US planning full Afghan pullout, Obama tells Karzai

BBC.com ^ | February 25, 2014 | BBC

[Timber Rattler]

President Barack Obama has warned his Afghan counterpart Hamid Karzai that the US may pull all of its troops out of his country by the year's end.

Mr Obama conveyed the message in a phone call to Mr Karzai, who has refused to sign a security agreement.

[gandalftb]

It’s not a bluff, the order went out two weeks ago that no replacement tracked or wheeled vehicles were to be sent to Afghanistan.

A year ago a relative of mine went to Afghanistan and his units assignment was to prepare equipment for return to CONUS or Germany.

[Cyber Liberty]

Well, it’s not hard to predict. We pulled out of Iraq lock, stock and barrel because they refused to give our soldiers any legal protections from lawsuits. If Afghanistan is also refusing to do so, then we *have* to leave.

Last I heard, Karzai was demanding large sums of money in order to remove our military hardware from the country. We need to gather all those assets up tight, warn the locals to stay away, and disintegrate them with a couple of A-10 Warthogs. Maybe even a B-52 run.

Then leave Karzai to the tender care of the Taliban.

[varyouga]

“For what, so some American bid ness men can make bundles of money at the expense of our boys?”

Yes, that was part of the reason.

However, natural resources are also critical to national security.

A severe fuel shortage in the USA would be devastating and can easily result in a collapse with millions dead. I see nothing wrong with using the US military to secure necessary resources while such a threat exists.

“War for Oil” is spouted by the hippies to sound terrible but we would all be nearly dead without oil and some rare earth minerals.

[Owl558]

“The U.S. military that you see today is the product of a post-1900 globalist empire that has no basis in Constitutional law.”

Exactly what empire are you talking about? Post 1900? You mean the Spanish American War? LOL The conquest of Puerto Rico??

Also note below that Congress has every power to raise armies and navies and that calling out the militia is also a power, although well down the list.

“To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;

To provide and maintain a Navy;

To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;

To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;

To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress...”

[Joe Boucher]

Currently we are producing more energy than we need.
Course obammy’s friends hate coal so that is off the table.
And North shore oil is a no go as well as Canadian shale oil.
Other than some “rare minerals” we have most everything we need.
Course if butt heads restrict oil, coal, natural gas exploitation including fracking then hell yeah, let’s rely on Saudi Arabia and Venezuela.

[Alberta's Child]

You'll notice that the Constitution clearly specifies that the "navy" is under Congressional control, but there was always an expectation that the "army" would be drawn from State militias and put under Federal control when the need arose. This is no mere coincidence. Federal control of the Navy was necessary at all times because the U.S. Navy would operate in the "high seas" which are: (1) outside the jurisdiction of any state, and (2) are outside the legal jurisdiction of the Federal government ... which means (by definition) that the Navy would be subject to international treaties, agreements and maritime law (which are absolutely under the purview of Federal, not State, control) in a way that the "militia" would not.

I'd also point out that Congress has every power to raise Armies and Navies, but this power comes with a responsibility to issue formal declarations of war. I can't imagine any of the Founding Fathers would be comfortable with the idea of having U.S. military forces in a place like South Korea for 60 'effing years without even so much as a declaration of war from Congress.

[ilovesarah2012]

Who is mining in Afghanistan?

[Owl558]

The issue is not about declarations of war, but whether or not Congress has the power to raise armies independant of the state militias, which of course, they do. It says so in plain language. What Congress does with their power is a different matter.

I still want to know what post 1900 American empire you are referring to. That was actually my primary question.

[Alberta's Child]

This country has effectively been an empire since 1912 when New Mexico and Arizona became the last of the Lower 48 states to be admitted into the Union. It's no coincidence that 1913 saw the introduction of the Federal income tax, and Woodrow Wilson established himself as the first big-government globalist "neo-conservative" shortly after that when he brought the U.S. into World War I to "make the world safe for democracy." Funny how I don't see that mandate written anywhere in any of the governing documents of this nation.

The U.S. now has a permanent military presence all over the globe, and will move mountains to promote our brand of radical secularism in any country we deem a trading partner.

You don't really think the U.S. military campaigns in Iraq and Afghanistan had anything to do with some kind of half-assed "War on Terror," do you?

[Owl558]

I’m not sure I understand your leaps here.

So a majority of New Mexican citizens petition the Federal Government for statehood, which is granted, which causes the federal income tax?? And somehow, Wilson entering WWI with a ligitimate congressional Declaration of War isn’t covered in the “governing documents of this nation.”

You make no sense to me.

If you mean the Mexican War (1846 not “post 1900”) was an imperial war, that is a fair statement open to debate. However, we have examples from earlier in US history of “imperial” wars - Monroe’s annexation of Florida (~1819) or attempted invasions of Canada during the War of 1812. Note that President Monroe was a bona fide Founding Father, so for anyone to state that the founders never intended the US to conduct “imperial” wars is flat-out wrong.

I do encourage you to learn more about my home state of New Mexico, however. It’s a VERY special part of the United States.

[Popman]

I think the later...

[Alberta's Child]

It has nothing to do with New Mexico and Arizona per se. It's just that once those two states joined the Union there was no longer a frontier -- and growth by statehood in the contiguous United States came to an end.

For better or worse, the earlier "imperial" wars you describe were for the purpose of expanding the United States as a nation. It's been decades since we've done that. Now, we grow through colonization even as we allow millions of foreign invaders to pour over our own borders.

[Owl558]

“For better or worse, the earlier “imperial” wars you describe were for the purpose of expanding the United States as a nation. It’s been decades since we’ve done that.”

I have Pinoy friends who truly and strongly wish that the Philipines were the 51st state. Imagine if that had come to pass. Cheers FRiend! We agree on many points.

[Alberta's Child]

Thanks, FRiend!

And as an FYI ... I spent some time out in the Santa Fe-Las Vegas area a few years back. That's some really pretty country you've got out there!