Hillary Clinton put in Hot Seat by Pakistani Media

[Solomon2]

The answer, quite simply, is to willingly compromise your sovereignty in favor of good allied relations. It's up to you to tell this to Pakistanis - as the saying goes, patriotism is the last refuge of the scoundrel. The U.S. does not put the restrictions on the operations of its other allies that you demand of the U.S.; at the same time, the U.S. does many things it doesn't have to to maintain good relations. Our Congress knows how U.S. intelligence officials are kept virtual prisoners by their Pakistani allies, deaf and dumb to everything but what Pakistanis tell them - yet these same Pakistanis know that because of Pakistani failings such limited forms of cooperation are unproductive. What's even worse is that despite being half a world away matters in Pakistan have turned out as we predicted years ago, not as you assured us they would be. Our kindest explanation of this is that American judgment was superior. This suggests Pakistani stupidity/willing blindness at the least, and outright treachery at worst.

So what Congress is saying is that it is up to Pakistan to prove America wrong. As for perceived insults in the aid package, some of them are, we feel, entirely deserved. Though it may be somewhat unjust if Mr. Zardari suffers politically for them rather than the previous president, we know he isn't nicknamed "Mr. Ten Percent" for nothing.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

If you want to raise strawmen that's up to you, I don't regard there being a time limit on calling them

Still trying to avoid addressing the argument eh - there was no strawman to raise, plus, as I pointed out, my answer applies to either scenario.

Your choice to avoid the issue now - I believe I have made my argument quite clearly, that even if the cut-off of NATO supplies meant that NATO could not operate militarily, it would not attack Pakistan and instead withdraw, IF the reason for its presence in Afghanistan is to neutralize/reduce AQ/Taliban etc., and Pakistan's nukes are not in danger of falling to AQ/Taliban etc.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

Sure, India's unending hostility toward Pakistan is the reason they nuked you after 1974: oh wait, they didn't...............

So they shouldn't have any issue with withdrawing their offensive forces from the IB and LoC then ....

Let us know when they agree.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

Solomon2:

"What's even worse is that despite being half a world away matters in Pakistan have turned out as we predicted years ago"

You must be delusional - is that why we are in the midst of, what, the third Afghanistan review by the US this year?

And your decision in leaving Afghanistan to go fight a war on false pretenses in Iraq, and allowing the Taliban insurgency to resurrect itself, hundreds of billions in development expenditure with no development to show for it, is supposed to be an example of 'good judgment'?

Sell your 'bridge to nowhere' to someone else.

 

[Vassnti]

Still trying to avoid addressing the argument eh - there was no strawman to raise, plus, as I pointed out, my answer applies to either scenario.

Your choice to avoid the issue now - I believe I have made my argument quite clearly, that even if the cut-off of NATO supplies meant that NATO could not operate militarily, it would not attack Pakistan and instead withdraw, IF the reason for its presence in Afghanistan is to neutralize/reduce AQ/Taliban etc., and Pakistan's nukes are not in danger of falling to AQ/Taliban etc.

For a while the closure of Pakistan to US supplies has been raised here as a sort of trump card, a dont push us too hard or we will screw you in Afghanistan argument.

I do wonder though if it would do any thing but harm Pakistan. Already Peshawar is a nightmare route it would be a pain but far from imposible to ship supplies through Russia and Europe.

“

It is very important as we increase the effort in Afghanistan that we have multiple routes that go into the country,” General Petraeus told reporters in Islamabad, where he had met with the head of the Pakistani Army as well as the country’s president and prime minister. The general had previously visited Turkmenistan, Tajikistan, Kyrgyzstan and Kazakhstan to discuss the issue.

“There have been agreements reached, and there are transit lines now and transit agreements for commercial goods and services in particular that include several countries in the Central Asian states and also Russia,” he said.

So Pakistan closes the Khyber pass or "allows" militants to do so. Things get harder in Afghanistan but not impossible, Congress screams about the treachery of Pakistan, the big "ban" sticker goes on some lovley f16's the anti-KL bill people get their wish and the aid stops, as do the helicopters, body armor,night vison equipment, etc.

Even if you think being in bed with the US is like sleeping with a snake its to late to do anything but wait for the snake to wake up and crawl off, try and hit it with a stick its going to bite you,


http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/21/world/asia/21pstan.html

U.S. Secures New Supply Routes to Afghanistan

 

[Solomon2]

AM, note the precise phrase, "matters in Pakistan - "

 

[deathfromabove]

Hillary’s visit to Pakistan, NOT a BlockBuster

Failed Presidential nominee Hillary Rodham Clinton, popped up in Pakistan recently on a ‘marathon’ three day visit to ‘assuage’ the offended Pakistani population who – for some reason – strongly object to being killed by American drones and car-bombed in the fallout of obscene American policies. Apparently, three days is all it takes.

Let’s review the ill-will tour.

Supine, corrupt, feckless Pakistani politicians cleared their empty diaries even further to wine and dine her. These are the same rogues who have impotently presided over the mass murder of civilians at the hands of the American sponsored ‘faux Taliban.’ Puppets owe their careers to puppet-masters, so they were only too grateful that Her Imperial Majesty could spare the time to condescend to visit them.

After all, as Secretary of State, she has an extremely busy schedule. War mongering, fundraising with AIPAC, harassing sovereign Muslim nations and scheming with fellow CFR vampires takes up a lot of one’s day and leaves one with little or no time for the ‘little people’.

True to form, her pretence of motherly reassurance quickly disappeared as her inner east-coast imperialist arrogance rose to the surface. The lecturing, haranguing demeanor that makes her so despised in America and loathed in Pakistan was in full gear as she urged Pakistan to “DO MORE!”

Spitting on the graves of thousands of Pakistani soldiers martyred in defence of their nation and people, she accused them of harboring Al Qaeda and failing to check an insurgency that ironically, it was America who sparked in the first place: “I find it hard to believe that nobody in your government knows where they are [Al Qaeda] and could not get them if they really wanted to… Maybe that’s the case; maybe they’re not gettable. I don’t know… As far as we know, they are in Pakistan,” she self-assuredly carped.

Such shocking, inflammatory comments left Pakistanis reeling. Typical of imperialists everywhere, the disrespectful and undiplomatic remarks were banded about with absolutely no proof or evidence whatsoever. This from the same proven liar who coined the new political term ‘miss-spoke’, after she once fancifully claimed that she had arrived in Sarajevo during the Bosnian War as First Lady “under sniper fire.” She hadn’t. But no matter, anyone can mistake little schoolgirls carrying flowers for Serbian snipers!

She swatted away any criticism of the immense humanitarian fallout of her nation’s policies in Pakistan. Appearing bored and imperious in interviews, she could only trot out the usual clichés about ordinary Pakistani’s making “sacrifices” and deserving “credit” for their efforts in defending themselves against the sheer chaos that America has caused in the region.

Pakistanis were left open-mouthed as she clumsily tried to deflect all blame for America’s gargantuan failures in the region onto Pakistan. A shocked senior security official rebutted her lies: “Pakistan has done far more than any other country in combating al-Qaeda, capturing at least 700 of its activists.”

Interestingly, only the young students of Lahore University were brave enough to personally call her out on her ludicrous assertions. During a meeting, one student asked: “What guarantee can the Americans give Pakistanis that you guys would not betray us like you did in the past?” Another asked: “Why is America bombing the northwest of Pakistan with drones that do not discriminate between children and women and kill them with equal precision?”

Her shocking arrogance echoed around the walls of the university hall: ”If you want to see your territory shrink, that’s your choice!” For all the effect it had, she might as well have been saying: “Come on kids, those babies killed in drone attacks could have grown up to be Al-Qaeda operatives. Haven’t you heard of our new-fangled policy of ‘pre-emptive strikes’? Who says it’s terrorism? White is black, night is day. We say so! Do you have a problem with that?- U-S-A! U-S-A! U-S-A!”

When a bold TV anchor caught her off guard during an interview asking why the KL bill was so carelessly written as the majority of the Pakistanis had felt humiliated by the bitter language used, the Wicked Witch of the West was momentarily stunned. She smiled nervously and joked, ‘Who said the Pakistani media is not free?” The TV anchor was not deterred and raising concerns about the hidden agenda of the bill linked with controlling Pakistani intelligence and security agencies.

By this stage she must have felt a little dazed by the sheer gap between what these critics were saying and how slavishly the politicians in Islamabad were debasing themselves on their knees for KL crumbs. Shocked that these ‘third worlders’ should be questioning her, one could tell what she really wanted to say: “Beggars ought to adhere to the conditions or die with famine. No one is forcing the money down your throat, but your leaders always ask for more!”.

Blaming the media for ’sensationalizing’ and ‘telling lies’ about the KL bill and American intentions in Pakistan, she seemed to be assuring the panel that Americans are perfect and can do no wrong, and it is only ignorant foreigners (like you) who are to blame for the furor. Even though she knows that the views of the elite in power and those of 99.9% of Pakistanis are at complete odds, she then had temerity to remark irately: ”No-one is forcing you to take the money!”

You’re dead wrong Mrs. Clinton! We don’t want your grimy money! But you know awfully well that someone IS forcing us to take it! It’s the cretins that your CIA placed in power over us! We don’t need it, but they do! Stop your treachery!

Unrepentant as her own masters expect her to be, Mrs. Clinton believes that the ‘little people’ must surrender themselves completely to authority. Incredibly, her interference in Pakistani affairs then extended to the level of offering opinions on the taxation code. Clearly not content with killing civilians, she began recommending to the elite the best ways to suck wealth from the Pakistani people.

Cheerily calling it “best practice,” she stated, ‘The percentage of taxes on GDP in Pakistan is among the lowest in the world… We [The United States] tax everything that moves and doesn’t move, and that’s not what we see in Pakistan. You have 180 million people. Your population is projected to be about 300 million. And I don’t know what you’re gonna do with that kind of challenge, unless you start ‘planning’ right now”.

So much for America for NOT intending to meddle in Pakistan’s internal affairs! Enough already!

On one hand we welcomed a guest who is abhorred by the vast majority Pakistanis and on the other hand we faced the most barbaric massacre of the year in Peshawar. A blast that ripped through one of the main markets in the city claimed more than 110 martyrs and injured 250 others.

This, Ms. Secretary is the cost we are to swallow nearly every day. We must watch the lives of innocent children, women, young and old being snatched away. We are not talking about hundreds of lives Mrs. Clinton, we are talking about thousands. You had one 9/11 and are still busy milking it for all its worth. Meanwhile we are ‘nine-elevened’ on a daily basis. Who to blame, when the culprits are welcomed on red carpet, showered with flowers, by our own government who shuts its eyes towards the scene of carnage the nation witnesses.

While America deviously dictates to our ‘democratic’ elite in this country, and continually insists on how significant the KL bill is, common Pakistanis witness the trauma of death and despair your truculent policies bring for our fellow countrymen and can only sob and curse you from afar.

If our government really wanted to, they could reject this blood-soaked aid. Of course, they won’t, because these ‘democrats’ do not represent the will of the people of Pakistan, only the will of their own wallets. The cost of the aid will be borne in the shape of the tremendous sacrifices of self respect, autonomy and in precious lives of ordinary Pakistanis.

America treats us with total contempt, kills our civilians, offers us peanuts, and then demands that we be grateful? Enough! The KL bill cannot compensate for a single Pakistani life lost through their drone terrorism. Not even a hundred KL bills could pay back what it feels for a mother who loses a child in a blast or a wife who turns into a widow. The lives of our fellow citizens are NOT FOR SALE!

We don’t blame the people. They, like us, are helpless to stop this humiliation. We can only ask the government to take a stand for our dignity. If not 110, then how many lives need to be sacrificed before this incorrigible government is willing to share our grief? Was receiving a foreign guest important enough to force the entire city of Lahore into lock-down, with people dying in ambulances waiting to receive treatments yet couldn’t make it to hospitals. Was showering a butcher with absolutely unmerited attention so essential that the nation mourned the loss of innocent lives lost over the years to same American-instigated terror, while she thought she could camouflage all the fil*h by just wearing green colored clothes for the day?

We do not need America. They need us. They have us fooled. Even now we can capitalise on the fact that America is dependent on Pakistan for their supply route to Afghanistan. 70% of their supplies go through our territory. They are using our bases, our air corridors and our roads. Within one day, we could send their adventure in Afghanistan crashing into oblivion. Yet we still beg for peanuts? This government will not see sense. It is time for change. We must heed the lessons of the past. The only guarantee the Americans can give Pakistan is that they WILL betray us.

Mrs. Clinton returns to Washington confident that she still has Pakistani politicians eating out of her hands, but what she also knows is that their future is not certain. Anger is mounting.

As a result of her visit, Pakistanis are now even more embittered and angry, not just at America, but at their own government too. Considering it was a trip meant to shore up the puppets, it was a spectacular failure.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

AM, note the precise phrase, "matters in Pakistan - "

Saw Musharraf's interview on AC360 a few days ago - he pointed out that the had tried from 2001 to convince the US to get the Pashtun on board in various ways, or else they would never have stability in Afghanistan - and he was correct.

One could argue that the two sides have been remarkably prescient about the other, while not that well on their own. However, in Pakistan, the 'peace deals' and what not, which have been a failure, were a result of the political constraints and domestic public pressure.

For example, the turnaround in public opinion we saw after the peace deals in Swat may have been possible precisely because the GoP imposed the NAR.

There were however no political or other constraints on the US in following Pakistan's advice in ensuring Pashtun participation and engagement in the GoA.


So no, I see no evidence that American judgment is superior.

 

[S-2]

"And your decision in leaving Afghanistan..."

Far from the truth. Nobody LEFT Afghanistan so let's not construct strawmen myths, please. If so, then how the hell did we spend hundreds of billions between 2001-2009?

"...allowing the Taliban insurgency to resurrect itself..."

Sanctuary on your lands has much to "resurrect[ing] itself." Dealing with all that Afghanistan had/has in the way of problems is a sufficiently large problem-a completeabsence of infrastructure, non-existent governmental institutions and education systems, a tribal-based state, etc. Doing so burdened by Afghan corruption (something Pakistanis understand well) has certainly added difficulties. Reconciling national objectives of forty contributing partners hasn't eased the burden.

Piling on, though, with Pakistan's contribution to Afghan issues has certainly put matters over the top. The insurgency itself remained modest through 2005. By 2006, though, those forces and leadership who'd found protection on your lands had regained their equilibrium and re-established their relationships within Afghanistan and we were back into a full-blown insurgency.

"...hundreds of billions in development expenditure with no development to show for it, is supposed to be an example of 'good judgment'?"

You've, unfortunately, stretched the truth again unless you can show "hundreds of billions" allocated strictly for development. I don't think so.

America's entire expenditure in OEF to date is $188.9B per CRS (See page 9-The Cost Of Iraq, Afghanistan, and Other Global War On Terror Operations Since 9/11-CRS May 2009). This is cumulative spending for DoD/STATE/USAID/VETERAN'S AFFAIRS since 9/11 and includes, btw, operations under OEF other than Afghanistan.

You have a case, A.M., but you diminish when the information that would eliminate the hyperbole attendant is readily available. Please use it that your argument and general credibility isn't further diminished.

Almost all of OEF's funding is Afghan-related. Still, not all. Further, you can see that if $189B is the total, we can presume the vast majority of that is to sustain military operations in the country we supposedly "left". That eliminates one argument while diminishing the other about hundreds of billions wasted developmental dollars.

Simply isn't true.

It would be great if Afghans weren't so corrupt. I'm comfortable, though, that a heavy reliance on Pashtus wouldn't have eliminated that problem. Aren't you or are you prepared to suggest that corruption isn't part and parcel to the pashtu legacy?

So this issue is endemic. Should we have simply bombed it and left? We WEREN'T going to entertain your recommendation that America and the taliban enter negotiations to find a mutually agreeable third party who would accept delivery of A.Q. en masse for trial.

That wasn't in the cards on our end and, worse, now you foolishly suggest the taliban would have entertained that idea beyond leading us around by the nose following those heinous attacks from lands under their control. Their own code of conduct wouldn't have permitted such nor were we willing to entertain the interminable negotiations to achieve this dubiously constructed suggestion.

War came to US from Afghanistan-not the other way around, sir. We responded appropriately-even modestly. It does remain stunning that 100 special forces and a motley rag-tag crew of N.A. militias (and the U.S.A.F.) collapsed the taliban infrastructure so rapidly but, in retrospect, knowing what we all know now, predictable that they retreated faster for sanctuary than we could reasonably attack.

Make your case but please refrain from exaggerating it needlessly. America could have done many things better. So could and should many, many others-including Pakistan. It didn't turn that way but it also doesn't all rest on our shoulders.

Thanks.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

"And your decision in leaving Afghanistan..."

Far from the truth. Nobody LEFT Afghanistan so let's not construct strawmen myths, please. If so, then how the hell did we spend hundreds of billions between 2001-2009?

For all intents and purposes, you did leave Afghanistan, leaving behind a token force that basically did nothing, the evidence of which we see now in the raging insurgency.

I imagined most would understand what I meant by 'US left Afghanistan' since it is obvious they didn't actually 'leave'.

"...allowing the Taliban insurgency to resurrect itself..."

Sanctuary on your lands has much to "resurrect[ing] itself." Dealing with all that Afghanistan had/has in the way of problems is a sufficiently large problem-a completeabsence of infrastructure, non-existent governmental institutions and education systems, a tribal-based state, etc. Doing so burdened by Afghan corruption (something Pakistanis understand well) has certainly added difficulties. Reconciling national objectives of forty contributing partners hasn't eased the burden.

As Gen. Mchrystal pointed out, the insurgency in Afghanistan continues to be primarily one that is Afghan based. The Haqqanis in FATA are part of it no doubt, but Mchrystal's own assesment places the Afghan insurgency in Afghanistan, not Pakistan.

And it was resurrected in Afghanistan because you abandoned it to go wage war in Iraq.

Piling on, though, with Pakistan's contribution to Afghan issues has certainly put matters over the top. The insurgency itself remained modest through 2005. By 2006, though, those forces and leadership who'd found protection on your lands had regained their equilibrium and re-established their relationships within Afghanistan and we were back into a full-blown insurgency.

All you seek to do is find some way to absolve yourself of your failures in Afghanistan, due to your abandoning it to go wage war in Iraq, by scapegoating Pakistan. As I said, the Haqqanis etc. have contributed to the insurgency, but the overwhelming part of the insurgency remains Afghan based, and a result of poor choices and judgment by the US for several years.

The Karzai regime was propped up by the US, against the advice of Pakistan. There was a time when you and other Americans would defend Karzai against Pakistani attacks. That the Karzai government turned out to be corrupt and useless is as much your failure as it is theirs.

"...hundreds of billions in development expenditure with no development to show for it, is supposed to be an example of 'good judgment'?"

You've, unfortunately, stretched the truth again unless you can show "hundreds of billions" allocated strictly for development. I don't think so.

America's entire expenditure in OEF to date is $188.9B per CRS (See page 9-The Cost Of Iraq, Afghanistan, and Other Global War On Terror Operations Since 9/11-CRS May 2009). This is cumulative spending for DoD/STATE/USAID/VETERAN'S AFFAIRS since 9/11 and includes, btw, operations under OEF other than Afghanistan.

Thanks - but you are nitpicking and deflecting from the point, which is that there is little to show for the $189 billion you have spent in Afghanistan, which is my point - Solomon2's argument of 'better judgment by the US' falls flat on its face.

You have a case, A.M., but you diminish when the information that would eliminate the hyperbole attendant is readily available. Please use it that your argument and general credibility isn't further diminished.

My credibility is fine - I made general statements showing poor US policies that are all valid. Your nitpicking over specifics has done nothing to take away from the points I made.

I'm comfortable, though, that a heavy reliance on Pashtus wouldn't have eliminated that problem. Aren't you or are you prepared to suggest that corruption isn't part and parcel to the pashtu legacy?

Strawman, as you often tend to do when referring to my posts about the Pashtun in Afghanistan - I never said the Pashtun would be 'less corrupt', just that Pakistan's arguments for greater inclusion and engagement with the Pashtun in the GoA, and against the Karzai regime, were valid ones, and could have minimized the Taliban insurgency we see now.

We WEREN'T going to entertain your recommendation that America and the taliban enter negotiations to find a mutually agreeable third party who would accept delivery of A.Q. en masse for trial.

You should have - another example of poor judgment the consequences of which the entire region is now suffering from.

That wasn't in the cards on our end and, worse, now you foolishly suggest the taliban would have entertained that idea beyond leading us around by the nose following those heinous attacks from lands under their control. Their own code of conduct wouldn't have permitted such nor were we willing to entertain the interminable negotiations to achieve this dubiously constructed suggestion.

The Taliban were the ones to float the suggestions, and since you never bothered to explore them in your arrogance and desire for waging war, we shall never know whether negotiations would have been successful or not - we do know that the Taliban offered, and the US refused to even consider them.

Make your case but please refrain from exaggerating it needlessly. America could have done many things better. So could and should many, many others-including Pakistan. It didn't turn that way but it also doesn't all rest on our shoulders.

How about giving your own credibility a boost and directing that at the gentleman (solomon2) claiming US superiority over Pakistan? My post was after all a response to his. Rarely do you or others show any desire to correct the fallacies propagated against Pakistan.

 

[Seadog1]

For a while the closure of Pakistan to US supplies has been raised here as a sort of trump card, a dont push us too hard or we will screw you in Afghanistan argument.

I do wonder though if it would do any thing but harm Pakistan. Already Peshawar is a nightmare route it would be a pain but far from imposible to ship supplies through Russia and Europe.

“

So Pakistan closes the Khyber pass or "allows" militants to do so. Things get harder in Afghanistan but not impossible, Congress screams about the treachery of Pakistan, the big "ban" sticker goes on some lovley f16's the anti-KL bill people get their wish and the aid stops, as do the helicopters, body armor,night vison equipment, etc.

Even if you think being in bed with the US is like sleeping with a snake its to late to do anything but wait for the snake to wake up and crawl off, try and hit it with a stick its going to bite you,

I would kind of compare it to a lady mosquito having sex with an elephant screaming if dont fit dont force it.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/21/world/asia/21pstan.html

U.S. Secures New Supply Routes to Afghanistan

I would kind of compare it to a lady mosquito having sex with an elephant screaming if dont fit dont force it.

 

[S-2]

"For all intents and purposes, you did leave Afghanistan"

Billions of dollars and thousands of men are hardly token. For all intents and purposes, you distort. Plain and simple.

"As Gen. Mchrystal pointed out, the insurgency in Afghanistan continues to be primarily one that is Afghan based. The Haqqanis in FATA are part of it no doubt, but Mchrystal's own assesment places the Afghan insurgency in Afghanistan, not Pakistan."

Doublespeak. Of course the afghan insurgency is FOUGHT in Afghanistan.

From where it is directed though is another and more important matter. To where these men can retire and HAVE RETIRED when faced with need or duress is the salient issue of sanctuary. You continue to dodge your responsibilities towards the afghan insurgency as though the presence of these leaders on your lands isn't the case.

It sadly IS the case. Haqqani is there. Hekmatyar is there. Omar is there as are many of his lieutenants.

"All you seek to do is find some way to absolve yourself of your failures in Afghanistan, due to your abandoning it to go wage war in Iraq, by scapegoating Pakistan."

I don't agree and find your contention outrageous. Nowhere have I suggested we've been without error. You continue to suggest abandoning and it's a tiresome drumbeat you pursue in light of the facts otherwise.

I've made plain that you've a case of emphasis. You, though, seem to suffer from a very selective cognitive dissonance in light of the FACTS, sir, which I've placed before your eyes. Your choice to ignore but it's clear that billions were spent between 2002-2006 and that thousands of our troops remained in Afghanistan during that period.

How that would constitute "abandoning" can only be calculated in the bizarre corridors of your brain.

You know this because I know that you can read so what causes your willfully distorted ignorance?

Scapegoating? You carry your own burdens of mistakes and are living and dying by them. Your insurgency is a direct product of the fawning and idolatry bestowed upon the afghan taliban, A.Q., Hekmatyar, and Haqqani ON YOUR LANDS. Your tribals saw, admired and emulated. They didn't learn these lessons by remote control.

They learned them first-hand at the feet of true pros...

...and you know it.

Thanks.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

You continue to suggest abandoning and it's a tiresome drumbeat you pursue in light of the facts otherwise.

You did abandon it - otherwise the 100,000 plus troops in Iraq and the hundreds of billions spent there would have been in Afghanistan, and there would be a shadow of the current insurgency we see now.

There is no question about that. Poor policy, poor judgment.

 

[S-2]

"You did abandon it"

That's a lie, A.M. Plain and simple. The facts state otherwise and you can ban me but do so knowing that THOUSANDS of ours and other nation's soldiers were there and billions of dollars were spent.

Quit lying and retract your duplicitous bullsh!t unless you can show me that not an American soul was there nor was an American dollar spent.

THAT is what abandonment means-

1. To withdraw one's support or help from, especially in spite of duty, allegiance, or responsibility; desert: abandon a friend in trouble.

Nope. We remained and spent vast sums of money.

2. To give up by leaving or ceasing to operate or inhabit, especially as a result of danger or other impending threat: abandoned the ship.

Nope. We remained and spent vast sums of money.

3. To surrender one's claim to, right to, or interest in; give up entirely. See Synonyms at relinquish.

"entirely"? Nope. We remained and spent vast sums of money.

4. To cease trying to continue; desist from: abandoned the search for the missing hiker.

Nope. We remained and spent vast sums of money.

Seems clear that you can't prove "abandonment" and are now lying. NO other word for it in the face of clear facts otherwise. There's no room for interpretation on this matter.

You can say we should do MORE. You can say we didn't do ENOUGH. But you can only say we didn't do anything by openly lying and at this point that's what you're doing.

The CRS document is far more than you deserve and I'm now tired of your deceit.

I can't fight a willful liar with facts and you now definitely qualify.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

"You did abandon it"

That's a lie, A.M. Plain and simple. The facts state otherwise and you can ban me but do so knowing that THOUSANDS of ours and other nation's soldiers were there and billions of dollars were spent.

Unless you can go back in history and put those 100,000 plus troops in Afghanistan along with the hundreds of billions spent in Iraq, your abandoning of Afghanistan is the truth.

No amount of nitpicking over facts and tweaking things will change that.

Quit lying and retract your duplicitous bullsh!t unless you can show me that not an American soul was there nor was an American dollar spent.

THAT is what abandonment means-

No, abandonment means exactly what you did in Afghanistan when you decided to wage war in Iraq. Maintaining a bare minimum presence that did little to improve the situation on the ground and allowed the Taliban to resurrect their insurgency is 'abandonment'. There would be no insurgency had you remained there and instead of galloping off to create more strife and shed more blood.

The 'lies' here are solely your attempts to excuse your failure and abandonment of Afghanistan, once again.

You will find no apology from me nor any retraction - abandonment and poor policies and poor judgment in Afghanistan fits your actions there perfectly.

Lets see if you stick around this time.