Author Topic: Karzai says Afghanistan doesn't need US troops  (Read 397 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Rapunzel

  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 71,719
Karzai says Afghanistan doesn't need US troops
« on: March 16, 2014, 02:45:10 AM »
http://news.msn.com/world/karzai-says-afghanistan-doesnt-need-us-troops


Karzai says Afghanistan doesn't need US troops

AP 2 hr ago By KATHY GANNON of Associated Press

KABUL, Afghanistan (AP) — In his final address to Afghanistan's parliament Saturday, President Hamid Karzai told the United States its soldiers can leave at the end of the year because his military, which already protects 93 percent of the country, was ready to take over entirely.

He reiterated his stance that he would not sign a pact with the United States that would provide for a residual force of U.S. troops to remain behind after the final withdrawal, unless peace could first be established.

The Afghan president has come under heavy pressure to sign the Bilateral Security Agreement, with a council of notables that he himself convened recommend that he sign the pact. The force would train and mentor Afghan troops, and some U.S. Special Forces would also be left behind to hunt down al-Qaida.

All 10 candidates seeking the presidency in April 5 elections have said they would sign the security agreement. But Karzai himself does not appear to want his legacy to include a commitment to a longer foreign troop presence in his country.

Karzai was brought to power in the wake of the 2001 U.S.-led invasion and subsequently won two presidential elections __ in 2004 and again in 2009. But he has in recent years espoused a combatative nationalism, with his hour-long speech Saturday no exception.

"I want to say to all those foreign countries who maybe out of habit or because they want to interfere, that they should not interfere," he said.

Karzai said the war in Afghanistan was "imposed" on his nation, presumably by the 2001 invasion, and told the United States it could bring peace to Afghanistan if it went after terrorist sanctuaries and countries that supported terrorism, a reference to Pakistan.

Pakistan has a complicated relationship with the Taliban. It backed the group before their 2001 overthrow, and although now it is at war with its own militants, Afghan insurgents sometimes find refuge on its territory.

Karzai told parliament, which was holding its opening session for this term, that security forces were strong enough to defend Afghanistan without the help of international troops.

Karzai steps down after next month's presidential elections. Under Afghanistan's constitution, he is banned from seeking a third term.

He came to power in December 2001 following an international agreement signed in Bonn, Germany, and was confirmed by a Loya Jirga or grand council that selected a transitional government to rule while preparing for nationwide elections. He subsequently won two presidential elections.

Relations between Karzai and the United States have been on a downward spiral since his re-election in 2009, in which the United States and several other countries charged widespread fraud. Karzai in turn accused them of interference.

In his speech Karzai again urged Taliban insurgents to join the peace process, while accusing Pakistan of protecting the Taliban leadership. He suggested that Pakistan was behind the killing earlier this year of a Taliban leader who supported the peace process. No one has taken responsibility for the attack.

Throughout his speech Karzai spoke of his accomplishments over the last 12 years, saying schools were functioning, rights were being given to women, energy projects were coming online and the Afghan currency had been stabilized. Karzai said that when he first took power his country was isolated and nothing was functioning.

"I know the future president will protect these gains and priorities and will do the best for peace in the country and I, as an Afghan citizen, will support peace and will cooperate."

Afghanistan's current parliament plans to tackle a number of key issues, including a controversial law on the elimination of violence against women.

___

Kathy Gannon is AP Special Regional Correspondent for Afghanistan and Pakistan and can be followed on www.twitter.com/kathygannon
“The time is now near at hand which must probably determine, whether Americans are to be, Freemen, or Slaves.” G Washington July 2, 1776

Offline kevindavis

  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 7,201
Re: Karzai says Afghanistan doesn't need US troops
« Reply #1 on: March 16, 2014, 09:30:26 AM »
Then we should leave... Having said that is it me that Obama wanted us to lose this war.. Even though in 08 it was called a good war..
GOP House members came to Paul Ryan to be Speaker. He didn't come to them. And he was everybody's conservative darling back in 2012. So unless 1 of the remaining 240 wants to step up & do a better job in budgeting & negotiations & herding the party cats, then everybody please STFU. You go to battle with the army you have, not the one you want but don't have.

Kevin Davis

Offline Oceander

  • Technical
  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 44,072
  • #ToldYouSo
Re: Karzai says Afghanistan doesn't need US troops
« Reply #2 on: March 16, 2014, 10:53:22 AM »
Just fine with me.  US troops don't need Afghanistan either.  And rather than some quixotic exercise in nation building, the next time we need to go after someone in Afghanistan, we just go in fast and furious, with overwhelming force, trash what we have to trash, kill whom needs killing, and be done with it.

Offline Howie66

  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 798
  • MOLON LABE & SEMPER FI!
Re: Karzai says Afghanistan doesn't need US troops
« Reply #3 on: March 16, 2014, 11:01:10 AM »
I think that Karzai is on to something. Rather than propping him up and keeping his useless hide in power, we should immediately pull all of our troops out of Afghanistan.

At the same time, let us shift our resources to focus on Washington, D.C. where there is a real demand for Regime Change.

Git some!
I come in peace, I didn't bring artillery.  But I am pleading with you with tears in my eyes:  If you bleep with me, I'll kill you all.

Marine General James Mattis, to Iraqi tribal leaders (Note: Mattis did NOT say "BLEEP". He threw the F Bomb)

I didn't enlist in the Corps just to watch my country become a Third World Communist Shit-hole. Don't know anyone who did.

Offline Chieftain

  • AMF, YOYO
  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 9,633
  • Your what hurts??
Re: Karzai says Afghanistan doesn't need US troops
« Reply #4 on: March 16, 2014, 11:27:39 AM »
Just fine with me.  US troops don't need Afghanistan either.  And rather than some quixotic exercise in nation building, the next time we need to go after someone in Afghanistan, we just go in fast and furious, with overwhelming force, trash what we have to trash, kill whom needs killing, and be done with it.

yep.  Just what God made aircraft carrier battle groups for, at least in the interim. 

What we need is a good orbital bombardment system of some sort in geosynchronous orbit over Afghanistan/Pakistan/Waziristan/etc prepared to pound selected targets down into bedrock.  The whole area is geologically unstable anyway, and since most of them live in 6th century accommodations in the first place, their trip to the frackin' stone age will be a short one.

KEWs accelerated straight down from hi geo orbit would hit like a frickin' meteor and would solve any worries about terrorism in the immediate area permanently.  If you can't get radical Islam out of an area, then you remove that area out of the country....

 :smokin:

« Last Edit: March 16, 2014, 11:28:30 AM by Chieftain »

Offline alicewonders

  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 13,053
  • Live life-it's too short to butt heads w buttheads
Re: Karzai says Afghanistan doesn't need US troops
« Reply #5 on: March 16, 2014, 11:51:10 AM »
Just fine with me.  US troops don't need Afghanistan either.  And rather than some quixotic exercise in nation building, the next time we need to go after someone in Afghanistan, we just go in fast and furious, with overwhelming force, trash what we have to trash, kill whom needs killing, and be done with it.

I agree with you.  Get in, win, and get out!  The same for all these other hell-holes we are in.
 
Don't tread on me.   8888madkitty

We told you Trump would win - bigly!

Offline Howie66

  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 798
  • MOLON LABE & SEMPER FI!
Re: Karzai says Afghanistan doesn't need US troops
« Reply #6 on: March 16, 2014, 12:22:42 PM »
yep.  Just what God made aircraft carrier battle groups for, at least in the interim. 

What we need is a good orbital bombardment system of some sort in geosynchronous orbit over Afghanistan/Pakistan/Waziristan/etc prepared to pound selected targets down into bedrock.  The whole area is geologically unstable anyway, and since most of them live in 6th century accommodations in the first place, their trip to the frackin' stone age will be a short one.

KEWs accelerated straight down from hi geo orbit would hit like a frickin' meteor and would solve any worries about terrorism in the immediate area permanently.  If you can't get radical Islam out of an area, then you remove that area out of the country....

 :smokin:
:thumbsup:
I come in peace, I didn't bring artillery.  But I am pleading with you with tears in my eyes:  If you bleep with me, I'll kill you all.

Marine General James Mattis, to Iraqi tribal leaders (Note: Mattis did NOT say "BLEEP". He threw the F Bomb)

I didn't enlist in the Corps just to watch my country become a Third World Communist Shit-hole. Don't know anyone who did.

Online EC

  • Shanghaied Editor
  • Member
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 21,848
  • French entertainment is a waste of mime.
Re: Karzai says Afghanistan doesn't need US troops
« Reply #7 on: March 17, 2014, 06:18:32 AM »
yep.  Just what God made aircraft carrier battle groups for, at least in the interim. 

What we need is a good orbital bombardment system of some sort in geosynchronous orbit over Afghanistan/Pakistan/Waziristan/etc prepared to pound selected targets down into bedrock.  The whole area is geologically unstable anyway, and since most of them live in 6th century accommodations in the first place, their trip to the frackin' stone age will be a short one.

KEWs accelerated straight down from hi geo orbit would hit like a frickin' meteor and would solve any worries about terrorism in the immediate area permanently.  If you can't get radical Islam out of an area, then you remove that area out of the country....

 :smokin:

KEWs would be a useful addition and one heck of a force multiplier. They are not even banned under international law. Since they are both a sensible and logical option (though a little bit excessive at times in terms of results) the only program that could park them in orbit and maintain them (you want flexibility, you have to be able to refuel them, at least until the mythical ion drive gets the kinks worked out of it) had to be shut down.

Personally, I go for a much older technique. 4 teams, 4 hours, threat removed. Terrorists only respond to one thing. Terror. Use it. Screw the RoE that hampers effectiveness - you take them out, bury them deep and never refer to them again. To look at the Afghanistan RoE for a second - no night attacks are permitted. That is so bleep stupid it's like the brass want dead soldiers. You use ever single advantage you have. Technical, geographical and psychological. The bleep hate the dark.
Anyone who tells you you can't buy happiness has never been in a book store or an animal shelter.

You are the result of 3 billion years of evolutionary success. Act like it.

Avatar courtesy of Oceander

I've got a website now: Smoke and Ink


Share me

Digg  Facebook  SlashDot  Delicious  Technorati  Twitter  Google  Yahoo
Smf