Help FR Continue the Conservative Fight!
Your Monthly and Quarterly Donations
Help Keep FR In the Battle!
Sponsoring FReepers are contributing
$10 Each time a New Monthly Donor signs up!
Get more bang for your FR buck!
Click Here To Sign Up Now!
Posted on 01/11/2013 6:39:51 PM PST by Olog-hai
The Taliban, which harbored al Qaeda in Afghanistan in the lead up to the 9/11 attacks on America in 2001, will have an office in Afghanistan and engage in direct talks with the democratic government there, President Barack Obama and Afghan President Hamid Karzai affirmed at a joint White House news conference Friday.
“Ultimately security gains must be matched by political progress, so we’ve recommitted our nations to a reconciliation process between the Afghan government and the Taliban,” Obama said. “President Karzai updated me on the Afghan government’s road map to peace, and today we agreed that this process should be advanced by the opening of a Taliban office to facilitate talks.”
Karzai agreed this would be an important step for the peace process.
(Excerpt) Read more at cnsnews.com ...
Political Progress = the transformation of America.
What Bizzaro earth have I landed on?
Surrender.
I thought that one of our primary objectives for being in Afghanistan was to get rid of the Taliban?
Get us the hell out of this worthless waste of a country NOW! Let the rag heads spend their wrath on each other not on our soldiers.
They don’t intend to spend their wrath on each other. And the faster we run away, the more emboldened they’ll get.
There are very few Christians and Jews in Afghanistan, so I would expect when we are gone, and there are not many Infidels left to kill, the Sunnis will start to knuckle under the Shiite minority in Afghanistan. -Tom
So, I guess we continue to sacrifice our young troops to a loosing cause?
As for spending their wrath on each other ... they were doing this long before we got involved. This culture has been involved in tribe against tribe mayhem for millennia.
more flexibility after I’m reelected
If fighting is sure to result in victory, then you must fight, even though the ruler forbid it; if fighting will not result in victory, then you must not fight even at the ruler’s bidding. (10:23)Instead we have generals that care more about what the politicians tell them than what will work. (The Art Of War was meant for generals.)
All you need to know is how the liberal democrats despised our allies in Southeast Asia, and forced the deaths of millions after our Vietnam withdrawal - to understand what they are capable of.
Give them an office in the White House the Taliban is already there, they may as well have an office.
I assume the Taliban office in Afghanistan will have direct communications with the Taliban office in Washington D.C.
I guess we had a similar train of thought.
It moved from the White Crib to Afghanistan? Whoda thunk it?
So, to save face we continue to sacrifice our best and brightest? As a veteran of VN I say BS. Get us the hell out of Afghanistan and let them fight their own fight.
If our troops are not allowed to fight via conventional rules of engagement then we should leave. Like VN we are fighting for a people that don’t give a damn and wish we were gone so they can get on with their regular lives ...
I’d say surrender monkey but it’d probably be interpreted as racist.
So we should stay in Iraq and Afghanistan? Should we invade Iran and all other Islamic s***holes? What about Mexico, Central America, and South America? Africa? Where does it end?
1. How exactly is there reconciliation between the United States and a terrorist group that participated in 9/11?
2. If we went into Afghanistan to destroy the Taliban then why are we recognizing them politically while still maintaining troops there.
If Obama is going to be chummy with 9/11 terrorist groups then get our soldiers the hell out of there ... now!! what the hell are they dying for ... now?
3. Is any House Republican going to speak out against this craziness? Impeach the SOB!
Did I misidentify the problem that resulted in sacrificing instead of fighting? Since you pointed out the problem with rules of engagement, I would think you do get it to an extent. I don’t know if you agree that generals should fight even when the ruler (in this case the POTUS and his administration) tells them not to, in the case of fighting assuring victory that is.
If you want to invite more attacks on the home soil, the proverbial declaring of victory and running away surely is the way to do it. They will not leave us alone.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.