We will execute the transition responsibly "taking into account the conditions on the ground."

[bigjohn16]

Said just now by Secretary of State Clinton on Cspan3. The key phrase of course being "taking into account the conditions on the ground."

I have no trust in the 2011 time line.

[phantom power]

1. Agreed. There is absolutely no reason to take that timeline at face value.

[phleshdef]

2. You are just DIGGING for a way to hang onto your denial that Obama is ending the wars.

I feel sorry for you.

[TornadoTN]

4. We shall see in 2011

If we do end it and we're out, I'll stand corrected and admit as such.

But I don't see it happening. There's just too much at stake for the MIC and the companies that are exploiting Afghanistan.

[bigjohn16]

5. No denial here. I know he's sending 30,000 more troops to Afghanistan.

He's exiting through the entrance.

[phleshdef]

6. The fact that you don't see why the forces there need the help shows your ignorance.

I'm glad someone as uninformed as yourself isn't calling the shots.

[TornadoTN]

3. 2011 Timetable is just a pleasant little distraction to gain some support today

The MIC and the corporate puppet masters who want a stake in the vast natural gas and mineral reserves in Afghanistan will need many years to exploit it entirely. Thus, we will have a presence there for a very long time in order to keep their interests safe and to keep a puppet regime propped up so that their project will go forward with little interference.

[HughMoran]

7. Yes, we see you posting same shit over and over again

We get it - it's like any pullout date commitment ever.

[bigjohn16]

9. Yeah, it's a lie to placate the public. nt

[baldguy]

8. There will never be any transition, because "conditions on the ground" will never change.

The fact of the matter is: all of our required strategic objectives in Afghanistan have been met: al Qaeda have lost their safe haven and the Taliban have been removed from power. All we need to do from now on is to ensure that the country doesn't harbor terrorists in the future.

We shouldn't entrench ourselves in the internal politics of a feudal country we don't understand. We can't dedicate 100,000-150,000 troops to wage an on-going, never-ending campaign against many more hundreds of thousands of local insurgents with continually changing allegiances - for us, it's a losing battle.

Iraq is the same: all we should be concerned with is the stability of the country. We should not take sides in the local political debate. If that means another dictatorship emerges, then so be it. Our only objective should be to keep Iraq from being a strategic threat to America. (Not that it was before.)

[optimator]

10. a (D) next to a politicians name

thats the amount of evidence required to trust politicians , right?
no facts, no hard evidence, no logic, but just a (D)