US/Taliban Peace Agreement - media coverage

samspade

Master Don Juan
Joined
Jan 5, 2008
Messages
4,941
Reaction score
1,091
I saw this story today and found it interesting. Honestly I wasn't even sure that the U.S. was still in Afghanistan.

But what really fascinated me was that it's not bigger news. I can see why people mistrust the MSM.

The New York Times, to its credit, placed it at the top of its site, but it could have been more attention-grabbing.

CNN has it slotted with some other headlines to the right. Though I am automatically routed to its international edition, which has bigger headlines about Brexit and Venezuela.

I don't see it anywhere on the home pages for MSNBC or Fox News, both of which seem more interested in pop culture and scandals.

My point is, if Obama or Hillary administrations had brokered this peace, we'd already be hearing that Harrah's has them at 2-1 odds for a Nobel. (Obama already has a Nobel, even though he bombed seven sovereign nations.)

It's similar to what Nixon went through in 1973. I'm sure this agreement isn't perfect, but it's about time, no?
 

backseatjuan

Master Don Juan
Joined
Nov 2, 2011
Messages
3,146
Reaction score
678
Age
38
Location
Россия
I love your quote about you not being sure about U.S. still being in Afghanistan, just reaffirms thesis on Russian news that United States is out of touch with reality. You have to see some of the youtube videos from Syria, basically, you will see that U.S. military is helping ISIS terrorists attack Assad forces backed by Russians. It is serious stuff.

Personally I turned off my television, well actually I have it at the house, but now I'm in my apartment and television is broken here, thank god. But basically, we are preparing for war, we going to invade Ukraine and remove puppet U.S. controlled right-wing fascist government. Thank god I'm 37 and they won't come after me with a draft. This alone could lead to confrontation with nato, plus you got Syria bullsh1t, and to add it all up there are out of touch with reality mickey mouse loving cartoon characters with nuclear weapons at hand.
 

samspade

Master Don Juan
Joined
Jan 5, 2008
Messages
4,941
Reaction score
1,091
They're too busy focusing on non-news like the Roger Stone saga. What a fvcking waste of time and resources.
Until last week, I had no idea who Roger Stone was. I kept seeing his name in headlines. Finally I read an article, but I still don't really get it, I guess he's just some advisor who got busted for something. This keeps happening: I'll notice the media focus on some guy who at some point worked for Trump and is now in trouble. They say their names like we are supposed to know them. Part of it is Trump's fault for cycling through so many people, but I think the media are just fishing for the next Watergate. Like you said, waste of time and resources. Some dude will commit perjury and it will be a big deal in the news, that's how these "scandals" usually go down.
 

Bible_Belt

Master Don Juan
Joined
Jul 27, 2005
Messages
15,409
Reaction score
3,531
Age
43
Location
midwestern cow field 40
My cousin was in Afghanistan about a year ago with the army. You dont hear about it on the news, because troop deaths are the stories that get reported, and the US has managed to mostly stop those. My cousin sat in a fortress of a base with 40 other kids, their sole purpose being to support a handful of special forces soldiers, who grow their beards out and attempt to become friends with locals. They are the only ones in real danger, and use the bases as their protection when needed.
 

How This "Nice Guy" Steals Women from Jerks

Did you know a woman can be totally UN-ATTRACTED to you...

And she'll still sleep with you?

If you've ever seen a girl go home with some asshole she didn't even LIKE, you know this is true.

But how is this possible?

Because deep inside her brain, sexual desire has nothing to do with what you LOOK like...

And everything to do with how you make her FEEL.

Matt Cook knows this all too well.

Matt is a nice guy... but he steals women from JERKS all the time.

In this free video training below, he'll show you how he does it:

How to Control Her Emotions and Make Her Chase You

samspade

Master Don Juan
Joined
Jan 5, 2008
Messages
4,941
Reaction score
1,091
My cousin was in Afghanistan about a year ago with the army. You dont hear about it on the news, because troop deaths are the stories that get reported, and the US has managed to mostly stop those. My cousin sat in a fortress of a base with 40 other kids, their sole purpose being to support a handful of special forces soldiers, who grow their beards out and attempt to become friends with locals. They are the only ones in real danger, and use the bases as their protection when needed.
I'd be interested to know what he thought of this agreement. The Taliban, if you can remember 18 years back, was the host government, more or less, of bin Laden and Al Qaeda. It's hard to imagine calling a truce with them in 2002. But then, it would have been hard to imagine back then that we'd be there 18 years. Dwight Eisenhower was never more correct abou tthe Military Industrial Complex. We can now fight interminable wars and the public barely bats an eyelash - mostly because the American casualty numbers are so low. (2,732 in 18 years in Afghanistan.)
 

Bible_Belt

Master Don Juan
Joined
Jul 27, 2005
Messages
15,409
Reaction score
3,531
Age
43
Location
midwestern cow field 40
I'd be interested to know what he thought of this agreement. The Taliban, if you can remember 18 years back, was the host government, more or less, of bin Laden and Al Qaeda. It's hard to imagine calling a truce with them in 2002. But then, it would have been hard to imagine back then that we'd be there 18 years. Dwight Eisenhower was never more correct abou tthe Military Industrial Complex. We can now fight interminable wars and the public barely bats an eyelash - mostly because the American casualty numbers are so low. (2,732 in 18 years in Afghanistan.)
ISIS makes the Taliban look moderate by comparison. One is a suicidal end times cult, and the other reminds me of Rodney King, "can't we all just get along?" They are tired of being drone murdered. There isnt much left to fight over, anyway. The special forces my cousin supported were probably the ones brokering the beginnings of the peace agreement they have now.
 

Spaz

Master Don Juan
Joined
Jan 14, 2018
Messages
4,957
Reaction score
3,490
Location
Somewhere where's it's none of your business
I'd be interested to know what he thought of this agreement. The Taliban, if you can remember 18 years back, was the host government, more or less, of bin Laden and Al Qaeda. It's hard to imagine calling a truce with them in 2002. But then, it would have been hard to imagine back then that we'd be there 18 years. Dwight Eisenhower was never more correct abou tthe Military Industrial Complex. We can now fight interminable wars and the public barely bats an eyelash - mostly because the American casualty numbers are so low. (2,732 in 18 years in Afghanistan.)
You guys can't win over there with superior weaponry or training when you don't address the ideological brainwashing to children who grows up into barbarians and starts chopping off people's head later on thinking it's perfectly normal, even required per their God.
 

samspade

Master Don Juan
Joined
Jan 5, 2008
Messages
4,941
Reaction score
1,091
You guys can't win over there with superior weaponry or training when you don't address the ideological brainwashing to children who grows up into barbarians and starts chopping off people's head later on thinking it's perfectly normal, even required per their God.
Well, history has taught us that an inspired and angry home team can outlast an invasion. The Soviets got their a$$es kicked in Afghanistan. The US did not have the endurance of the North Vietnamese. Etc.

Plus, since bin Laden was killed and AQ was more or less neutered, I'm not sure what our objective is - what we are seeking to "win." We obviously don't want to occupy that moonscape. Maybe throw a long term military base into the deal, that's what the US loves to do.
 

Spaz

Master Don Juan
Joined
Jan 14, 2018
Messages
4,957
Reaction score
3,490
Location
Somewhere where's it's none of your business
Well, history has taught us that an inspired and angry home team can outlast an invasion. The Soviets got their a$$es kicked in Afghanistan. The US did not have the endurance of the North Vietnamese. Etc.

Plus, since bin Laden was killed and AQ was more or less neutered, I'm not sure what our objective is - what we are seeking to "win." We obviously don't want to occupy that moonscape. Maybe throw a long term military base into the deal, that's what the US loves to do.
US doesn't have much of a choice since most of the Muslim world thinks they r the great Satan and must be fought, using groups such as AQ as proxy's.

The US has no choice but to prop up the afghan govt and army to act as a bulwark against religious men thinking it's their duty to bomb America into oblivion.

It's just containment at present and not a long term solution.

Long term solution would be to tackle the ideology which is impossible since it will require some changes to their holy book.
 

TyTe`EyEz

Master Don Juan
Joined
Mar 13, 2008
Messages
2,261
Reaction score
530

backseatjuan

Master Don Juan
Joined
Nov 2, 2011
Messages
3,146
Reaction score
678
Age
38
Location
Россия
Senate campaigns sponsored by Boeing, Lockheed Martin, and Raytheon I'll bet.

They all f'ed up. Russia has something U.S. does not have and won't have for another decade or more. Firstly it's electronic warfare systems capable of creating electronic denial zones in which neither aircraft nor ship nor cruise missiles can effectively operate. Case in point tomahawks that missed an air base, flying radar that didn't see sh1t load of bombers and fighter aircraft on their radar, ship that couldn't lock on target or do anything while SU-24s imitated bombing runs on it for half an hour. Secondly it's super sonic missiles, try to intercept or defend against ICBM flying mach 25, you can, just have to fly mach 50, right now you can't even fly mach 25. Thirdly it's nuclear powered torpedoes and missiles, try defending against torpedoes with unlimited range, stealth, ability to lay low and sleep, ability to fly out of water and hit inland targets, ability to go on for years on end without refueling. U.S. didn't do an important thing during 80s, they did not try to get rid of their plutonium reserves as per arms reduction agreement, Russia on the other hand developed nuclear reactor capable of burning plutonium, and then some other stuff, so you can imagine they are almost 30 years ahead in this area, and this is besides being an effective defense technology is a valuable space travel technology, you can have a nuclear reactor on your space craft, on the moon and on mars.

I would imagine they are scrambling in pentagon, their war on terror suddenly is useless and ineffective tool against adversary that is capable of waging war with means there is no defense against.
 
Top