The agreement is why we had to choose between deploying new troops into the region and prolong the war and withdraw when we did.Quote:
Originally Posted by DawgyNWindow
Printable View
The agreement is why we had to choose between deploying new troops into the region and prolong the war and withdraw when we did.Quote:
Originally Posted by DawgyNWindow
Part 2 numbers 1-3 are obvious. They attacked Afghan forces we were working with. They did not discourage any tribe from attacking anyone, unless you have communications that price otherwise. And it was reported that the Taliban has been growing stronger and recruiting in spite of the directive not not.Quote:
Originally Posted by Guisslapp
It didn’t say they couldn’t attack Afghan forces. In fact, it implied that was explicitly not part of the deal by saying that the talk of a ceasefire would be part of a future agenda.Quote:
Originally Posted by techman05
Try again.
And it didn’t say the Taliban couldn’t grow stronger or recruit. It says the Taliban will prevent other groups from doing that.Quote:
Originally Posted by techman05
So, they were not US allies or friendlies? Wow.
Feeling less satisfied with Trump’s deal after reading it?
When...maybe. How.. Not even close.Quote:
Originally Posted by Guisslapp
There was supposed to be a roadmap coming from the Afghan negotiations. Maybe you can post that.
But if you think Biden has handled this properly, I guess you have that right.
Technically Afghanistan is not an ally and it wouldn’t make sense to interpret them as one under this agreement.Quote:
Originally Posted by techman05
https://www.google.com/amp/s/mobile..../idUSKBN22R2TS
Quote:
U.S. Special Representative Zalmay Khalilzad, architect of the deal here advocated by Republican President Donald Trump, acknowledged it did not bar attacks on Afghans and said it would be best if both sides began talks and efforts to combat such attacks while U.S. forces are still there.
"The agreement does not specifically (call) for them not to attack Afghan forces," Khalilzad told reporters on Friday. However, he said the Taliban committed to reducing violence and that a ceasefire would be among the first topics in intra-Afghan negotiations.
I don’t think he had good options. Less bad? Maybe. We won’t know the counterfactual.Quote:
Originally Posted by DawgyNWindow
Shep says Biden is a walking cluster f - - k.Quote:
Originally Posted by Guisslapp
Just when you think NO WAY can the Bidenites eff it up worse....they do! [heavy sigh]
Praque, Czech Republic, newspaper editorial nailed it. Said the US can survive a fool like Biden, but may not survive the multitude of fools who made him president.
Yep, the world knows!
Wow very damning report by the Washington Post of all places...
Taliban Offered Biden Control of Kabul, but He Declined
Washington Post reports...
The chaos in Afghanistan could have reportedly been avoided altogether if President Joe Biden had accepted the Taliban’s initial offer for the U.S. to have full control of Kabul and the airport.
According to a report from the Washington Post, as the Taliban began taking control of Afghanistan, senior U.S. military leaders met with Taliban political leader Abdul Ghani Baradar in Doha, Qatar, where an offer was made for the United States to have control of Kabul until all U.S. troops had withdrawn; the offer was declined.
This is not incompetence, but intentional.
LINK /
How many more troops would we have had to deploy back to Afghanistan to secure Kabul? And at what risk?
None of they had been left there until all the civilians were out. You know, the common sense way.Quote:
Originally Posted by Guisslapp