It was in chaos before and we didn't seem to care much. That is, until the Soviets wanted to invade the country. That's when we created the jihadists we are fighting today. I'm just saying that we seem to create more chaos the more we try to control what foreign countries do.
That's very true, and that has been pointed out as well. The Soviets not only created a reason for jihadists to exist our CIA helped train them.
Still, Obama supported an increase in funding for both wars even though he stated that he would have voted against the initial funding to begin with. His stated reason? You don't abandon the troops once the war has started.
Is it wise to simply cut off funding and bring them all home right away?
I believe Obama will look in to the election results first to see who will make up the new Afghanistan Government and how to deal with corruption.
It would seem useless to send troops to help a murdering pack of bent politicians who will do nothing but keep creating situations to protect their bribes. The Afghan Government are as bad as the Taliban!
We'll see. Karzai did okay marital rape which is more than bad enough, but between him and the folks who insist on executing women for being raped, throwing acid at schoolgirls, beating women to death because they find their burkas suffocating, or banning women from workplaces and then also punishing them when they try the only means left available to support their children, Karzai seems to me like the lesser of the two evils.
That being said, the lesser of two evils is still not good.
They did stuff like that in Rwanda as well. But we didn't do anything about it because Rwanda isn't near the Caspian Sea, which has been the main U.S. military acquisition target since the Soviets folded.
No he should not. He ran on a platform for ending these wars. Further you are fighting an unconventional force. Traditional combat theory does not apply here. Numbers don't matter. Large occupation forces simply provide large easy targets in guerella warfare scenarios. Reduce, rethink and redistribute. Go to countries that seem to be doing a good job at rooting out terrorist. Israel and Germany come to mind here.
Obama has declared that he will make no decision regarding an increase in troop strength until Afghanistan has a stable government.
Karzi has been presented with evidence that 1.2 million votes were invalid. This would put him below the 50% of votes required for a clear win. It also gives Abdullah Abdullah a slightly better advantage, but he too is below the 50% threshold.
This means there SHOULD be a runoff election, but Karzi is resisting this notion by attempting to offer Abdullah some token government office instead.
Add to this that the NATO commander agrees that troop strength should remain as it is until there's a stable government.
Good one...K Partin...Weren't we over there originally to take out Osama Bin Ladin...What happened to that objective...No one answers that. He has either passed-on, taken the first Space Shuttle out of here...or could be living next door to anyone on here?
Most of you know I am very critical of Obama but it looks like he is going to send about 20,000 to 30,000 more troops to Afghanistan which is what needs to be done. At least, that is the rumor on the street.For...
With the occupation of Iraq and Afghanistan by US troops and recent sanctions being considered in Iran, who put the US in charge of cleaning up these countries and instituting democracy as the government that should...
Attack on remote Afghan outposts kills 8 US troops - http://bit.ly/3iD702 Obama better get on his job, quit lally gagging around on late night talk shows and decide what hes going to do - Either A - Give McCrystal...
With the news that a further 8 UK service personnel have died in Afghanistan in the last 24 hours it means that deaths in this war now exceed those due to the Iraq conflict. As a result calls are increasing for...