Do you have adblock enabled?
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Stars and Stripes)   Hamid Karzai: "To give US troops immunity from prosecution, I'll need you to hand over all detainees in custody, shut all prisons, hand over control of Afghan airspace, and stop raiding villages." So you're sayin' there's a chance?   (stripes.com) divider line 72
    More: Unlikely, Hamid Karzai, Afghans, United States, Afghan airspace, number of troops, sovereignty, villages, prosecutors  
•       •       •

1330 clicks; posted to Politics » on 10 Dec 2012 at 10:47 AM (2 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



72 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread
 
2012-12-10 09:49:02 AM  
So let's do it. 
 
2012-12-10 10:50:31 AM  

I_C_Weener: So let's do it.


Do it and GTFO.
 
2012-12-10 10:52:02 AM  
zipdog: I_C_Weener: So let's do it.

Do it and GTFO.


Yesterday.
 
2012-12-10 10:53:30 AM  
Pointing to that fine line between liberator and dictator.
 
2012-12-10 10:55:25 AM  
Well, we need to do all of those things, anyway.
 
2012-12-10 10:56:02 AM  
Sounds good to me.
 
2012-12-10 10:56:58 AM  
Well... okay.
 
2012-12-10 10:59:02 AM  
Deal!
 
2012-12-10 10:59:12 AM  
That's actually a fair deal. You want to be immune from prosecution? Okay, then you don't get to have any responsibility any chance to break the laws.
 
2012-12-10 11:02:21 AM  
If this makes us leave quicker, sure.
 
2012-12-10 11:03:44 AM  

TheOther: zipdog: I_C_Weener: So let's do it.

Do it and GTFO.

Yesterday.


Is the headline referencing "the end of 2014", when our troops will be "out" of Afghanistan? Or is this a "now" thing, where we need continued immunity (which I thought troops in wartime had anyway, absent war crimes) to continue to wage our war until we can leave?
 
2012-12-10 11:06:13 AM  
I'm pretty sure "handover" isn't actually a word.
 
2012-12-10 11:10:40 AM  
So what's the deathpool on Karzai after NATO exits Afghanistan?
 
2012-12-10 11:12:05 AM  
This has been an issue Karzai's pressed for years. There's an important distinction though: "hand over" doesn't equate to "release." So unlawful detainment might not cease with such a movement.
 
2012-12-10 11:13:18 AM  
How about US troops GTFO pronto? Then Karzai can have all the sovereignty he wants.
 
2012-12-10 11:15:07 AM  

Nurglitch: So what's the deathpool on Karzai after NATO exits Afghanistan?


Karzai's second and final term ends in 2014. So he could be leaving as soon as US ground troops do.
 
2012-12-10 11:18:20 AM  

Dr Dreidel: TheOther: zipdog: I_C_Weener: So let's do it.

Do it and GTFO.

Yesterday.

Is the headline referencing "the end of 2014", when our troops will be "out" of Afghanistan? Or is this a "now" thing, where we need continued immunity (which I thought troops in wartime had anyway, absent war crimes) to continue to wage our war until we can leave?


Since the US propped up a government there and wishes to confer a degree of legitimacy upon it the US must make agreements with it re: what forces can be stationed there and how. On paper, what degree of immunity US troops have from afgan law is entirely up to Afghanistan. Of course, factually they have little hope of arresting US troops in any numbers, but kicking over governments you've installed to unarrest your own troops is an embarrassing thing for a superpower to go through.

Being refused immunity is the same reason the US left Iraq.
 
2012-12-10 11:19:43 AM  

oryx: How about US troops GTFO pronto? Then Karzai can have all the sovereignty he wants.


Yep. And when Afghanistan balkinizes and falls to radicals in less time than we've spent fighting over there, it will all be worth it.

/At least we were greeted as liberators
//At least the war paid for itself
///And it's not like anyone died over there
 
2012-12-10 11:19:47 AM  

Holocaust Agnostic: Dr Dreidel: TheOther: zipdog: I_C_Weener: So let's do it.

Do it and GTFO.

Yesterday.

Is the headline referencing "the end of 2014", when our troops will be "out" of Afghanistan? Or is this a "now" thing, where we need continued immunity (which I thought troops in wartime had anyway, absent war crimes) to continue to wage our war until we can leave?

Since the US propped up a government there and wishes to confer a degree of legitimacy upon it the US must make agreements with it re: what forces can be stationed there and how. On paper, what degree of immunity US troops have from afgan law is entirely up to Afghanistan. Of course, factually they have little hope of arresting US troops in any numbers, but kicking over governments you've installed to unarrest your own troops is an embarrassing thing for a superpower to go through.

Being refused immunity is the same reason the US left Iraq.


But, but I thought it was that banner on the aircraft carrier? The President in a flight suit wouldn't lie! Would he?!
 
2012-12-10 11:23:53 AM  

Dr Dreidel: TheOther: zipdog: I_C_Weener: So let's do it.

Do it and GTFO.

Yesterday.

Is the headline referencing "the end of 2014", when our troops will be "out" of Afghanistan? Or is this a "now" thing, where we need continued immunity (which I thought troops in wartime had anyway, absent war crimes) to continue to wage our war until we can leave?


I'd imagine it's like Iraq where we renegotiate our agreement and the end of our occupation in the Status of Forces thingy. So 2014.

/DNRTFA
 
2012-12-10 11:25:15 AM  

Holocaust Agnostic: Of course, factually they have little hope of arresting US troops in any numbers


And wouldn't the military want to prosecute things like rape, murder, arson and rape anyway? Or is this a "Does the judge speak Arabic or English when they sentence you" kind of thing?

I know that there are sometimes loopholes that allow a servicemember to, say, participate in the gang-rape of a Japanese woman on a military base and not be tried for it (or maybe I'm remembering that wrong, and because it happened on-base, he was subject to UCMJ...whatever. There are loopholes).

Anyway, subjecting US troops to Afghan justice (when they fark up, of course) is a great way of conferring legitimacy to that government and its criminal justice system, don't you think?

Holocaust Agnostic: Being refused immunity is the same reason the US left Iraq.


The fact that public opinion supported "burning down Congress with all 535 members locked inside" over "spend 20 more military minutes in Iraq" had nothing to do with it? (I agree that that was a big driving factor, but no way was it 50+% of the reason.)
 
2012-12-10 11:25:40 AM  
Karzai would do well to remember that the real reason we went into Iraq in the first place were those oil fields he is opening up to the Chinese. We can come back whenever we need to, you ungrateful twit.
 
2012-12-10 11:26:52 AM  

verbaltoxin: Holocaust Agnostic: Dr Dreidel: TheOther: zipdog: I_C_Weener: So let's do it.

Do it and GTFO.

Yesterday.

Is the headline referencing "the end of 2014", when our troops will be "out" of Afghanistan? Or is this a "now" thing, where we need continued immunity (which I thought troops in wartime had anyway, absent war crimes) to continue to wage our war until we can leave?

Since the US propped up a government there and wishes to confer a degree of legitimacy upon it the US must make agreements with it re: what forces can be stationed there and how. On paper, what degree of immunity US troops have from afgan law is entirely up to Afghanistan. Of course, factually they have little hope of arresting US troops in any numbers, but kicking over governments you've installed to unarrest your own troops is an embarrassing thing for a superpower to go through.

Being refused immunity is the same reason the US left Iraq.

But, but I thought it was that banner on the aircraft carrier? The President in a flight suit wouldn't lie! Would he?!


As tackily charming as that finale was, I'm afraid that they made 8 more seasons and a movie.
 
2012-12-10 11:29:24 AM  

Dr Dreidel: And wouldn't the military want to prosecute things like rape, murder, arson and rape anyway?


With the way the military turned its back to the incident where someone stampeded cattle through the Vatican I can understand the afghani position.
 
2012-12-10 11:30:44 AM  
Dr. Drediel Or is this a "Does the judge speak Arabic or English when they sentence you" kind of thing?

Yep.
 
2012-12-10 11:34:39 AM  

born_yesterday: Yep. And when Afghanistan balkinizes and falls to radicals in less time than we've spent fighting over there, it will all be worth it.


It's going to happen anyway. Might as well get our people out now and watch from a safe distance.

Clearly the people in this region have no intention of living peacefully as part of the world community any time soon. Let's stop making it our problem.
 
2012-12-10 11:36:25 AM  
so...give me everything and "maybe" I will be able to argue for it.
right.

sounds like the start of the "fiscal cliff" negotiations.
 
2012-12-10 11:37:48 AM  

born_yesterday: Yep. And when Afghanistan balkinizes and falls to radicals in less time than we've spent fighting over there, it will all be worth it.


Welcome to Afghanistan. I'm pretty sure this time will be six or seven. Once they take down 10 empires with ridiculous foreign wars, they get a free car wash.
 
2012-12-10 11:40:04 AM  
Nobody tells 'Murica what to do.
 
2012-12-10 11:40:52 AM  

SpectroBoy: born_yesterday: Yep. And when Afghanistan balkinizes and falls to radicals in less time than we've spent fighting over there, it will all be worth it.

It's going to happen anyway. Might as well get our people out now and watch from a safe distance.

Clearly the people in this region have no intention of living peacefully as part of the world community any time soon. Let's stop making it our problem.


It's the way things have always been there. Since the time of Alexander.

If in the 80's, you'd asked the average flag-waving moron whether they thought we should invade Afghanistan after the Soviets left (who were fighting against those righteous freedom fighters, mind you), they'd have looked at you cross-eyed and shiat themselves.

Thank God we had the war in Iraq to distract from the complete clusterfark that this war was. Thank God we sent soldiers to die in a region that hasn't identified as a nation since before the Roman farking empire. Thank God that it was all for farking nothing.

/At least the contractors got rich.
 
2012-12-10 11:42:57 AM  

born_yesterday: Yep. And when Afghanistan balkinizes and falls to radicals in less time than we've spent fighting over there, it will all be worth it.


We got Osama bin Laden and pretty much destroy Al Qaeda. So, we did what we set out to do.

After World War II, we stayed in Europe rebuilding for four years. The Soviet Union stayed for the next forty years. We're starting to look a hell of a lot more like the Soviet Union than the United States.
 
2012-12-10 11:43:04 AM  
The sooner Afghanistan is back to destroying historically significant religious landmarks, extra-deluxe oppressing women and providing a safe haven for anti-U.S. terrorists the better off we'll all be.

Not to say we shouldn't cut and run. That's how it always plays out in that shiathole.
 
2012-12-10 11:50:04 AM  

The Larch: born_yesterday: Yep. And when Afghanistan balkinizes and falls to radicals in less time than we've spent fighting over there, it will all be worth it.

We got Osama bin Laden and pretty much destroy Al Qaeda. So, we did what we set out to do.

After World War II, we stayed in Europe rebuilding for four years. The Soviet Union stayed for the next forty years. We're starting to look a hell of a lot more like the Soviet Union than the United States.


Don't get me wrong, the Taliban needed to be eliminated as a state entity. We did that. But when asking "What's our exit strategy?" gets "You're a traitor" as its only response, there is something very wrong.
 
2012-12-10 11:50:10 AM  
Done in one.
 
2012-12-10 11:57:41 AM  

Dr Dreidel: Holocaust Agnostic: Of course, factually they have little hope of arresting US troops in any numbers

And wouldn't the military want to prosecute things like rape, murder, arson and rape anyway? Or is this a "Does the judge speak Arabic or English when they sentence you" kind of thing?

I know that there are sometimes loopholes that allow a servicemember to, say, participate in the gang-rape of a Japanese woman on a military base and not be tried for it (or maybe I'm remembering that wrong, and because it happened on-base, he was subject to UCMJ...whatever. There are loopholes).

Anyway, subjecting US troops to Afghan justice (when they fark up, of course) is a great way of conferring legitimacy to that government and its criminal justice system, don't you think?

Holocaust Agnostic: Being refused immunity is the same reason the US left Iraq.

The fact that public opinion supported "burning down Congress with all 535 members locked inside" over "spend 20 more military minutes in Iraq" had nothing to do with it? (I agree that that was a big driving factor, but no way was it 50+% of the reason.)


You said "rape" thrice.
 
2012-12-10 11:58:07 AM  

born_yesterday: Don't get me wrong, the Taliban needed to be eliminated as a state entity.


Why? The Taliban didn't attack us. They even offered to hand over Bin Laden as long as he was tried in the Hague instead of in a secretive military tribunal where the verdict was all but known ahead of time. We decided that wasn't good enough. There was very little reason to invade Afghanistan other than for bloodthirsty revenge, which the American people cheered for loudly.
 
2012-12-10 11:59:30 AM  
President Bleyo: "Deal! See ya!"
 
2012-12-10 12:07:24 PM  

Dr Dreidel: TheOther: zipdog: I_C_Weener: So let's do it.

Do it and GTFO.

Yesterday.

Is the headline referencing "the end of 2014", when our troops will be "out" of Afghanistan? Or is this a "now" thing, where we need continued immunity (which I thought troops in wartime had anyway, absent war crimes) to continue to wage our war until we can leave?


"Immunity" is to civil prosecution (though there may be exceptions, I don't remember). Troops are obviously subject to the CMJ, which can be a lot harsher than civil law, . . . although that may not be true in a venue like Afghanistan.
 
2012-12-10 12:13:33 PM  

mksmith: Dr Dreidel: TheOther: zipdog: I_C_Weener: So let's do it.

Do it and GTFO.

Yesterday.

Is the headline referencing "the end of 2014", when our troops will be "out" of Afghanistan? Or is this a "now" thing, where we need continued immunity (which I thought troops in wartime had anyway, absent war crimes) to continue to wage our war until we can leave?

"Immunity" is to civil prosecution (though there may be exceptions, I don't remember). Troops are obviously subject to the CMJ, which can be a lot harsher than civil law, . . . although that may not be true in a venue like Afghanistan.


Depends. 90 days in the brig vs. tongue cut out. Personal preference, really.
 
2012-12-10 12:16:57 PM  
Just wondering though... how are the Afghans going to control their airspace? Do they have a SU-25 left over from the Soviet invasion and held together with duct tape? As far as we know we're not selling them any planes...
 
2012-12-10 12:17:12 PM  

Dr Dreidel: Holocaust Agnostic: Of course, factually they have little hope of arresting US troops in any numbers

And wouldn't the military want to prosecute things like rape, murder, arson and rape anyway? Or is this a "Does the judge speak Arabic or English when they sentence you" kind of thing?

I know that there are sometimes loopholes that allow a servicemember to, say, participate in the gang-rape of a Japanese woman on a military base and not be tried for it (or maybe I'm remembering that wrong, and because it happened on-base, he was subject to UCMJ...whatever. There are loopholes).

Anyway, subjecting US troops to Afghan justice (when they fark up, of course) is a great way of conferring legitimacy to that government and its criminal justice system, don't you think?

Holocaust Agnostic: Being refused immunity is the same reason the US left Iraq.

The fact that public opinion supported "burning down Congress with all 535 members locked inside" over "spend 20 more military minutes in Iraq" had nothing to do with it? (I agree that that was a big driving factor, but no way was it 50+% of the reason.)


Um. I think the public still favors "burning down Congress with all 535 members and their staffs locked in side" over "free puppies and ice cream" at this point.
 
2012-12-10 12:22:40 PM  
Wow, he talks real big for a guy whose power will disappear the instant our soldiers leave.
 
2012-12-10 12:25:34 PM  
I have no idea who thinks it is a good idea, or even remotely necessary, for us to keep troops in Afghanistan beyond today, let alone beyond 2014.

It is not, nor has it ever been "a nation".
 
2012-12-10 12:38:35 PM  

Nonrepeating Rotating Binary: I have no idea who thinks it is a good idea, or even remotely necessary, for us to keep troops in Afghanistan beyond today, let alone beyond 2014.

It is not, nor has it ever been "a nation".


I'm sure the Russians think it's a *great* idea to keep 65,000 of our troops deployed there, indefinitely.
 
2012-12-10 12:40:30 PM  

utharda: Dr Dreidel: Holocaust Agnostic: Of course, factually they have little hope of arresting US troops in any numbers

And wouldn't the military want to prosecute things like rape, murder, arson and rape anyway? Or is this a "Does the judge speak Arabic or English when they sentence you" kind of thing?

I know that there are sometimes loopholes that allow a servicemember to, say, participate in the gang-rape of a Japanese woman on a military base and not be tried for it (or maybe I'm remembering that wrong, and because it happened on-base, he was subject to UCMJ...whatever. There are loopholes).

Anyway, subjecting US troops to Afghan justice (when they fark up, of course) is a great way of conferring legitimacy to that government and its criminal justice system, don't you think?

Holocaust Agnostic: Being refused immunity is the same reason the US left Iraq.

The fact that public opinion supported "burning down Congress with all 535 members locked inside" over "spend 20 more military minutes in Iraq" had nothing to do with it? (I agree that that was a big driving factor, but no way was it 50+% of the reason.)

Um. I think the public still favors "burning down Congress with all 535 members and their staffs locked in side" over "free puppies and ice cream" at this point.


How cute is this puppy, and what flavor of ice cream?
 
2012-12-10 12:50:28 PM  

Insatiable Jesus: Karzai would do well to remember that the real reason we went into Iraq in the first place were those oil fields he is opening up to the Chinese. We can come back whenever we need to, you ungrateful twit.


Just in case anyone missed your stupidity the first time around, I embiggened and emboldened it for everybody.
 
2012-12-10 12:54:59 PM  

Shaggy_C: born_yesterday: Don't get me wrong, the Taliban needed to be eliminated as a state entity.

Why? The Taliban didn't attack us. They even offered to hand over Bin Laden as long as he was tried in the Hague instead of in a secretive military tribunal where the verdict was all but known ahead of time. We decided that wasn't good enough. There was very little reason to invade Afghanistan other than for bloodthirsty revenge, which the American people cheered for loudly.


It's even worse than that. They're effectively an arm of the ISS, the "secret police" that run much of Pakistan. It's impossible to beat the Taliban without beating the ISS, and at best that would take a civil war in Pakistan.

Making the Taliban our enemy was a really dumb idea. The Taliban didn't even like Al Qaeda.

/Still convinced that the ISS was in on the attack on Osama.
//Damn near impossible to believe that they didn't notice an attack right next to Pakistan's West Point.
///President Obama made nice with the ISS in return for Osama, is what it came down to.
//Something that we could have done 11 years ago.
/11 years...how time flies.
 
2012-12-10 12:56:03 PM  

Dr Dreidel: Anyway, subjecting US troops to Afghan justice (when they fark up, of course) is a great way of conferring legitimacy to that government and its criminal justice system, don't you think?


Shaggy_C: Why? The Taliban didn't attack us. They even offered to hand over Bin Laden as long as he was tried in the Hague instead of in a secretive military tribunal where the verdict was all but known ahead of time. We decided that wasn't good enough. There was very little reason to invade Afghanistan other than for bloodthirsty revenge, which the American people cheered for loudly.


I don't believe for a second that the Taliban wanted bin Laden tried in the Hague. Indefinite detention hadn't even happened yet. Military tribunals hadn't happened yet. 9/11 hadn't happened yet. They were mulling over whether or not they were going to turn him over to us, bin Laden launched 9/11 prompting Bush Jr. to demand the Taliban hand him over, and then their Pashtun culture demanded that they not hand over their "guest" because someone else demanded it.

Maybe you're talking about something post 9/11, but that's how it went down before the fact. If bin Laden hadn't provoked Bush into publicly demanding that the Taliban violate their Pashtun code (pashtunwali), we might have been able to get him no muss no fuss. Of course, the Taliban would have been murdering women and destroying ancient culture from Kabul the whole time instead of from exile, but whaddaya gonna do.
 
2012-12-10 12:57:52 PM  
After reading about the post-Soviet history of Afghanistan.... LOLOL! Okeedokee, Hamid, we'll leave. Have fun pacifying the countryside with your less-than-reliable troops. Many of whom will be happy to switch sides at the drop of a hat.
 
2012-12-10 01:05:37 PM  
How about we bug out like right now? I'm tired of paying for this crap.
 
2012-12-10 01:12:45 PM  

Tell Me How My Blog Tastes: Dr Dreidel: Anyway, subjecting US troops to Afghan justice (when they fark up, of course) is a great way of conferring legitimacy to that government and its criminal justice system, don't you think?


Forgot to respond to this one: I don't think "Afghan justice" is a thing. Blaming the rape victim and paying for literally any damage you cause in goats or underaged boys is not going to get the message across that you want to be sent.
 
2012-12-10 01:34:11 PM  
fark Bin Laden for, among many other crimes, killing Ahmad Shah Massoud - the man who in a better world would be in charge of Afghanistan instead of Karzai and his cohort of thieving, ignoble scum.
 
2012-12-10 01:34:21 PM  
You can't polish a turd, It's all yours Karzi
 
2012-12-10 01:47:24 PM  

Tell Me How My Blog Tastes: Tell Me How My Blog Tastes: Dr Dreidel: Anyway, subjecting US troops to Afghan justice (when they fark up, of course) is a great way of conferring legitimacy to that government and its criminal justice system, don't you think?

Forgot to respond to this one: I don't think "Afghan justice" is a thing. Blaming the rape victim and paying for literally any damage you cause in goats or underaged boys is not going to get the message across that you want to be sent.


And certainly, the casual racism of assuming the entire system is based on nothing but nomadic tribalism will fix things right up. The Afghani people have no reason or right to assume that US servicepeople will be called to answer for crimes like killing an Afghani civilian ("We though he was an alky yayda, Sarge - honest injun!"), right?

Like I said, it would do wonders for the conceptions of the Afghani criminal justice system if a US servicemember is tried, convicted and sentenced by one of their courts in an open, free and fair hearing (which, I assume, would be a precondition for subjecting servicepeople to the Afgahni code). No way that happens without (tacit) US approval even if the Afghanis get complete control tomorrow.
 
2012-12-10 02:19:46 PM  
As soon as we pack our shiat and go home, his head will be on a spike out in front of the Taliban Central Planning Office.

That place is farked, and we have no business being there any more.
 
2012-12-10 02:32:37 PM  

Dr Dreidel: Tell Me How My Blog Tastes: Tell Me How My Blog Tastes: Dr Dreidel: Anyway, subjecting US troops to Afghan justice (when they fark up, of course) is a great way of conferring legitimacy to that government and its criminal justice system, don't you think?

Forgot to respond to this one: I don't think "Afghan justice" is a thing. Blaming the rape victim and paying for literally any damage you cause in goats or underaged boys is not going to get the message across that you want to be sent.

And certainly, the casual racism of assuming the entire system is based on nothing but nomadic tribalism will fix things right up. The Afghani people have no reason or right to assume that US servicepeople will be called to answer for crimes like killing an Afghani civilian ("We though he was an alky yayda, Sarge - honest injun!"), right?

Like I said, it would do wonders for the conceptions of the Afghani criminal justice system if a US servicemember is tried, convicted and sentenced by one of their courts in an open, free and fair hearing (which, I assume, would be a precondition for subjecting servicepeople to the Afgahni code). No way that happens without (tacit) US approval even if the Afghanis get complete control tomorrow.


You speak of casual racism yet go on to paint all service men as ignorant and borderline
competent at best. There is a reason UCMJ exists, to prevent tossing soldiers into kangaroo courts, regional media fire storms, and ensureing that justice is seen to those responsible.
 
2012-12-10 02:47:41 PM  
Fark him, blow up everything we ever built there, release all the prisoners, and pull the troops tomorrow.
Let him deal with the shaitstorm coming.
 
2012-12-10 02:48:31 PM  

Insatiable Jesus: Karzai would do well to remember that the real reason we went into Iraq in the first place were those oil fields he is opening up to the Chinese. We can come back whenever we need to, you ungrateful twit.


This is Afghanistan we're talking about, not Iraq.
 
2012-12-10 03:22:57 PM  

tinderfitles: There is a reason UCMJ exists, to prevent tossing soldiers into kangaroo courts, regional media fire storms, and ensureing that justice is seen to those responsible.


tinderfitles: it would do wonders for the conceptions of the Afghani criminal justice system if a US servicemember is tried, convicted and sentenced by one of their courts in an open, free and fair hearing (which, I assume, would be a precondition for subjecting servicepeople to the Afgahni code).


// and my apologies to the hypothetical unnamed serviceperson charged with murder. I should not have assumed he was a he, was unaware that the group's name was "al Qaeda" and that he would use such a loaded phrase as "honest injun"
 
2012-12-10 04:55:14 PM  
I haven't been following this most recent Karzai bubble-up, but it sure sounds like he struck a better deal somewhere and is using that leverage to get the US out of the way entirely.

Just as well. This was a farked, made up war to begin with. If history is any guide, I suppose this announcement is right on schedule for the next foreign occupier of that area. I guess it is China's turn for the next 10 years.

Afghanistan: A History of Occupation
The Telegraph
November 26, 2010
telegraph.co.uk 


China, Afghanistan upgrade ties to strategic partnership
English.news.cn
June 8, 2012
xinhuanet.com
 
2012-12-10 04:55:17 PM  

Arkanaut: Just wondering though... how are the Afghans going to control their airspace? Do they have a SU-25 left over from the Soviet invasion and held together with duct tape? As far as we know we're not selling them any planes...


They mean from an aircraft control standpoint. Both Terminal and Center. As of right now they dont have nearly enough equipment to do it safely anyways. Also, AFAIK they dont have any working fighters but they do have some small single engine trainers like the US' T-6 Texan II, some Russian helos, and we have sold them some C-27s. E-models I believe. I have friends there teaching them to fly right now. I am trying my hardest to keep from having to go over there to teach them. I have been deployed there twice though in a different capacity.
 
2012-12-10 05:06:52 PM  

BMulligan: I'm pretty sure "handover" isn't actually a word.


It's a noun. Subby used it as a verb like a dummy.
 
2012-12-10 05:09:19 PM  

born_yesterday: oryx: How about US troops GTFO pronto? Then Karzai can have all the sovereignty he wants.

Yep. And when Afghanistan balkinizes and falls to radicals in less time than we've spent fighting over there, it will all be worth it.

/At least we were greeted as liberators
//At least the war paid for itself
///And it's not like anyone died over there


So lets' just keep throwing more men, material, and money onto the bonfire! After all, if we stop now, we'll just look like we've been wasting all three for the past decade. And we sure wouldn't want that.
 
2012-12-10 05:40:23 PM  

Arkanaut: Just wondering though... how are the Afghans going to control their airspace? Do they have a SU-25 left over from the Soviet invasion and held together with duct tape? As far as we know we're not selling them any planes...



Rumor has it that Duct Tape is a banned item on the Sunni Muslim / Shi'ite / Ismailis /Communist / Former Communist / Strict Muslim / Modern Reformist / Satanic Banned Western / Death To America / Infidel / Unbeliever / Forbidden Import Items Decree which is updated every 37 days with new items from various Sodomite nations. So those SU-25s will probably stay grounded.

But that is just a rumor.

Good news though, KFC apparently is still cool in Afghanistan......sort of. (lonelyplanet.com)
 
2012-12-10 06:31:58 PM  

Dr Dreidel: tinderfitles: There is a reason UCMJ exists, to prevent tossing soldiers into kangaroo courts, regional media fire storms, and ensureing that justice is seen to those responsible.

tinderfitles: it would do wonders for the conceptions of the Afghani criminal justice system if a US servicemember is tried, convicted and sentenced by one of their courts in an open, free and fair hearing (which, I assume, would be a precondition for subjecting servicepeople to the Afgahni code).

// and my apologies to the hypothetical unnamed serviceperson charged with murder. I should not have assumed he was a he, was unaware that the group's name was "al Qaeda" and that he would use such a loaded phrase as "honest injun"


You have simplified into five words what is the heart of the issue. A vast oversimplification that is idiotic to make. Where would you find an impartial judge in a country that is unstable? How would you stop the vast amount of people that wouldn't see this as justice but as a point to strike, even if symbolically, at america? If the advent of being found Not Guilty you would condemn the judge to death, and anyone who dared to agree with him. Remember guilty or not guilty you will spark riots, and people will die. This would be akin to every major trial in the last twenty or thirty years in terms of media coverage and outrage, all wrapped up in a little Nuremberg-esc bow.

"Then there are points of concern with regards to the rights of the Servicemen themselves. They are have constitutional rights that must be maintained and looked after. The Uniform Code authorizes courts-martial to try not only military offenses, such as unauthorized absence, desertion, and disobedience of orders, but also offenses of a civil nature, like murder, rape, burglary, and larceny..........If the offense were committed by the
serviceman while stationed overseas in a foreign country, it would frequently be punishable in the courts of that country....In other foreign countries where American troops are stationed, the rules for exercise of jurisdiction have frequently been specified by treaty or executive
agreement"

The problem is you want the rule of Afghan Civilian Law in not only an active war-zone, but more importantly a NATO active war-zone. The important distinction being "The NATO Status of Forces Agreement which protects a serviceman from being tried by both a court-martial and a foreign tribunal." So while I concur that the nation of Afghanistan deserves to have some sense of justice, I would be no more willing to sacrifice some E1 upon the shaky premises of "promised neutrality" in a volatile country, than I would to see some Tom Robinson-esc individual stand trial in an equally volatile climate right here at home.

My personal opinion is if you want to hang someone for this war go after Dick Cheney, not some kid who is barely making an above poverty salary.
 
2012-12-10 07:12:28 PM  

give me doughnuts: born_yesterday: oryx: How about US troops GTFO pronto? Then Karzai can have all the sovereignty he wants.

Yep. And when Afghanistan balkinizes and falls to radicals in less time than we've spent fighting over there, it will all be worth it.

/At least we were greeted as liberators
//At least the war paid for itself
///And it's not like anyone died over there

So lets' just keep throwing more men, material, and money onto the bonfire! After all, if we stop now, we'll just look like we've been wasting all three for the past decade. And we sure wouldn't want that.


Oh, hell no, I'm not advocating stop-loss. I'm pissed that people believed how easy and cheap it would be, when war is never either. If our attitude is going to be, "Fark them, they're savages.", we could have reached that point with a much lower cost in lives and money.

I mean, as posted by several others in this thread, this is Afghanistan. It's never been a nation. Our experiment in nation building there was doomed from the outset.
 
2012-12-10 08:43:21 PM  
We should have bugged out in 2002. This is ridiculous.
 
2012-12-10 11:18:17 PM  

SpectroBoy: born_yesterday: Yep. And when Afghanistan balkinizes and falls to radicals in less time than we've spent fighting over there, it will all be worth it.

It's going to happen anyway. Might as well get our people out now and watch from a safe distance.

Clearly the people in this region have no intention of living peacefully as part of the world community any time soon. Let's stop making it our problem.


Isn't that the very reason it is our problem?

That's what I keep hearing.
 
2012-12-11 01:31:05 AM  

Shaggy_C: born_yesterday: Don't get me wrong, the Taliban needed to be eliminated as a state entity.

Why? The Taliban didn't attack us. They even offered to hand over Bin Laden as long as he was tried in the Hague instead of in a secretive military tribunal where the verdict was all but known ahead of time. We decided that wasn't good enough. There was very little reason to invade Afghanistan other than for bloodthirsty revenge, which the American people cheered for loudly.

 

I'm glad I'm not the only one who remembers it that way.

Maybe they were full of shiat, but it's not like we got him any faster by invading than we would have by holding off a few more weeks. Besides, if they weren't farking with us, the demands were pretty reasonable, considering how fast we'd jumped to "Bin Laden did it! Enemy number one!"; ultimately justified or not, that hardly seemed like it could be a solid conclusion at the time, so asking them to hand him directly over was an unreasonable request. A trusted 3rd party was a great and perfectly reasonable alternative, and wouldn't have cost us all that money and all those lives, but no, we're Amr'ka, so just trust us, or farking else.

Remember this one?

Rumsfeld on Bin Laden's GI Joe fortress

"there's not one of those, there are many of those".

Yeah, he was Cobra farking commander. He somehow managed to move a brazilian tons of earth and buy millions of dollars worth of heavy equipment, not once, but several times, but we don't know where the fark any of these many hundred-plus million dollar high-tech hardened Bond-villain mountain fortresses are. Right.

The amount of bullshiat they were slinging around for a war that most people at least kind-of supported was staggering and goddamn transparent, which makes me wonder how so many people got tricked into thinking the obviously-stupid invasion of Iraq would be a fabulous idea.

Remember when Iraq rolled over and played dead trying to not get invaded?

Remember when Bush said "fark it" and did it anyway, and the few of us saying, "wait, something's fishy..." were called bad names and told to shut the fark up?

Christ, and Jessica Lynch. Ugh. "Super secret, ultra-dangerous raid, but we sent a camera crew along because that's totally what we do for super secret, ultra dangerous chopper-based raids behind enemy lines, but we're only releasing fifteen seconds of footage of guys leaving helicopters because... uh... the rest is so dangerous and super secret!" Giant goddamn surprise when that turned out to be a pile of shiat. Yep, didn't see that coming.

/ On the plus side, those of us who were young enough at the time not to have already been entirely disillusioned of how farking special America is and how wonderfully awesome Democracy is learned a valuable lesson.
// So there's that, I guess.
/// Damn, I didn't realize how pissed off this could still make me until I started reliving it through the Wikipedia article. Grrr...
 
2012-12-11 04:20:22 AM  
but.....but.....but.....but.....but there was that terrorist training video that also doubled as an Olympic Hosting Promotion thing and featured opening ceremonies (0:09), gymnastics (0:53), balance beam (0:58), obstacle course (1:03), skeet shooting (0:47), cross country (1:44), swimming (1:55), dressage (2:04) and closing ceremony fireworks (2:17) footage. 

Does this mean that Kabul 2020 may not happen? 

I am crushed.
 
2012-12-11 11:18:11 PM  
Sounds good to me. How about we forget about the whole immunity thing and just take our remaining troops out of there, too?
 
2012-12-13 12:47:43 PM  

kyrg: You can't polish a turd, It's all yours Karzi


But you can give it a nice 20000 deg glaze as you are leaving...
 
Displayed 72 of 72 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
Advertisement
On Twitter





In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report