America will keep wasting money and blood in Afghanistan until 2024
Options
kingblaze84
Members Posts: 14,288 ✭✭✭✭✭
Am I the only one who finds it disgusting American troops and tax payers will continue to spend more monopoly money and blood in Afghanistan until 2024??? Aren't we 15 trillion dollars in debt and cutting back services in America?
U.S. pledges financial, support role to Afghans through 2024
The U.S. and Afghanistan completed negotiations on a strategic partnership to govern their relations during and after America's troop withdrawal.
seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/2018048900_afghanistan23.html?syndication=rss
KABUL, Afghanistan — After more than a year of negotiations, U.S. and Afghan officials reached an agreement Sunday confirming the United States' commitment to Afghanistan for a decade after its formal troop withdrawal in 2014.
The document, which must be reviewed by the Afghan parliament and U.S. security agencies and signed by both nations' presidents, does not specify troop numbers or funding levels, but it offers a broad guarantee that the U.S. role here will not end as abruptly as some feared it might.
The agreement came despite a series of setbacks in Afghan-American relations, including the burning of Qurans, the massacre of 16 civilians attributed to a lone Army sergeant, and the appearance of grisly photos of U.S. soldiers posing with the body parts of Afghan insurgents.
Afghan President Hamid Karzai's national-security adviser, Rangin Dadfar Spanta, initialed a final draft of the agreement with U.S. Ambassador Ryan Crocker, according to emailed statements from Karzai's office and the U.S. Embassy in Kabul.
The two countries have a month to review and sign the deal by the May 21 NATO summit conference in Chicago, a goal voiced last month by Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton. That gathering is expected to produce a plan for the final phase of the decadelong war in Afghanistan.
The document pledges American financial support for Afghanistan through 2024 and refers to the ongoing U.S. role in bolstering Afghan democracy and civil society.
The specifics of the U.S. commitment have yet to be formally outlined and could be governed by future agreements.
U.S. pledges financial, support role to Afghans through 2024
The U.S. and Afghanistan completed negotiations on a strategic partnership to govern their relations during and after America's troop withdrawal.
seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/2018048900_afghanistan23.html?syndication=rss
KABUL, Afghanistan — After more than a year of negotiations, U.S. and Afghan officials reached an agreement Sunday confirming the United States' commitment to Afghanistan for a decade after its formal troop withdrawal in 2014.
The document, which must be reviewed by the Afghan parliament and U.S. security agencies and signed by both nations' presidents, does not specify troop numbers or funding levels, but it offers a broad guarantee that the U.S. role here will not end as abruptly as some feared it might.
The agreement came despite a series of setbacks in Afghan-American relations, including the burning of Qurans, the massacre of 16 civilians attributed to a lone Army sergeant, and the appearance of grisly photos of U.S. soldiers posing with the body parts of Afghan insurgents.
Afghan President Hamid Karzai's national-security adviser, Rangin Dadfar Spanta, initialed a final draft of the agreement with U.S. Ambassador Ryan Crocker, according to emailed statements from Karzai's office and the U.S. Embassy in Kabul.
The two countries have a month to review and sign the deal by the May 21 NATO summit conference in Chicago, a goal voiced last month by Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton. That gathering is expected to produce a plan for the final phase of the decadelong war in Afghanistan.
The document pledges American financial support for Afghanistan through 2024 and refers to the ongoing U.S. role in bolstering Afghan democracy and civil society.
The specifics of the U.S. commitment have yet to be formally outlined and could be governed by future agreements.
Comments
-
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/05/01/obama-speech-afghanistan_n_1468780.html
President Barack Obama made a surprise visit to Afghanistan on Tuesday night to sign an agreement with President Hamid Karzai outlining the United States' military presence in Afghanistan after 2014.
In a live address, President Obama spoke from Bagram Air Base north of Kabul early Wednesday morning, emphasizing that America must finish the job it started while Afghanistan stabilizes.
"My fellow Americans, we have traveled through more than a decade under the dark cloud of war. Yet here, in the pre-dawn darkness of Afghanistan, we can see the light of a new day on the horizon. The Iraq War is over. The number of our troops in harm’s way has been cut in half, and more will be coming home soon. We have a clear path to fulfill our mission in Afghanistan, while delivering justice to al Qaeda," he said.
President Obama also underlined points of the agreement, including that the U.S. will not build military bases in Afghanistan.
"We will shift into a support role as Afghans step forward," President Obama said.
--This country has become a sad joke now. And for anyone who wants to say "Move out the country", I am planning to. America is falling off a cliff and its best days are behind us. Inflation will only increase because of this agreement, and meanwhile, our monopoly money is being cut for states and budgets that really could use the funds. Am I the only one disgusted at this move? Or is this a brilliant chess move I'm overlooking? -
http://news.yahoo.com/congress-intelligence-heads-taliban-stronger-164902754.html
WASHINGTON (AP) — The leaders of the congressional committees said Sunday they believed that the Taliban had grown stronger since President Barack Obama sent 33,000 more U.S. troops to Afghanistan in 2010.
The pessimistic report by Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., and Rep. Mike Rogers, R-Mich., challenges Obama's own assessment last week in his visit to Kabul that the "tide had turned" and that "we broke the Taliban's momentum."
Feinstein and Rogers told CNN's "State of the Union" they aren't so sure. The two recently returned from a fact-finding trip to the region where they met with Afghan President Hamid Karzai.
"President Karzai believes that the Taliban will not come back. I'm not so sure," Feinstein said. "The Taliban has a shadow system of governors in many provinces."
When asked if the Taliban's capabilities have been degraded since Obama deployed the additional troops two years ago, Feinstein said: "I think we'd both say that what we've found is that the Taliban is stronger."
--Pathetic..... -
sad ? ...
-
-
"Money isn't real George, it only seems like it is"
-
"Money isn't real George, it only seems like it is"
Money isn't real? Ask the homeless dude down the street how real money is......you can also ask the guy willing to sell drugs or rob an old lady how real it is too. Inflation is real and endless war spending is driving up the cost of living for every single person. There's a reason so many people work two or 3 jobs to make ends meet, the dollar isn't worth ? these days, and that's because the ? American govt is treating our tax dollars like toilet tissue. -
pretty sure that's more of a flippant movie quote than a serious economic stancekingblaze84 wrote: »
Money isn't real? Ask the homeless dude down the street how real money is......you can also ask the guy willing to sell drugs or rob an old lady how real it is too. Inflation is real and endless war spending is driving up the cost of living for every single person. There's a reason so many people work two or 3 jobs to make ends meet, the dollar isn't worth ? these days, and that's because the ? American govt is treating our tax dollars like toilet tissue."Money isn't real George, it only seems like it is"
-
its from Blow.
it earned a titangraph from king blaze's ? lol -
pretty sure that's more of a flippant movie quote than a serious economic stancekingblaze84 wrote: »
Money isn't real? Ask the homeless dude down the street how real money is......you can also ask the guy willing to sell drugs or rob an old lady how real it is too. Inflation is real and endless war spending is driving up the cost of living for every single person. There's a reason so many people work two or 3 jobs to make ends meet, the dollar isn't worth ? these days, and that's because the ? American govt is treating our tax dollars like toilet tissue."Money isn't real George, it only seems like it is"
AH OK lol.....never watched that movie...my bad Vibe I thought you were taking the wasted money in Afghanistan as a joke -
earth two superman wrote: »its from Blow.
it earned a titangraph from king blaze's ? lol
You're a complete ? idiot if you think what I wrote is a titangraph lol.....keep knocking them drinks down dum dum -
Doesnt really matter your werent gonna see any of it
-
-
En-Fuego22 wrote: »Doesnt really matter your werent gonna see any of it
Interesting way of looking at it.....still though, state budgets could use the money, the homeless rate is increasing because the social safety net is being bankrupted away. Same with other social programs, too many to name. -
If people really think the troops are going to be gone in 2014, they are sadly mistaken..what they should say are "CONVENTIONAL TROOPS" will be gone by then...
-
The U.S is in big trouble now and will continue to be. Big thanks to the troops out there trying to do the right thing.
-
The U.S is in big trouble now and will continue to be. Big thanks to the troops out there trying to do the right thing.
Yeah I respect the troops, they didn't ask for these long wars. But the US is definitely in big trouble when stories like this come out below........
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/05/29/drone-attacks-innocent-civilians_n_1554380.html
U.S. Drone Policy: Standing Near Terrorists Makes You A Terrorist
Obama, Becker and Shane write, was angry when informed that the first drone strike after he took office had killed innocent Pakistanis. But one of the measures the administration embraced to prevent future innocent casualties was to embrace a method of counting combatants that would rope in more innocents.
"It in effect counts all military-age males in a strike zone as combatants, according to several administration officials, unless there is explicit intelligence posthumously proving them innocent," the Times reports. "Counterterrorism officials insist this approach is one of simple logic: people in an area of known terrorist activity, or found with a top Qaeda operative, are probably up to no good."
Earlier Tuesday, Jake Tapper of ABC News pressed White House spokesman Jay Carney on the reported policy, which one former CIA official called "guilt by association." But Carney didn't directly answer the question, instead ticking off other policies he says the administration has implemented to avoid killing innocents. "[O]ur military and our broader national security team is able to pursue al-Qaida in a way that significantly reduces the potential for and the fact of civilian casualties," Carney said.
Tapper pressed again. "[T]his is the question -- with the assumption that if you are with a terrorist when a terrorist gets killed, the presumption is that you are a terrorist as well and -- even if we don’t even know who you are, right? Isn’t that part of the reason you’re able to make these assertions?"
And Carney again ducked the question: "I am not going to get into the specifics of the process by which, you know, these decisions are made."
The administration has long discounted estimates of civilian drone strike casualties from the Pakistani media and human rights groups. In December, for example, the CIA claimed to have executed a perfect strike that killed nine militants near Pakistan-Afghanistan border. But British and Pakistani journalists on the ground reported that the strikes killed at least 18, including six innocent civilians.
The CIA in fact said that drone strikes didn't ? a single civilian in 2011, a claim almost no one believes. In January 2011, an anonymous administration official told Bloomberg News, "The CIA since mid-2008 has executed about 200 strikes, killing roughly 1,300 militants and 30 non-combatants." According to today's Times report, another administration official put the number of civilian deaths since Obama took office "in the single digits."
Most non-government estimates put the civilian count much higher, but ascertaining even an approximate number of civilian casualties has been difficult. Pakistan forbids journalists and human rights workers from traveling to the sites of attacks, and the U.S. government, again, wavers between refusing to acknowledge the drone program exists and crowing about its successes. So estimates among journalism outlets vary, as do estimates among human rights organizations. Even estimates within a single organization often include wide ranges. The Bureau of Investigative Journalism estimates 2,464-3,145 drone killings in Pakistan alone since 2004, with 484-828 of the deaths civilian. The New American Foundation's estimates are 1,807 to 2,795 deaths, with approximately 300-500 of them civilian. Daniel Byman of the Brookings Institution puts the civilian count much higher, estimating 10 civilian deaths for every militant killed by U.S. drones.
-
^^^Stories like this will only give the Taliban and Al Qaeda and other militant groups more future members. Hope and change is very interesting.
-
what a mess ... smh
-
The user and all related content has been deleted.
-
If people really think the troops are going to be gone in 2014, they are sadly mistaken..what they should say are "CONVENTIONAL TROOPS" will be gone by then...
Yeah man.....I just don't get why Obama doesn't get how stupid this all makes him look.
![[Deleted User]](https://w1.vanillicon.com/v2/15efd8efe08bb34aae25f1808aaf5018.svg)