Results 1 to 10 of 47
-
05-21-2012, 05:53 PM #1
Afghanistan’s Karzai thanks Obama for ‘your taxpayers’ money’
http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/ticket/a...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.
Selling All My Cards Here------>Hidden Content
Baseball Autograph and Game Used Only Trade Page: pwaldo.webs.com/
//s123.photobucket.com/albums/o299/pwaldo/
-
-
05-21-2012, 07:27 PM #2
Nothing wrong with that right? Where are all of the people who support raising taxes when you need them?
-
05-21-2012, 08:04 PM #3
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!
-
-
05-22-2012, 10:30 AM #4
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.
-
05-22-2012, 10:38 AM #5
This keeps getting repeated and is totally asinine. Please substantiate why the alternative is so bad.
-
-
05-22-2012, 10:46 AM #6
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!
-
05-22-2012, 10:55 AM #7
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?
-
-
05-22-2012, 11:06 AM #8
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.
-
05-22-2012, 11:29 AM #9
It is a political philosophy that promotes socialist governmental systems.
-
05-22-2012, 11:32 AM #10
So Teddy Roosevelt is a socialist?
-