international troops serving in Afghanistan, around two-thirds of them from the United States.
http://www.channelnewsasia.com/stories/afp_asiapacific/view/1116063/1/.html
End operations in Afghanistan, Karzai tells NATO
Posted: 12 March 2011 1733 hrs
ASADABAD, Afghanistan: Emotional Afghan President Hamid Karzai on Saturday urged international troops to "stop their operations in our land", his strongest salvo yet in a row over mistaken civilian killings.
Karzai's comments came after a week in which a relative of his was killed in a raid by foreign forces and he rejected an apology by the US commander of troops General David Petraeus for the deaths of nine children in a NATO strike.
"I would like to ask NATO and the US with honour and humbleness and not with arrogance to stop their operations in our land," Karzai said, visiting the dead children's relatives in Kunar province, eastern Afghanistan.
"We are very tolerant people but now our tolerance has run out."
He added that Kabul and his Western backers in the war against the Taliban were well aware that Pakistan's border areas, where insurgents have hideouts, ought to be the focus of international military campaigns.
Karzai also met relatives of those caught up in another incident in Kunar in which Afghan officials say 65 people died but NATO's International Security Assistance Force (ISAF) says left up to nine people injured.
The president cried as he held a girl who he said had her leg amputated following the latter attack.
A spokeswoman for ISAF could not immediately comment.
The latest Kunar incident, which happened as the children gathered firewood, forced the always-sensitive issue of civilian casualties caused by international troops back to the top of the political agenda in Afghanistan.
Karzai had already angrily rejected a public apology from Petraeus, the US commander of foreign troops, over the deaths.
US Defense Secretary Robert Gates also said he was sorry personally to Karzai during a visit to Afghanistan Monday.
Then on Thursday, it emerged that Karzai's father's cousin had been shot dead near his home in the family's village in Kandahar province, southern Afghanistan.
Karzai's spokesman Waheed Omer said the president was "extremely sad" at the news and "once again calls on NATO forces to avoid killing civilians."
A UN report Wednesday revealed that the deaths of Afghan civilians in the war had increased 15 percent to a record high last year, adding that insurgents were responsible for three-quarters of the killings.
The report recorded 2,777 civilian deaths last year, underscoring the level of violence in the country as foreign troops prepare to start handing control of security to Afghan forces in some areas from July.
Afghan security forces are due to take responsibility for security across the country by 2014, allowing international combat forces to withdraw.
There are currently around 140,000 international troops serving in Afghanistan, around two-thirds of them from the United States.
Comments
-
Obama is pathetic.
-
I doubt Obama's blood thirsty masters will listen to Karzai. Obama, being the slave to corporations, has pledged allegiance to the dollars coming his way after he leaves office and likely won't listen to Karzai either.
-
shootemwon wrote: »Obama is pathetic.
Very very true. Swiffness, get your ass in here and defend ya slave, errr boy. -
kingblaze84 wrote: »I doubt Obama's blood thirsty masters will listen to Karzai. Obama, being the slave to corporations, has pledged allegiance to the dollars coming his way after he leaves office and likely won't listen to Karzai either.
Yeah, but Obama will remind you that he campaigned on a promise to see through the plan over there. None of his campaign promises matter if they were actually to do something good, but for this ? promise, he's simply too principled to be a liar like he always is about everything else.
I will say it again, pathetic. -
shootemwon wrote: »Yeah, but Obama will remind you that he campaigned on a promise to see through the plan over there. None of his campaign promises matter if they were actually to do something good, but for this ? promise, he's simply too principled to be a liar like he always is about everything else.
I will say it again, pathetic.
True but damn, he seemed like a man who would use common sense and logic while in office. I haven't seen a lot of that since he's been in there. I'm detecting the same levels of logic and reasoning George W. Bush used, which is very sad -
I hope the media covers this heavily, this is a HUGE story
-
The funny part is, the only real way to play this down is to acknowledge what a joke Karzai is, but to do that is to admit what a sham of a government we're actually propping up over there, further weakening the case for being there.
-
What did Bush get us into.............
-
Usually when the president of a country tells us to get out, aren't we supposed to?
-
Usually when the president of a country tells us to get out, aren't we supposed to?
Not if you're an empire. -
I would love to hear why this President wouldn't honor that request....why wait until Aug. for the planned drawdown of our troops? I also heard something about 2014 for the total withdraw of American troops....WHY?
Secretary Gates has said recently America will have a strong presence in Afghanistan even AFTER 2014.
Isn't that hope and change feeling so beautiful right now? -
For at least a year Karzai has been asking us to stay behind the scenes and at the same time fronting for the Afghans, so hard to say if he's serious or not.
Just sayin. -
Jonas.dini wrote: »For at least a year Karzai has been asking us to stay behind the scenes and at the same time fronting for the Afghans, so hard to say if he's serious or not.
Just sayin.
Well THIS time, he's asking for NATO and the USA to end all operations in Afghanistan. This is very different than anything else he's ever said. Karzai will be assassinated in about, oh, I give him 3 months. Obama's puppet masters don't like it when anyone interferes with their blood ? and resources. -
One reason I'm skeptical is that in practice the US/NATO basically support and protect the karzai government, I'm not really sure his administration would survive without Western support. And he's been our guy since forever.
-
Jonas.dini wrote: »One reason I'm skeptical is that in practice the US/NATO basically support and protect the karzai government, I'm not really sure his administration would survive without Western support. And he's been our guy since forever.
Not our decision to make. Treat afghanistan like an 18yr old. Your on your own lil ? , we'll send you some money while your at college. We'll show up for parents weekend (secret ops). But if you wanna be grown, be grown.
See you in about 4 yrs when you're in debt up your ass and need a place to stay to get back up on your feet.
My serious response though: is that Obama's response will tell a lot us a lot about the political/military ? we are in. Imagine the results of each response.....
- "With all due respect, we have to stay to ensure the safety of the US from terrorist."
- "We'll leave soon. As reported we have a timetable set up." (To wich Karzai publicly annouces, "The time table is not good enough."
- "We have been in talks with Karzai and Nato. I can't say much past that. We're trying to find the best solution for both sides." <
we told that ? shut the ? up -
? Karzi. We ? up when we didn't nuke two Afghan cities right after 9/11 and when we didn't put those backward ? under occupation for the next hundred years.
-
Maximus Rex wrote: »? Karzi. We ? up when we didn't nuke two Afghan cities right after 9/11 and when we didn't put those backward ? under occupation for the next hundred years.
Why didn't we put Saudi Arabia under occupation than? Most of the 9/11 hijackers came from there. Osama Bin Laden also has a strong recruitment rate from Saudi Arabia, as well as many other Arab/Muslim countries, should we occupy all those too?
Or should we find out why Arabs hate America so much? -
kingblaze84 wrote: »Why didn't we put Saudi Arabia under occupation than? Most of the 9/11 hijackers came from there. Osama Bin Laden also has a strong recruitment rate from Saudi Arabia, as well as many other Arab/Muslim countries, should we occupy all those too?
Or should we find out why Arabs hate America so much?
Maybe because Saudi Arabia wasn't the country they were operating from. I could care less about why a group of people who seem to be perpetually ? at us, is ? off. Besides, the dude that was the head of the bin Ladin unit wrote book about it why they're mad. -
Maximus Rex wrote: »Maybe because Saudi Arabia wasn't the country they were operating from. I could care less about why a group of people who seem to be perpetually ? at us, is ? off. Besides, the dude that was the head of the bin Ladin unit wrote book about it why they're mad.
You're right, the hijackers didn't operate from Saudi Arabia. They planned the operation from GERMANY.
We should occupy Germany for hundreds of years now right? Personally, I think the USA did the right thing by taking out the Taliban, because it was harboring terrorists, but Karzai is there now and has been there for years. Why the ? are we still there?? -
Maximus Rex wrote: »Maybe because Saudi Arabia wasn't the country they were operating from. I could care less about why a group of people who seem to be perpetually ? at us, is ? off. Besides, the dude that was the head of the bin Ladin unit wrote book about it why they're mad.
You're right, the hijackers didn't operate from Saudi Arabia. They planned the operation from GERMANY.
We should occupy Germany for hundreds of years now right? Personally, I think the USA did the right thing by taking out the Taliban, because it was harboring terrorists, but Karzai is there now and has been there for years. Why the ? are we still there?? -
kingblaze84 wrote: »You're right, the hijackers didn't operate from Afghanistan. They planned the operation from GERMANY.
We should occupy Germany for hundreds of years now right? Personally, I think the USA did the right thing by taking out the Taliban, because it was harboring terrorists, but Karzai is there now and has been there for years. Why the ? are we still there??
The ANA is horribly underfunded, underequipped, and undertrained. Karzai is a fuccin punk IMO, ? only started cryin' cuz someone from his famalam got clapped. ? wasn't cryin like this for the past 7 years when civilians were gettin' clapped left and right while the government was being put in place. -
PLASTIC RULES wrote: »The ANA is horribly underfunded, underequipped, and undertrained. Karzai is a fuccin punk IMO, ? only started cryin' cuz someone from his famalam got clapped. ? wasn't cryin like this for the past 7 years when civilians were gettin' clapped left and right while the government was being put in place.
I know, that's why I called him a crook earlier. Him and his heroin dealing brother are getting millions of dollars from the U.S. military, so he was able to tolerate his people being blown to hell for a long time. Now that the civilian deaths are hitting too close to home, now he suddenly wants foreign troops to leave the country. LOL.....Obama is gonna have him killed off soon. How soon is the question, we all know Obama's gangsta is unquestioned. -
really, are you going to make me re-post what i wrote in another thread? well, okay:kingblaze84 wrote: »You're right, the hijackers didn't operate from Saudi Arabia. They planned the operation from GERMANY.
"Germany and Greece and Japan (and i could probably keep going) have at various points spawned and contained terrorists that attacked the US specifically. but this didn't mean that a) we wrote them off immediately or b) that either was the same thing as harboring terrorists. the latter implies approval of the government.
so going back to Afghanistan, remember the part where the Taliban INVITED the guy who was the known terrorist who'd attacked the US to come hang out in their country? yeah... anyway, i'm all ears if you can tell me of a terrorist that Saudi Arabia/Yemen/whoever has actively invited to return and chill out and do what they want.
also, you're going to tell me that dudes like Atta solely trained in Germany? they never had training in Afghanistan? they never went over plans in Pakistan? obviously they were IN Germany ... but of course Germany probably harbored them by inviting known terrorists to come to Germany and... wait "
also i guess this:
"simple answer: read the part of your post where you noted "the Taliban did harbor terrorists." Saudis may have BEEN the hijackers, but they were not based in Saudi Arabia. even if they were you'd probably also assume a country that's friendly to you is going to get more consideration than a country that's not (or that most nations don't even recognize)"
damn this repetitive Germany argument -
really, are you going to make me re-post what i wrote in another thread? well, okay:
"Germany and Greece and Japan (and i could probably keep going) have at various points spawned and contained terrorists that attacked the US specifically. but this didn't mean that a) we wrote them off immediately or b) that either was the same thing as harboring terrorists. the latter implies approval of the government.
so going back to Afghanistan, remember the part where the Taliban INVITED the guy who was the known terrorist who'd attacked the US to come hang out in their country? yeah... anyway, i'm all ears if you can tell me of a terrorist that Saudi Arabia/Yemen/whoever has actively invited to return and chill out and do what they want.
also, you're going to tell me that dudes like Atta solely trained in Germany? they never had training in Afghanistan? they never went over plans in Pakistan? obviously they were IN Germany ... but of course Germany probably harbored them by inviting known terrorists to come to Germany and... wait "
also i guess this:
"simple answer: read the part of your post where you noted "the Taliban did harbor terrorists." Saudis may have BEEN the hijackers, but they were not based in Saudi Arabia. even if they were you'd probably also assume a country that's friendly to you is going to get more consideration than a country that's not (or that most nations don't even recognize)"
damn this repetitive Germany argument
All true, but my basic point is occupying Afghanistan for the next 1000 years is not going to help lower terrorism. Terrorism is a reaction to terrible American foreign policy, and occupying Afghanistan will not help when terrorists are being created and trained all over the world. That INCLUDES Germany, Saudi Arabia, and Afghanistan. Even the guy who trained troops to hunt Bin Laden and his followers admits this. Terrorists are being grown and trained in the USA too. There are many examples of homegrown terror being a threat now, is occupying Afghanistan gonna help that????????
Even if a base is destroyed in Afghanistan, there are plenty of other areas where terrorist attacks can be planned. You know, like Germany and the USA. Ahh.....if only Obama had my intelligence. -
lol come on man, it is a well known fact that US officials did business with Al Qaida/supported (mainly saoudis) that did business with the taliban/al qaida etc. Everybody knows there are thousands of EMIRS that support anti american groups/are the heads of such organisations etc, nobody is going for saoudi arabia because thats where hijaz is man.....US occupation of the holy land isnt possible without WW3...the saoudis are well known for abusing their position lol...In fact there are many anti US sentiments/groups all over the ME/Africa.
This whole afgan/iraqi war has been brought to you by special interest/lobyy groups etc....the whole war on terror/getting revenge after 9-11 thing s straight up ? propoganda. The United States government never had any business nor the right to invade those countries. The US government /those that are pro war have switched arguments a 1000 times the last decade it aint even funny.
So dont come with that 'well the taliban harbored anti us terrorists so we had to get in' because a: didnt the US support the taliban in USSR times and B doesnt the US support terrorist regimes all over the planet ? I mean lets pretend Mubarak and Ben Ali were nice guys, lets pretend that the US officials that knowingly do business with saoudis are not supporting anti us groups(LMAO, you guys are really underestimating the saoudis). And better yet, lets pretend all the government propoganda in general that got debunked, lets pretend we are all idiots and think the US government was out there to make the world safer lmao...Lets pretend that most of the african/arab world hates the US because we dont have democracy LMAO, lets forget about all the slaughters you caused, all the bombs that were dropped. Yes, lets pretend we are all idiots indeed.
The US had no right to invade afganistan or iraq, the reason they are there is because lobbygroups of companies like Shell(aren't there more than 30.000 lobbygroups in washington?) this never was in the interest of the US/Afganistan etc The US government is in huge debt because it has been abused by such lobbygroups(any government/nation, especially the US is a brilliant tool to have because of the endless oppurtunities, it cannot go bankrupt like shell for example can and think legistration wise etc)
You are a ? idiot if you think they invaded because of 'noble or moral reasons/motivations etc' or to stop the taliban so that no more terrorism will come to the US etc You are a ? idiot if you think these wars are just.
