Biden will withdraw all U.S. forces from Afghanistan by Sept. 11, 2021

This is a terrible mistake rooted in a misconception of the situation. The appropriate model is Britain's Northwest Frontier Force in the 19th century.

 

the right still has a say, the left does not have 60 votes

the right says we do not, but they think we have enough to keep the corporate tax cuts

 

If your side really wanted to raise taxes, you could easily do it by separating the tax increases from the "infrastructure" bill, and it could go through on a simple majority in reconciliation.

But you guys are not doing that. Interesting. But in any case, none of your fiscal issues have anything to do with this topic. Also interesting. Aren't you happy Biden is bringing the troops home?

 

then why did you bring it up, I was talking about the cost of war and why we can't afford it and never should of been there in the first place

 

How could I possibly understand something you have not explained, but thanks for stopping by.

 

Do you not even remember what you write from post to post?

 

I think I've already explained that based on your posts, you wouldn't be able to understand. So it's for your own good.

 

What would have "the right" have done? Send them a birthday card?

Think before you post. Maybe everything is not 'left" and "right" all the time.

 

You have explained your position based on my posts......??

The mind of a partisan mind is a mysterious place......

Sleep well little mike.

 

It is a start. We shouldn't have ground troops in any country other than the marines who protect the embassies. Let's bring them all home.

 

Stayed. Never would have left regardless of what Bush agreed to.

 

Stay without immunity against local prosecution?

 

What I actually said:

"I think I've already explained that based on your posts, you wouldn't be able to understand."

What you think I said:

"You have explained your position based on my posts......??"

Now do you see the difference in what I said and what you think I said? This is why I said, "Based on that comment, your grasp of foreign policy seems rather simplistic and partisan, so I doubt you would understand my positions."

I think you've made my point quite well.

 

You invest lot of effort telling people that you can't, or won't explain your comments, even after people tell you they are not even interested in hearing it. Its better to just walk away when you can't explain yourself.

Trying to hide behind "I could explain, but you are too stupid to understand" is beyond lame / childish .

 

Why are McConnell and many others on the right so opposed to our troop withdrawal. What do they possibly feel we can accomplish there by staying beyond 20 years that we apparently have been unable to do in the past 20 years?? Occupying countries, based on our prior experiences, is not something we excel in.

 

If we keep 7000 or so troops there we can help the Afghanis to to ensure the country won't turn into another "university of terror", like it was last time Taliban was running things.

 

I didn't say that you were too stupid to understand, simply that the position is nuanced and strict partisans such as yourself only deal with my side/your side. So in other words, you wouldn't get it. But I'm sure you are a pretty bright fellow otherwise.

But...I'm feeling extra generous today so I'll give you my argument in a nutshell on why Obama had a choice about staying in Iraq: Everyone, both on the US and Iraqi sides of the negotiating table, expected that there was going to be some US presence, and the Iraqi's offered an executive agreement to bypass the parliamentary vote which the Iraqi President had already determined he couldn't win. Obama turned down that option so there was no SOFA and the withdrawal from Iraq happened just as Obama had campaigned on; it was his signature campaign promise; to get out of Iraq.

Of course a few years later no one gave an S--- about any status of forces agreement and Obama sent US troops hurriedly back to Iraq to keep the regime from falling to ISIS.

There. Off topic but you did insist.

 

Iraqi prosecution would have been about has effective as the International Courts. Hindsight being 20/20 it would have been the right thing to do.

 

The Taliban poses no threat to the US anymore. It's not our job to ensure every country stays civilized. It's their culture and we aren't going to change that.

 

I do not support either party. For example, I am not on board with the cut-and-run plan we are discussing here. Maybe you should have been able to figure that out being such a smart guy that you obviously think you are .

No, I did not insist. I specifically said I was not interested, because I already know how it happened.

 

They do, if they allow ISIS / Al Qaeda to set up camps in Afghanistan like they did last time.

Maybe, but I get a feeling they would have loved to publicly hang few Americans like they did with Saddam.

 

did you read the post I replied too? guess not....

if we do not have the money for infrastructure, we did not have the money for these needless 10+ year wars

 

Who is arguing for that? Not me.

Sometimes you old retired guys just lose your train of thought and are too proud to admit it.

 

guess you forgot what you posted... carry on, be proud and don't admit it - lol

 

The US and co blew up that 3rd world poor as hell country for 20 years straight.
There are still a couple of 100 people locked up without any legal reason with no trail day in sight.

So let's no just not compensate them for the "justice" and the "inconvenience".