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  
•       •       •

1327 clicks; posted to Politics » on 10 Dec 2012 at 10:47 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all
 
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.
 
Displayed 50 of 72 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report