PDA

View Full Version : Afghanistan’s Karzai thanks Obama for ‘your taxpayers’ money’



pwaldo
05-21-2012, 06:53 PM
http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/ticket/afghanistan-karzai-thanks-obama-taxpayers-money-182925141.html


Looking to a day when "the Afghan war as we understand it is over," President Barack Obama met Sunday with Afghan President Hamid Karzai to discuss NATO's withdrawal from that strife-torn country by the end of 2014.

Obama, who has put the draw-down of combat troops at the heart of his foreign policy, declared that "the world is behind the strategy" of giving Afghans control over their own security, but stressed that "now it's our task to implement if effectively."

Karzai, who aims to secure billions of dollars in long-term aid for his country's military and economy, said he looked forward to a day when "Afghanistan is no longer a burden on the shoulders of our friends in the international community, on the shoulders of the United States and our other allies."

"I'm bringing to you and to the people of the United States the gratitude of the Afghan people for the support that your taxpayers' money has provided Afghanistan over the past decade and for the difference that it has made to the well-being of the Afghan people," Karzai told Obama.

The two leaders met on the sidelines of a high-stakes NATO summit consumed by the question of the alliance's withdrawal from Afghanistan by the end of 2014, and its role beyond that date. Obama has made it known he wants leaders gathered here to sign off on a plan to hand over combat duties to Afghan forces in 2013.

"There will be no rush for the exits," NATO Secretary-General Anders Fogh Rasmussen told reporters as the summit opened, saying the alliance's plan was sound and vowing to "see it through to a successful end."

Beyond the tight security cordon around the summit, in the streets of Obama's adoptive hometown, protestors denounced the gathering for a second straight day."I would expect that such demonstrations would take place in a peaceful manner," said Rasmussen.

Obama also wanted NATO leaders to flesh out their own commitments to Afghanistan—both in terms of troops and money—until 2014 and beyond. Specific dollar amounts are not expected in Chicago, but a July donors conference in Tokyo should spell those out. The price tag for Afghan forces after 2014 is estimated to be $4.1 billion per year. Afghanistan is expected to pay $500 million of that. Karzai has said his country will need at least $10 billion per year in overall aid through 2025.

Obama looked ahead to a future "in which we have ended our combat role, the Afghan war as we understand it is over, but our commitment to friendship and partnership with Afghanistan continues" and evoked "a shared vision that we have in which Afghanistan is able to transition from decades of war to a transformational decade of peace and stability and development."

Obama underlined "the enormous sacrifices that have been made by the American people, most profoundly by American troops, as well as the troops of our other coalition partners" and said Americans "recognize the hardship that the Afghan people have been through."

"The loss of life continues in Afghanistan. There will be hard days ahead. But we're confident that we're on the right track," he said.

The United States is on track to reduce its presence to 68,000 troops by late September. More than 3,000 Americans have been killed in the decade-long conflict launched to catch or kill Osama bin Laden, whom Navy SEALS shot dead in a dramatic May 2011 raid inside Pakistan.

That country closed supply lines for NATO forces after a November strike inside its territory killed 24 Pakistan soldiers. Negotiations to reopen them have yet to bear fruit. Pakistani President Asif Ali Zardari is attending the summit, but Obama has no plans to meet with him one-on-one.

"The president will certainly have a chance to see him and speak to him," Deputy National Security Adviser Ben Rhodes told reporters aboard Air Force One late Saturday.

"On the supply lines, we believe that this is going to be resolved," Rhodes said. "We expect that to take some time. So there is still work to be done through those negotiations."

NATO leaders are also expected to take up the issue of Iran's suspect nuclear program, as well as how the alliance should respond to the bloody crackdown in Syria.

duane1969
05-21-2012, 08:27 PM
Nothing wrong with that right? Where are all of the people who support raising taxes when you need them?

JustAlex
05-21-2012, 09:04 PM
Uh...yeah, let me be the first to say that Liberals are usually AGAINST ALL WARS no matter what.

Whereas Republicans have been pro war like crazy.

Also, Most liberals (myself included) have been DEEPLY disappointed with Obama.

We don't worship him, and a lot of us don't consider him to be a liberal at all, in fact in his first term he has been more to the center right than anywhere near the left.


Still, I'll vote for him again.....only because the other option is so horrible and honestly terrifying...

One more thing....YES, we still want higher taxes regardless of sensationalist articles such as this!

angel0430
05-22-2012, 11:30 AM
What I don;t like about this is the fact that we spent more money on foreign nations than in our own country. There are people in here losing their jobs and houses because there is no mon ey but at the same time we are giving this places millions of dollars.

AUTaxMan
05-22-2012, 11:38 AM
Still, I'll vote for him again.....only because the other option is so horrible and honestly terrifying...

This keeps getting repeated and is totally asinine. Please substantiate why the alternative is so bad.

JustAlex
05-22-2012, 11:46 AM
This keeps getting repeated and is totally asinine. Please substantiate why the alternative is so bad.

Anti-women, Anti-gay, Anti-abortion, Anti-Immigrants, Anti-middle class...

Pro-rich, Pro-corporations, Pro-lowering tax rates to the top...


If Obama doesn't win, then fine, I'm not going to whine seeing as I don't think he has been great.

My biggest complaint, is the fact we have to wait 4 long years to get a REAL progressive to run against the GOP.

We want someone who will NOT back down and someone who will actually do change and not just talk about it!

AUTaxMan
05-22-2012, 11:55 AM
Anti-women, Anti-gay, Anti-abortion, Anti-Immigrants, Anti-middle class...

Pro-rich, Pro-corporations, Pro-lowering tax rates to the top...


If Obama doesn't win, then fine, I'm not going to whine seeing as I don't think he has been great.

My biggest complaint, is the fact we have to wait 4 long years to get a REAL progressive to run against the GOP.

We want someone who will NOT back down and someone who will actually do change and not just talk about it!

Wow, you buy into all of that nonsense? Let's start with your first accusation. How is Romney anti-women? Since I'm sure you are a student of history, you realize that "progressive" is just another word for "socialist," right?

pghin08
05-22-2012, 12:06 PM
Wow, you buy into all of that nonsense? Let's start with your first accusation. How is Romney anti-women? Since I'm sure you are a student of history, you realize that "progressive" is just another word for "socialist," right?

You do realize socialism is an actual governmental system, while "progressive" is just a political philosophy. Conservatives seem to think this is interchangeable, but it isn't. At all. Ever.

AUTaxMan
05-22-2012, 12:29 PM
You do realize socialism is an actual governmental system, while "progressive" is just a political philosophy. Conservatives seem to think this is interchangeable, but it isn't. At all. Ever.

It is a political philosophy that promotes socialist governmental systems.

pghin08
05-22-2012, 12:32 PM
It is a political philosophy that promotes socialist governmental systems.

So Teddy Roosevelt is a socialist?

JustAlex
05-22-2012, 12:34 PM
Wow, you buy into all of that nonsense? Let's start with your first accusation. How is Romney anti-women?

I present.....The war on women:

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/26/opinion/26sat1.html

"Republicans in the House of Representatives are mounting an assault on women’s health and freedom that would deny millions of women access to affordable contraception and life-saving cancer screenings and cut nutritional support for millions of newborn babies in struggling families."

http://pol.moveon.org/waronwomen/

"Republicans not only want to reduce women's access to abortion care, they're actually trying to redefine rape..... In South Dakota, Republicans proposed a bill that could make it legal to murder a doctor who provides abortion care.....Congress just voted for a Republican amendment to cut all federal funding from Planned Parenthood health centers, one of the most trusted providers of basic health care and family planning in our country."

http://articles.latimes.com/2012/apr/13/nation/la-na-arizona-abortion-20120414

"Following a national trend of new get-tough abortion legislation, Arizona has passed a law that severely restricts the procedure, banning most abortions after 20 weeks — setting the stage for another showdown between social conservatives and women's rights groups."

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/02/22/virginia-ultrasound-bill-abortion_n_1294026.html

"The Virginia House of Delegates passed on Wednesday a revised version of a GOP-sponsored informed consent bill that would require women to undergo an ultrasound at least 24 hours before having an abortion."


Yeah, I'm sure Mitt as Prez, this war on women would cease and desist.

JustAlex
05-22-2012, 12:37 PM
A women's body is her own...

Government should have NO SAY in what she does!

GOP....BACK OFF!

pghin08
05-22-2012, 12:46 PM
I present.....The war on women:

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/26/opinion/26sat1.html

"Republicans in the House of Representatives are mounting an assault on women’s health and freedom that would deny millions of women access to affordable contraception and life-saving cancer screenings and cut nutritional support for millions of newborn babies in struggling families."

http://pol.moveon.org/waronwomen/

"Republicans not only want to reduce women's access to abortion care, they're actually trying to redefine rape..... In South Dakota, Republicans proposed a bill that could make it legal to murder a doctor who provides abortion care.....Congress just voted for a Republican amendment to cut all federal funding from Planned Parenthood health centers, one of the most trusted providers of basic health care and family planning in our country."

http://articles.latimes.com/2012/apr/13/nation/la-na-arizona-abortion-20120414

"Following a national trend of new get-tough abortion legislation, Arizona has passed a law that severely restricts the procedure, banning most abortions after 20 weeks — setting the stage for another showdown between social conservatives and women's rights groups."

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/02/22/virginia-ultrasound-bill-abortion_n_1294026.html

"The Virginia House of Delegates passed on Wednesday a revised version of a GOP-sponsored informed consent bill that would require women to undergo an ultrasound at least 24 hours before having an abortion."


Yeah, I'm sure Mitt as Prez, this war on women would cease and desist.

I actually find a lot of what Romney's said over the past year as "Republi-speak". I don't think he agrees with a lot of what's said here at all.

JustAlex
05-22-2012, 01:12 PM
I actually find a lot of what Romney's said over the past year as "Republi-speak". I don't think he agrees with a lot of what's said here at all.
OK, fair enough, but will he speak against all these bills and the continuing pressure from the establishment GOP conservatives?

NO!

boba
05-22-2012, 01:15 PM
I present.....The war on women:

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/26/opinion/26sat1.html

"Republicans in the House of Representatives are mounting an assault on women’s health and freedom that would deny millions of women access to affordable contraception and life-saving cancer screenings and cut nutritional support for millions of newborn babies in struggling families."

http://pol.moveon.org/waronwomen/

"Republicans not only want to reduce women's access to abortion care, they're actually trying to redefine rape..... In South Dakota, Republicans proposed a bill that could make it legal to murder a doctor who provides abortion care.....Congress just voted for a Republican amendment to cut all federal funding from Planned Parenthood health centers, one of the most trusted providers of basic health care and family planning in our country."

http://articles.latimes.com/2012/apr/13/nation/la-na-arizona-abortion-20120414

"Following a national trend of new get-tough abortion legislation, Arizona has passed a law that severely restricts the procedure, banning most abortions after 20 weeks — setting the stage for another showdown between social conservatives and women's rights groups."

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/02/22/virginia-ultrasound-bill-abortion_n_1294026.html

"The Virginia House of Delegates passed on Wednesday a revised version of a GOP-sponsored informed consent bill that would require women to undergo an ultrasound at least 24 hours before having an abortion."


Yeah, I'm sure Mitt as Prez, this war on women would cease and desist.

What if the baby being aborted is a female?

JustAlex
05-22-2012, 01:38 PM
What if the baby being aborted is a female?

You do understand that a legal abortion is done BEFORE the fetus is a viable human being, right?


See, that's the problem....when you think of abortion you only see the negative.

Sure, in a perfect world there would be no need for abortions, but unfortunately rape, incest, and various other things that put the life of a women in danger DOES occur and abortion is a safe and legal way to remove the fetus.

Furthermore, even if the above mentioned situations is not present, it is STILL a woman's body and she alone should decide what she can do with it!

shrewsbury
05-22-2012, 02:54 PM
any abortion kills a baby, no matter at what stage.

i would like to see a bill that says you can murder anyone for any reason

and contraception should not be paid for by anyone except those who choose to use it, instead use some ethics.
i have never used contraception, and have 3 children by my one and only wife, they are now grown, but we still don't use and have had no issues not getting pregnant

JustAlex
05-22-2012, 03:15 PM
any abortion kills a baby, no matter at what stage.

LOL, OK....So, does that include a zygote?

What about a Blastocyst and an embryo?

You know what....I've probably "murdered" MILLIONS of unborn babies on a daily basis back when I was 17....If you know what I mean :thumb:


i would like to see a bill that says you can murder anyone for any reason

"anyone"....referring to human beings...abortions happen BEFORE a fetus is a viable human being.

You're right there is no such bill, so please sleep comfortable at night.


i have never used contraception, and have 3 children by my one and only wife, they are now grown, but we still don't use and have had no issues not getting pregnant

That's great.

Now please explain what right do you have to force women what they can and can't do with their own bodies.

AUTaxMan
05-22-2012, 03:25 PM
I present.....The war on women:

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/26/opinion/26sat1.html

"Republicans in the House of Representatives are mounting an assault on women’s health and freedom that would deny millions of women access to affordable contraception and life-saving cancer screenings and cut nutritional support for millions of newborn babies in struggling families."

http://pol.moveon.org/waronwomen/

"Republicans not only want to reduce women's access to abortion care, they're actually trying to redefine rape..... In South Dakota, Republicans proposed a bill that could make it legal to murder a doctor who provides abortion care.....Congress just voted for a Republican amendment to cut all federal funding from Planned Parenthood health centers, one of the most trusted providers of basic health care and family planning in our country."

http://articles.latimes.com/2012/apr/13/nation/la-na-arizona-abortion-20120414

"Following a national trend of new get-tough abortion legislation, Arizona has passed a law that severely restricts the procedure, banning most abortions after 20 weeks — setting the stage for another showdown between social conservatives and women's rights groups."

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/02/22/virginia-ultrasound-bill-abortion_n_1294026.html

"The Virginia House of Delegates passed on Wednesday a revised version of a GOP-sponsored informed consent bill that would require women to undergo an ultrasound at least 24 hours before having an abortion."


Yeah, I'm sure Mitt as Prez, this war on women would cease and desist.


I don't understand why you posted all of these things. What do they have to do with Romney's being anti-women?

JustAlex
05-22-2012, 03:38 PM
I don't understand why you posted all of these things. What do they have to do with showing how Romney is anti-women?

I think I responded already by saying that even though Mitt (THE MORMON) Romney might not say the extremist things that his party says....

He won't denounce it and if Mitt (The DOG ABUSER) Romney becomes president, who knows how many other anti-women bills might surface.

Either way Mitt (I wear magic underpants) Romney would most likely fall in line with the GOP rhetoric and his pro-corporations stance is probably his most dangerous ideology, there is no way I would ever vote for Mitt (I want to see your birth certificate) Romney.




*I'm going to be MOCKING Romney from now on every time I use his name....why?
Poetic justice for the nonsense with Obama and his name/religion/race/ethnicity/and so forth.

AUTaxMan
05-22-2012, 03:41 PM
I think I responded already by saying that even though Mitt (THE MORMON) Romney might not say the extremist things that his party says....

He won't denounce it and if Mitt (The DOG ABUSER) Romney becomes president, who knows how many other anti-women bills might surface.

Either way Mitt (I wear magic underpants) Romney would most likely fall in line with the GOP rhetoric and his pro-corporations stance is probably his most dangerous ideology.

What facts do you base your opinion on?

JustAlex
05-22-2012, 03:49 PM
What facts do you base your opinion on?

huh?

Which facts?

This is what the GOP does, they fall in line!

They don't go against the establishment.

I'll be honest, I sort of envy them, the Democrats are COWARDS, they don't fight back and cave almost every time!

Thankfully after these last four years, I'm no longer a democrat, I'm purely independent and I regretfully realize that it doesn't matter who wins in November, this country is going down.

AUTaxMan
05-22-2012, 04:22 PM
OK, so point one is based on pure speculation.

Point two, how is Romney anti-gay?

boba
05-22-2012, 04:58 PM
You do understand that a legal abortion is done BEFORE the fetus is a viable human being, right?


See, that's the problem....when you think of abortion you only see the negative.

Sure, in a perfect world there would be no need for abortions, but unfortunately rape, incest, and various other things that put the life of a women in danger DOES occur and abortion is a safe and legal way to remove the fetus.

Furthermore, even if the above mentioned situations is not present, it is STILL a woman's body and she alone should decide what she can do with it!

Who decides when they are viable human beings?

pghin08
05-22-2012, 05:00 PM
Guys, this thread isn't about abortion or whether or not you think Romney sucks. It's more about whether or not you think Hamid Karzai sucks. Let's get it back to the topic.

JustAlex
05-22-2012, 05:06 PM
Guys, this thread isn't about abortion or whether or not you think Romney sucks. It's more about whether or not you think Hamid Karzai sucks. Let's get it back to the topic.

Agreed....sorry I took it out of topic.

I won't respond about anything other than the subject at hand.

mrveggieman
05-22-2012, 05:15 PM
Guys, this thread isn't about abortion or whether or not you think Romney sucks. It's more about whether or not you think Hamid Karzai sucks. Let's get it back to the topic.


If I can jump in for a quick sec I wont say that Hamid Karzai sucks for taking money that was given to him but that the US gov't sucks for giving it to him in the first place.

pr0phet
05-22-2012, 05:17 PM
If I can jump in for a quick sec I wont say that Hamid Karzai sucks for taking money that was given to him but that the US gov't sucks for giving it to him in the first place.

Amen, Our country is in debt. Here we are giving money to others. I see a problem with this.

JustAlex
05-22-2012, 05:31 PM
Amen, Our country is in debt. Here we are giving money to others. I see a problem with this.

Well, it's very simple....We shouldn't be in Afghanistan in the first place.

Here we are as invaders to a foreign country that has never attacked us (NO, Al Qaeda is NOT a country nor does it represent a country either) wasting millions and millions of dollars that is desperately needed here in the U.S.


Any logical thinking person would realize that if we end ALL wars and cut the military budget, we would immediately see some much needed progress here at home.

AUTaxMan
05-22-2012, 06:42 PM
Well, it's very simple....We shouldn't be in Afghanistan in the first place.

Here we are as invaders to a foreign country that has never attacked us (NO, Al Qaeda is NOT a country nor does it represent a country either) wasting millions and millions of dollars that is desperately needed here in the U.S.


Any logical thinking person would realize that if we end ALL wars and cut the military budget, we would immediately see some much needed progress here at home.

Military spending accounts for a material amount of the budget, but not enough of one to have much of an impact on our financial situation.

For the record, I think we should pull out of Afghanistan, but I also know that there are a lot of things about foreign policy that the general public doesn't know about. If it were as simple as bringing the troops home, Obama would have done it by now. I also think that Pakistan is the real problem because they are nuclear, but I don't know exactly what the problem is, because the government won't tell us.

pghin08
05-22-2012, 07:17 PM
Military spending accounts for a material amount of the budget, but not enough of one to have much of an impact on our financial situation.

For the record, I think we should pull out of Afghanistan, but I also know that there are a lot of things about foreign policy that the general public doesn't know about. If it were as simple as bringing the troops home, Obama would have done it by now. I also think that Pakistan is the real problem because they are nuclear, but I don't know exactly what the problem is, because the government won't tell us.

2 things:

1. I agree with your thoughts on Afghanistan. Most of the fighting is going on by the Pakistani border. I think that if he could, he'd bring the troops home.

2. The defense budget is about 20% of the entire federal budget. I think that has an impact.

AUTaxMan
05-22-2012, 07:32 PM
2 things:

1. I agree with your thoughts on Afghanistan. Most of the fighting is going on by the Pakistani border. I think that if he could, he'd bring the troops home.

2. The defense budget is about 20% of the entire federal budget. I think that has an impact.

How much of the 20% is actually attributable to the wars?

JustAlex
05-22-2012, 07:43 PM
How much of the 20% is actually attributable to the wars?

Here, take a look for yourself:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/5/55/U.S._Defense_Spending_Trends.png/800px-U.S._Defense_Spending_Trends.png


Obviously, the increase to the DOD budget is a direct correlation to the wars.

I would say that the majority of the Defense budget is directly connected to the wars!

AUTaxMan
05-22-2012, 07:48 PM
Here, take a look for yourself:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/5/55/U.S._Defense_Spending_Trends.png/800px-U.S._Defense_Spending_Trends.png


Obviously, the increase to the DOD budget is a direct correlation to the wars.

I would say that the majority of the Defense budget is directly connected to the wars!

"Possible," definitely. "Obviously," not exactly.

JustAlex
05-22-2012, 07:49 PM
More nonsense from this country and it's OBSESSION with the military:

http://www.universitytimes.ie/wp-content/uploads/2011/07/military_spending_us_vs_world.gif


That's right, we spend more than every other country....WOOO....we're #1, We're #1, :(

shrewsbury
05-22-2012, 07:52 PM
why do you believe our military is something that can be an obsession

JustAlex
05-22-2012, 08:00 PM
why do you believe our military is something that can be an obsession

Why do we have to waste so much money on our military?

Combined, Europe is just as powerful as the U.S and yet they only waste a fraction of what we waste.

This is an American obsession.

Wanting to be the biggest, the best, the one that can blow things up more than anyone else!

It's nonsense....just imagine if all that money were to be used on infrastructure, education, and jobs!!!


But NO.....we have to waste it on killing other humans, on endless wars, and trying to police the world.

shrewsbury
05-22-2012, 09:48 PM
so it's an obsession and waste?

JustAlex
05-22-2012, 10:16 PM
so it's an obsession and waste?

Obsession: the domination of one's thoughts or feelings by a persistent idea, image, desire

Waste: To use, consume, spend, or expend thoughtlessly or carelessly


YES....definitely an obsession and wasteful.

INTIMADATOR2007
05-22-2012, 10:56 PM
I present.....The war on women:

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/26/opinion/26sat1.html

"Republicans in the House of Representatives are mounting an assault on women’s health and freedom that would deny millions of women access to affordable contraception and life-saving cancer screenings and cut nutritional support for millions of newborn babies in struggling families."

http://pol.moveon.org/waronwomen/

"Republicans not only want to reduce women's access to abortion care, they're actually trying to redefine rape..... In South Dakota, Republicans proposed a bill that could make it legal to murder a doctor who provides abortion care.....Congress just voted for a Republican amendment to cut all federal funding from Planned Parenthood health centers, one of the most trusted providers of basic health care and family planning in our country."

http://articles.latimes.com/2012/apr/13/nation/la-na-arizona-abortion-20120414

"Following a national trend of new get-tough abortion legislation, Arizona has passed a law that severely restricts the procedure, banning most abortions after 20 weeks — setting the stage for another showdown between social conservatives and women's rights groups."

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/02/22/virginia-ultrasound-bill-abortion_n_1294026.html

"The Virginia House of Delegates passed on Wednesday a revised version of a GOP-sponsored informed consent bill that would require women to undergo an ultrasound at least 24 hours before having an abortion."


Yeah, I'm sure Mitt as Prez, this war on women would cease and desist.
You REALLY should find different sources of info . Those are TERRIBLE ...Lol

JustAlex
05-23-2012, 12:14 AM
You REALLY should find different sources of info . Those are TERRIBLE ...Lol

No, actually they're not.

NY times and Huffington Post are two of the most reliable news sources in America.....hardly "terrible".

AUTaxMan
05-23-2012, 12:16 AM
No, actually they're not.

NY times and Huffington Post are two of the most reliable news sources in America.....hardly "terrible".

Wow.

shrewsbury
05-23-2012, 09:54 AM
wow and yikes!

pghin08
05-23-2012, 09:58 AM
He's right on the NY Times, left-leaning op-eds, but they actually do a good job of reporting the news. I hate the Huffington Post.

tpeichel
05-23-2012, 11:01 AM
I'd be fine with cutting back military spending as long as we cut entitlement spending an equal amount. We're going to have to do both to ever get back to a balanced budget without massively raise taxes.

shrewsbury
05-23-2012, 11:12 AM
but what about all the people in the military that will lose their jobs? where are they going to get a new one at? not enough jobs for the general public as it is

tpeichel
05-23-2012, 11:18 AM
but what about all the people in the military that will lose their jobs? where are they going to get a new one at? not enough jobs for the general public as it is

Every dollar that is paid out by the government needs to be collected from a productive citizen and transferred to someone else. Could those dollars be put to a more productive use in the private sector? I think so. Plus, government is inherently wasteful and inefficient, the military is no different.