Donald Trump 2018

[Anastasis 23699]

2 minutes ago, Js1 said:

I'd like to hear Donald Trump explain that to America.

Because the real morons of this country equate Taliban = Afghanistan = Osama bin Laden = 9/11

I think that you just called yourself a moron.

[Tuco 5093]

3 minutes ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

There’s a HUGE Pakistan dynamic to the Taliban too. 

Yep.  And selling weapons to India doesn't help our play with them. 

[Anastasis 23699]

1 minute ago, Tuco said:

Yep.  And selling weapons to India doesn't help our play with them. 

Look man, we have to compete with Russia on the international arms sales market.  They have a strong position in the Indian market, and we are doing Murica stuff here taking that back.  Nevermind the geopolitics of pumping arms in every contentious region of the world.  We must continue to be the strongest instrument of piece and stability in the world by selling everybody shit to blow each other up with. 

[Js1 86940]

5 minutes ago, Anastasis said:

I think that you just called yourself a moron.

You really think the average person knows the nuances of the Taliban's history in Afghanistan?  Half of them couldn't locate Afghanistan on a map, let alone get the correct continent it's on.  And let's be fucking honest, they aren't going to do a lick of reading about it.  Neither is Trump.  Jared will probably scour Amazon to see if there's someone who wrote a book about it. 

It's wrong to say that Taliban = OBL = 9/11.  But the Foreign Policy team of this administration isn't going to be able to teach it to Donald.  Though you could make a killing with a coloring book on the history of the Taliban. 

I'd love if we finally got out of Afghanistan. Land war in Asia, etc.

[Fozzz 152]

We own Russia in the arms export game.

https://www.businessinsider.com/top-countries-exporting-weapons-arms-sales-2018-3#1-united-states-10

[retread 2951]

I would love to hear somebody like Mattis try to explain the nuances to  DOTUS.

[Lurch 5949]

I’m strongly on Team GetTheFuckOut. That said, I’m also a realist that knows Obama was also on the team until he was brought up to speed on what that means to dozens of other MIddle East strategies that he/we were not privy to and/or haven’t taken the time to fully understand/appreciate they way thousands of bureaucrats who live/breathe these strategies have. Presidents are slapped in the face with inside information when they are sworn in and you can see it when their actions fail to follow their campaign promises.

 

Trump is unlikely to appreciate this insight, if he’s bothered to hear it at all.

 

[Brisketexan 106621]

5 minutes ago, Fozzz said:

We own Russia in the arms export game.

https://www.businessinsider.com/top-countries-exporting-weapons-arms-sales-2018-3#1-united-states-10

[Anastasis 23699]

3 minutes ago, Fozzz said:

We own Russia in the arms export game.

https://www.businessinsider.com/top-countries-exporting-weapons-arms-sales-2018-3#1-united-states-10

Not in the lucrative Indian market.  We are fighting Russia and Israel, but primarily Russia for market share. Big push recently. Making the MIC Great Again 

https://www.business-standard.com/article/economy-policy/us-narrows-gap-with-top-supplier-russia-arms-sales-to-india-soar-5-fold-118031700139_1.html

As New Delhi diversifies its arms purchases, the US is rapidly increasing its arms sales to India, emerging over the last five years as its second biggest supplier by providing 15 per cent of its weapons imports, a study by Sipri said.

Washington increased its sales by more than five times compared to the previous five years, the authoritative Stockholm International Peace Research Institute said in its report released this week.

Israel has moved up to the third spot accounting for 11 per cent of India's imports during the 2013-17 calendar years, Sipri added.

Although Russia remained by far India's biggest arms seller, it share of total imports has fallen.

Russia had a 62 per cent share of India's arms imports during the past five years, down from 79 per cent in 2008-12, according to the report that tracks the global arms trade.

Overall, India is the world's biggest importer of major arms accounting for 12 per cent of the total global imports during the last five years and it increased purchases abroad by 24 per cent compared to the previous five-year period, Sipri said.

[Anastasis 23699]

6 minutes ago, Lurch said:

I’m strongly on Team GetTheFuckOut. That said, I’m also a realist that knows Obama was also on the team until he was brought up to speed on what that means to dozens of other MIddle East strategies that he/we were not privy to and/or haven’t taken the time to fully understand/appreciate they way thousands of bureaucrats who live/breathe these strategies have. Presidents are slapped in the face with inside information when they are sworn in and you can see it when their actions fail to follow their campaign promises. 

You mean, "once they are brought under the influence of the unelected, opaque military intelligence industrial profit complex".  War is big business, can't let elections and electoral support for certain foreign policies get in the way of that shit. 

[Tuco 5093]

9 minutes ago, Lurch said:

I’m strongly on Team GetTheFuckOut. That said, I’m also a realist that knows Obama was also on the team until he was brought up to speed on what that means to dozens of other MIddle East strategies that he/we were not privy to and/or haven’t taken the time to fully understand/appreciate they way thousands of bureaucrats who live/breathe these strategies have. Presidents are slapped in the face with inside information when they are sworn in and you can see it when their actions fail to follow their campaign promises.

 

Trump is unlikely to appreciate this insight, if he’s bothered to hear it at all.

 

This is an excellent point.  Although, I'm not sure how much is what you describe and how much is the fear of "losing" Afghanistan.  Whoever pulls out is likely to get with some bad news cycles of some truly horrific shit.  Some people credit Obama with creating ISIS because of the force drawdown in Iraq. 

[WhatTheBuck 28904]

7 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

Well, yeah....probably.  But I've had no problem with us negotiating with the Taliban/other bad guys there in the past, and don't now.  Some sort of negotiated peace is the only way to end the quagmire.

The Taliban have known from Day 1 that we will eventually leave. When we do, they will retake Kabul. They won't offer us any concessions. Or they'll just lie about them. They'll go right back to enforcing their strict misinterpretation of Sharia law. They've known that whether we stay for 5, 10, 20, or 50 years, they will outlast us. 

It's a lot like N. Korea. There we negotiate with Un while China pulls the strings. In Afghanistan we'll negotiate with the Taliban while Pakistani intelligence pulls the strings. 

[Lurch 5949]

You mean, "once they are brought under the influence of the unelected, opaque military intelligence industrial profit complex".  War is big business, can't let elections and electoral support for certain foreign policies get in the way of that shit. 

That too. I wonder how big a role the industrial military complex played in digging us out of a recession. It wasn’t an insignificant amount I presume.

[Hornius Emeritus 12780]

22 minutes ago, Lurch said:

I’m strongly on Team GetTheFuckOut. That said, I’m also a realist that knows Obama was also on the team until he was brought up to speed on what that means to dozens of other MIddle East strategies that he/we were not privy to and/or haven’t taken the time to fully understand/appreciate they way thousands of bureaucrats who live/breathe these strategies have. Presidents are slapped in the face with inside information when they are sworn in and you can see it when their actions fail to follow their campaign promises.

 

Trump is unlikely to appreciate this insight, if he’s bothered to hear it at all.

 

 

And yet, in my opinion, the chance of ultimate success in Afghanistan (however you might define that) are the same whether we withdraw or not.

There's no way to begin to know what the endgame of such a move would be, nor  the endgame of staying indefinitely ------ or even if there WOULD be an endgame.

Given the 100% uncertainty inherent in both options, I say take the cheaper one.

 

 

[DixonHur 11941]

1 hour ago, Fozzz said:

Unlike our previous presidents, hopefully Trump has enough sense to finally extricate us from that quagmire for good.

 

 

Interesting.  I wonder what Putin's end game is here.

[Hornius Emeritus 12780]

7 minutes ago, WhatTheBuck said:

 They'll go right back to enforcing their strict misinterpretation of Sharia law. They've known that whether we stay for 5, 10, 20, or 50 years, they will outlast us. 

 

I think you're right about this, but I also think that, ultimately, they will lose. Because in the end freedom, McDonalds and Swedish Porn will win out.

[atomheartbevo 90547]

28 minutes ago, Lurch said:

I’m strongly on Team GetTheFuckOut. That said, I’m also a realist that knows Obama was also on the team until he was brought up to speed on what that means to dozens of other MIddle East strategies that he/we were not privy to and/or haven’t taken the time to fully understand/appreciate they way thousands of bureaucrats who live/breathe these strategies have. Presidents are slapped in the face with inside information when they are sworn in and you can see it when their actions fail to follow their campaign promises.

Trump is unlikely to appreciate this insight, if he’s bothered to hear it at all.

It's been openly rumored that we have teams of Army Special Forces and Air Force personnel who are trained to go into Pakistan and get as much of their nuclear weapons out as they can if Pakistan were to fall.

Given that Trump would probably see a Taliban/ISIS/whatever strongman taking over Pakistan the same way he sees Lil' Kim, he'd probably say "don't worry if they have nukes, I can negotiate with them!"

[SuingToGetAMessageBoard? 3861]

3 minutes ago, Hornius Emeritus said:

I think you're right about this, but I also think that, ultimately, they will lose. Because in the end freedom, McDonalds and Swedish Porn will win out.

Yeah.  That’s the whole value of being seen as the shining city on the hill.  If the common person everywhere sees what you’ve obtained as a goal, good things happen.  If they see you as excesses, bigotry and anti-intellectualism, the Golden Arches as pushed aside for anything that opposes it. 

[Tuco 5093]

10 minutes ago, WhatTheBuck said:

The Taliban have known from Day 1 that we will eventually leave. When we do, they will retake Kabul. They won't offer us any concessions. Or they'll just lie about them. They'll go right back to enforcing their strict misinterpretation of Sharia law. They've known that whether we stay for 5, 10, 20, or 50 years, they will outlast us. 

 

Not really.  We never took Kabul.  The Northern Alliance did. We funded them.  We provided them intel we could (from the sky, not the ground).  And we bombed the shit out of anyone faced them on an open battle field.  We had trivial ground troops - around 300.  The Northern Alliance morphed into the US supported funded government.  They could still hold the cities with funds, weapons, intel, and air support should there be significant battles.  But it's not enough to conquer and control the rural areas or prevent terror attacks in the city. 

[WhatTheBuck 28904]

17 minutes ago, Tuco said:

This is an excellent point.  Although, I'm not sure how much is what you describe and how much is the fear of "losing" Afghanistan.  Whoever pulls out is likely to get with some bad news cycles of some truly horrific shit.  Some people credit Obama with creating ISIS because of the force drawdown in Iraq. 

When in reality they're just an offshoot of Al Qaeda who Bush allowed to escape from Tora Bora and metastasize. The generals who led their military campaign across Syria and Iraq were former Baathists from the Iraqi army who Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeld/Bremer fired after the invasion. They took their experience and their arms and joined the opposition. Meanwhile team Dubya failed spectacularly in their effort to train a new Iraqi military, or to select a competent Shiite leader.

[Lurch 5949]

 
And yet, in my opinion, the chance of ultimate success in Afghanistan (however you might define that) are the same whether we withdraw or not.

There's no way to begin to know what the endgame of such a move would be, nor  the endgame of staying indefinitely ------ or even if there WOULD be an endgame.

Given the 100% uncertainty inherent in both options, I say take the cheaper one.

 
 

My point, though, is that success/failure is no longer the objective. There are likely strategies dependent on strategies dependent on strategies dependent on us just being there. The ramifications may be much higher than simply losing the country to the taliban again.

[Tuco 5093]

15 minutes ago, atomheartbevo said:

Given that Trump would probably see a Taliban/ISIS/whatever strongman taking over Pakistan the same way he sees Lil' Kim, he'd probably say "don't worry if they have nukes, I can negotiate with them!"

CNN had an article on Imran Khan yesterday which suggested he was the Pakistani Trump.  Khan is a former cricket star whose party just won power there. I have not really read up on him, but it appears he is has playboy credentials with Taliban support.  Good luck figuring that out.

[Vito Andolini 9431]

1 hour ago, Fozzz said:

Unlike our previous presidents, hopefully Trump has enough sense to finally extricate us from that quagmire for good.

 

 

I am 100% certain there’s been more reasoned, informed debate on this topic in the last hour on this thread than has ever been considered by the current POTUS. Fuck.

Edited July 30, 2018 by Vito Andolini
Clarifying I meant the asshole now in charge

[Hugo Stiglitz 23367]

3 minutes ago, Tuco said:

CNN had an article on Imran Khan yesterday which suggested he was the Pakistani Trump.  Khan is a former cricket star whose party just won power there. I have not really read up on him, but it appears he is has playboy credentials with Taliban support.  Good luck figuring that out.

The Pakistani are very good at controlling public opinion through their media outlets and are as extrajudicial on journalists as anyone. 

[WhatTheBuck 28904]

17 minutes ago, Tuco said:

Not really.  We never took Kabul.  The Northern Alliance did. We funded them.  We provided them intel we could (from the sky, not the ground).  And we bombed the shit out of anyone faced them on an open battle field.  We had trivial ground troops - around 300.  The Northern Alliance morphed into the US supported funded government.  They could still hold the cities with funds, weapons, intel, and air support should there be significant battles.  But it's not enough to conquer and control the rural areas or prevent terror attacks in the city. 

We had special forces on the ground performing surveillance, marking targets, and conducting air attacks. No, it wasn't a lot of them but that was the point. The success of the Northern Alliance campaign wouldn't have even been attempted, let alone have been so successful, without our special forces on the ground running the operation. 

It's the same as with the retaking of Iraqi territory from ISIS. The Iraqi military did the serious fighting and dying (also the point of that style of warfare) but they couldn't have done it without the help of relatively few American forces on the ground sharing intel and calling in air strikes. 

But none of that has to do with the fact that our presence is the reason the Taliban lost Kabul and haven't yet taken it back. Every other part of territory we've abandoned that was formerly controlled by the Taliban has been retaken by the Taliban. Kabul will be the same. It's what the ISI wants. 

[Brisketexan 106621]

49 minutes ago, WhatTheBuck said:

The Taliban have known from Day 1 that we will eventually leave. When we do, they will retake Kabul. They won't offer us any concessions. Or they'll just lie about them. They'll go right back to enforcing their strict misinterpretation of Sharia law. They've known that whether we stay for 5, 10, 20, or 50 years, they will outlast us. 

It's a lot like N. Korea. There we negotiate with Un while China pulls the strings. In Afghanistan we'll negotiate with the Taliban while Pakistani intelligence pulls the strings. 

Which is why we need to realize who we are negotiating with, and have parallel "discussions" with Pakistan.  It's a complex chess game (and has been for hundreds of years).

Which, of course, means I have little faith that this admin can play that game, because they have trouble thinking in anything but one dimension (and to be fair, I didn't have a lot of faith in the Obama admin doing much better -- that was always one of my biggest criticisms of him: he had no foreign relations chops.  Of course, I didn't see us trading him in for someone even LESS qualified, but here we are).

[Lagunamadre 1975]

7 minutes ago, WhatTheBuck said:

We had special forces on the ground performing surveillance, marking targets, and conducting air attacks. No, it wasn't a lot of them but that was the point. The success of the Northern Alliance campaign wouldn't have even been attempted, let alone have been so successful, without our special forces on the ground running the operation. 

It's the same as with the retaking of Iraqi territory from ISIS. The Iraqi military did the serious fighting and dying (also the point of that style of warfare) but they couldn't have done it without the help of relatively few American forces on the ground sharing intel and calling in air strikes. 

But none of that has to do with the fact that our presence is the reason the Taliban lost Kabul and haven't yet taken it back. Every other part of territory we've abandoned that was formerly controlled by the Taliban has been retaken by the Taliban. Kabul will be the same. It's what the ISI wants. 

There is a reason why the Haqqani network can operate relatively unencumbered in Pakistan. They will be Pakistan's de facto army to assert influence in post-America Afghanistan.  

[Hornius Emeritus 12780]

41 minutes ago, Lurch said:

 

My point, though, is that success/failure is no longer the objective. There are likely strategies dependent on strategies dependent on strategies dependent on us just being there. The ramifications may be much higher than simply losing the country to the taliban again.

 

Perhaps, but MY point is that those "strategies dependent on strategies dependent on strategies"  have only a 50-50 chance of culminating in an outcome that is favorable to the U.S.

[Orca of Peace 109]

15 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

Which is why we need to realize who we are negotiating with, and have parallel "discussions" with Pakistan.  It's a complex chess game (and has been for hundreds of years).

Which, of course, means I have little faith that this admin can play that game, because they have trouble thinking in anything but one dimension (and to be fair, I didn't have a lot of faith in the Obama admin doing much better -- that was always one of my biggest criticisms of him: he had no foreign relations chops.  Of course, I didn't see us trading him in for someone even LESS qualified, but here we are).

and what would these "parallel discussions" entail? 

[Foosters 18225]

Election 2020: Make Politics Boring Again

[Orca of Peace 109]

1 hour ago, WhatTheBuck said:

The Taliban have known from Day 1 that we will eventually leave. When we do, they will retake Kabul. They won't offer us any concessions. Or they'll just lie about them. They'll go right back to enforcing their strict misinterpretation of Sharia law. They've known that whether we stay for 5, 10, 20, or 50 years, they will outlast us. 

It's a lot like N. Korea. There we negotiate with Un while China pulls the strings. In Afghanistan we'll negotiate with the Taliban while Pakistani intelligence pulls the strings. 

no one has fully conquered Afghanistan, not the Mongols, Russians, Soviets (later), British, Persians, Turks or Americans. It's impressive really, Afghans are my vote for the toughest people ever - fighting off the greatest superpowers of all time. 

[DixonHur 11941]

40 minutes ago, Tuco said:

CNN had an article on Imran Khan yesterday which suggested he was the Pakistani Trump.  Khan is a former cricket star whose party just won power there. I have not really read up on him, but it appears he is has playboy credentials with Taliban support.  Good luck figuring that out.

Our president has playboy credentials (literally) and evangelical support, so there are some similarities.

[Lagunamadre 1975]

6 minutes ago, Orca of Peace said:

and what would these "parallel discussions" entail? 

"We can make your life miserable if you allow the Haqqanis and the Taliban to overtake Kaubul. We know that you know who they are, where they are, and how to limit their influence more so than any other government in the world. If you sit there and shrug your shoulders and play dumb while your proxies undermine our decades of work in Afghanistan you will be poorer and India will be richer and better armed than ever" 

[HOOK'EMHOOAH 1610]

As someone who has invested a great deal of themself in the successful outcome of our being in Afghanistan, its important to me and many like me that success isn't defined just by whether or not US interests are preserved. Afghanistan has been our ally since the fall of the Taliban and abandoning that would create a very similar power vacuum to the one they suffered after the Communist regime fell when the USSR abandoned their occupation. So going forward, it will be vital to remember that it's easier to bring about positive change and influence with friendly relations and shared mutual interests than it is hostility. The US and NATO doesn't necessarily need to establish permanent bases in the country but withdrawing prematurely would be disastrous to the overall goal of ensuring Afghanistan can never again be used as a base of operations for groups like Al Queda to launch an attack upon the US or anyone else. There is also the humanitarian aspect of ensuring that a governing body like the Taliban can't assume control of the government and subjugate the people to unspeakable horrors.

[Orca of Peace 109]

4 minutes ago, Lagunamadre said:

"We can make your life miserable if you allow the Haqqanis and the Taliban to overtake Kaubul. We know that you know who they are, where they are, and how to limit their influence more so than any other government in the world. If you sit there and shrug your shoulders and play dumb while your proxies undermine our decades of work in Afghanistan you will be poorer and India will be richer and better armed than ever" 

if the US leaves, the Taliban can take kabul without much Pakistan help. There isn't much opposition outside of the US. 

[Lagunamadre 1975]

7 minutes ago, Orca of Peace said:

if the US leaves, the Taliban can take kabul without much Pakistan help. There isn't much opposition outside of the US. 

I think we are less worried about their help as we are with their complacency.  

[Lurch 5949]

Perhaps, but MY point is that those "strategies dependent on strategies dependent on strategies"  have only a 50-50 chance of culminating in an outcome that is favorable to the U.S.

I don’t think we (as outsiders) have any way of knowing that’s true. I should hope it’s not true.

[Orca of Peace 109]

11 minutes ago, Lagunamadre said:

I think we are less worried about their help as we are with their complacency.  

so you want Pakistan involved or stay out of it? Since they share the ethnic group of Pashtun, and the new PM is one, I doubt they'll stay out of it. The ISI itself is highy undisciplined with rouge units doing as they please (ie hide Osama Bin Laden).  The situation will be chaotic once the US leaves, only power enforces daily life, not sham agreements which are forgotten in minutes. 

[Lagunamadre 1975]

4 minutes ago, Orca of Peace said:

so you want Pakistan involved or stay out of it? Since they share the ethnic group of Pashtun, and the new PM is one, I doubt they'll stay out of it. The ISI itself is highy undisciplined with rouge units doing as they please (ie hide Osama Bin Laden).  The situation will be chaotic once the US leaves, only power enforces daily life, not sham agreements which are forgotten in minutes. 

Pakistan has massive influence with the Taliban through the Haqqanis. If we pull out, I'm assuming that they will quietly urge the Haqqanis with their Taliban partners to take control of Kabul. That will give Pakistan soft power over the hard power in the "new" Afghanistan. 

We obviously know this is a strong possibility and should sufficiently warn the Pakkis that there will be consequences if that is the outcome due to their cooperation or complicity.  

[Orca of Peace 109]

8 minutes ago, Lagunamadre said:

Pakistan has massive influence with the Taliban through the Haqqanis. If we pull out, I'm assuming that they will quietly urge the Haqqanis with their Taliban partners to take control of Kabul. That will give Pakistan soft power over the hard power in the "new" Afghanistan. 

We obviously know this is a strong possibility and should sufficiently warn the Pakkis that there will be consequences if that is the outcome due to their cooperation or complicity.  

if the US cuts off all military aid to Pakistan, this will radicalize them more, paving the way for far right religious groups to take over the Pakistani countryside or even the capital.  Sanctions don't really help the cause as it makes poor people suffer while the rich elites continue their easy life of indulgence. 

[WhatTheBuck 28904]

35 minutes ago, HOOK'EMHOOAH said:

As someone who has invested a great deal of themself in the successful outcome of our being in Afghanistan, its important to me and many like me that success isn't defined just by whether or not US interests are preserved. Afghanistan has been our ally since the fall of the Taliban and abandoning that would create a very similar power vacuum to the one they suffered after the Communist regime fell when the USSR abandoned their occupation. So going forward, it will be vital to remember that it's easier to bring about positive change and influence with friendly relations and shared mutual interests than it is hostility. The US and NATO doesn't necessarily need to establish permanent bases in the country but withdrawing prematurely would be disastrous to the overall goal of ensuring Afghanistan can never again be used as a base of operations for groups like Al Queda to launch an attack upon the US or anyone else. There is also the humanitarian aspect of ensuring that a governing body like the Taliban can't assume control of the government and subjugate the people to unspeakable horrors.

It would help if the leaders we've installed since the fall of the Taliban weren't thoroughly corrupt. 

[Orca of Peace 109]

12 minutes ago, WhatTheBuck said:

It would help if the leaders we've installed since the fall of the Taliban weren't thoroughly corrupt. 

they're corrupt mostly due to suitcases full of cash by the US army. They will be corrupt after the US leave and 1000 years from now they will be corruption.  

[Dahobbs 18190]

3 minutes ago, Orca of Peace said:

they're corrupt mostly due to suitcases full of cash by the US army. They will be corrupt after the US leave and 1000 years from now they will be corruption.  

Schto, comrade? 

Edited July 30, 2018 by Dahobbs

[Orca of Peace 109]

4 minutes ago, Dahobbs said:

Schto, comrade? 

my mistake, not the US Army but the CIA (being guarded by the US Army)

 

https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2013/04/cia-gave-karzai-bags-full-cash-over-decade/315828/

The CIA Gave Karzai Bags Full of Cash for Over a Decade

Afghan president Hamid Karzai has a sugar daddy, and its name is the Central Intelligence Agency. Or at least it had a sugar daddy.

 

Afghan president Hamid Karzai has a sugar daddy, and its name is the Central Intelligence Agency. Or at least it had a sugar daddy. For over ten years, American spies greased Karzai's palms about once a month with suitcases, backpacks and even plastic grocery bags full of cash. And not those relatively worthless Afghanis either. According to a New York Times investigation, the CIA delivered tens of millions of dollars in cash right to Karzai's office. "We called it 'ghost money,' " Khalil Roman, Karzai's former chief of staff, told The Times. "It came in secret, and it left in secret."

 

Evidently, that's exactly what's happening in Afghanistan. "The biggest source of corruption in Afghanistan was the United States," an America official said to The Times. To give you a sense of the scale of corruption, the only other country found to be delivering bags of cash to Karzai was none other than Iran. And what do we get for all that bread? Officials on both sides say that "the agency.s main goal in providing the cash has been to maintain access to Mr. Karzai and his inner circle and to guarantee the agency's influence at the presidential palace, which wields tremendous power in Afghanistan's highly centralized government."

[Grandioso 2592]

Someone needs to put 20 billion barrels of oil under Afghanistan, and we could privately finance this thing ad infinitum.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Dahobbs 18190]

4 minutes ago, Orca of Peace said:

my mistake, not the US Army but the CIA (being guarded by the US Army)

 

https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2013/04/cia-gave-karzai-bags-full-cash-over-decade/315828/

The CIA Gave Karzai Bags Full of Cash for Over a Decade

Afghan president Hamid Karzai has a sugar daddy, and its name is the Central Intelligence Agency. Or at least it had a sugar daddy.

 

Afghan president Hamid Karzai has a sugar daddy, and its name is the Central Intelligence Agency. Or at least it had a sugar daddy. For over ten years, American spies greased Karzai's palms about once a month with suitcases, backpacks and even plastic grocery bags full of cash. And not those relatively worthless Afghanis either. According to a New York Times investigation, the CIA delivered tens of millions of dollars in cash right to Karzai's office. "We called it 'ghost money,' " Khalil Roman, Karzai's former chief of staff, told The Times. "It came in secret, and it left in secret."

 

Evidently, that's exactly what's happening in Afghanistan. "The biggest source of corruption in Afghanistan was the United States," an America official said to The Times. To give you a sense of the scale of corruption, the only other country found to be delivering bags of cash to Karzai was none other than Iran. And what do we get for all that bread? Officials on both sides say that "the agency.s main goal in providing the cash has been to maintain access to Mr. Karzai and his inner circle and to guarantee the agency's influence at the presidential palace, which wields tremendous power in Afghanistan's highly centralized government."

 

Ya neh poneemahyu. Your original sentence made no sense. Please review. spahceeba.

[Orca of Peace 109]

3 minutes ago, Dahobbs said:

 

Ya neh poneemahyu. Your original sentence made no sense. Please review. spahceeba.

it made sense, yours OTOH, not so much.

[Dahobbs 18190]

3 minutes ago, Orca of Peace said:

it made sense, yours OTOH, not so much.

Quote

  They will be corrupt after the US leave and 1000 years from now they will be corruption. 

This is unintelligible in English. 

Edited July 30, 2018 by Dahobbs

[Huckleberry 34407]

Treating "US" as a plural pronoun. Seemingly random grammatical failures. Interesting.

[Vito Andolini 9431]

12 minutes ago, Huckleberry said:

Treating "US" as a plural pronoun. Seemingly random grammatical failures. Interesting.