Thread: US loses war in Afghanistan, hands it back to Taliban

14,000 troops withdrawal? Bha, such peanuts. Obama was another buster...

Afghanistan withdrawal: Barack Obama says 33,000 troops will leave next year
Afghanistan withdrawal: Barack Obama says 33,000 troops will leave next year | World news | The Guardian

Originally Posted by Klondyke

14,000 troops withdrawal? Bha, such peanuts. Obama was another buster...

Afghanistan withdrawal: Barack Obama says 33,000 troops will leave next year
Afghanistan withdrawal: Barack Obama says 33,000 troops will leave next year | World news | The Guardian

I believe any one of the Central Asian states is ripe and open to an occupying and full-time presence, even when a limited presence is already there.
Start anew, as the minions are quite deaf/accepting to such activity [the world over].

Originally Posted by sabang

Lets just hope it doesn't end in a debacle, like Vietnam.

It's almost guaranteed to end like Vietnam. The seppos have conceded that they can't beat the enemy, and the enemy will take the whole country.

Originally Posted by Chico

Oh dear harry.

And the Chinese are rubbing there hands with Glee.

The Chinese Belt and Road initiative can finally proceed.

The chinkies will pay off anyone for anything.

In this, minerals are the grand prize.

Originally Posted by OhOh

Some car manufacturer realised that paying his labour force enough to enable them to afford to buy one of his cars, was a good business model. Henry somebody I believe.

A common misconception, not atypical of you.

He raised wages because he had a horrendous turnover (in one year, 52,000 workers hired for a workforce of 14,000) and it was costing him money to train new staff. And it came with absurd conditions.

And it wasn't enough to buy a car anyway, as the Model T cost $850.

The Story of Henry Ford's $5 a Day Wages: It's Not What You Think

it's probably why you think the chinkies have altruistic motives as well. Of which of course the parasites have none.

Originally Posted by harrybarracuda

A common misconception

From your link:

1. Ford assembly line workers - "The $5-a-day rate was about half pay and half bonus."
2. $5-a-day x 50 weeks x 6 days per week = $1,500-a-year
3. "A Model T cost between $550 and $450" = Paid off in 3 years = say $200/year

The Story of Henry Ford's $5 a Day Wages: It's Not What You Think

I would suggest paying 13% of your annual income for your annual car payments is a deal most would be pretty happy with.

But as you suggest, as my replaced every 3 years, quality, German, French or Italian cars, were always part of my employment contract. I wouldn't have known what a car assembly line worker would expect.

Originally Posted by OhOh

From your link:

1. Ford assembly line workers - "The $5-a-day rate was about half pay and half bonus."
2. $5-a-day x 50 weeks x 6 days per week = $1,500-a-year
3. "A Model T cost between $550 and $450" = Paid off in 3 years = say $200/year

The Story of Henry Ford's $5 a Day Wages: It's Not What You Think

I would suggest paying 13% of your annual income for your annual car payments is a deal most would be pretty happy with.

But as you suggest, as my replaced every 3 years, quality, German, French or Italian cars, were always part of my employment contract. I wouldn't have known what a car assembly line worker would expect.

Marvellous piece of selective editing. Let me add it back in for you.

Car production in the year before the pay rise was 170,000, in the year of it 202,000. As we can see above the total labour establishment was only 14,000 anyway. Even if all of his workers bought a car every year it wasn't going to make any but a marginal difference to the sales of the firm.
We can go further too. As we've seen the rise in the daily wage was from $2.25 to $5 (including the bonuses etc). Say 240 working days in the year and 14,000 workers and we get a rise in the pay bill of $9 1/4 million over the year. A Model T cost between $550 and $450 (depends on which year we're talking about). 14,000 cars sold at that price gives us $7 3/4 million to $6 1/4 million in income to the company.
It should be obvious that paying the workforce an extra $9 million so that they can then buy $7 million's worth of company production just isn't a way to increase your profits. It's a great way to increase your losses though.

Originally Posted by harrybarracuda

It's almost guaranteed to end like Vietnam. The seppos have conceded that they can't beat the enemy, and the enemy will take the whole country.

Sure it will, history repeating itself through an unwinnable war that takes its course.

The humiliation of Afghanistan will be ignored for a few years just like Vietnam was, the noticeable difference being while Vietnam bounced back to hold its own as a viable state Afghanistan is doomed to proudly devolve with little outside interference.

With lots of valuable resources on offer including oil and gas, maybe sometime in the future China will have a go.

I don't think the US "lost" in Afghanistan at all. The gas pipeline (TAPI) through the country got built three years ago. Weapons and armaments / security contractors got paid handsomely (as they always do), and the Taliban get to continue as regional boogeymen and excuse for the next coup d'etat on basic freedoms, (even though their "leader" and CIA asset is long gone). And then there's the small matter of that massive opium / heroin production, and who's pockets and political slush funds it goes into.
The American taxpayers lost, as they always do.

Originally Posted by kmart

I don't think the US "lost" in Afghanistan at all.

Somebody has profited from the 1 trillion spent...

The American taxpayers lost, as they always do.

However, no reason to be bothered about and - god forbid - initiate an impeachment for such peanuts, there are other more critical offences... (and BTW, who to impeach?)

Originally Posted by kmart

I don't think the US "lost" in Afghanistan at all. The gas pipeline (TAPI) through the country got built three years ago. Weapons and armaments / security contractors got paid handsomely (as they always do), and the Taliban get to continue as regional boogeymen and excuse for the next coup d'etat on basic freedoms, (even though their "leader" and CIA asset is long gone). And then there's the small matter of that massive opium / heroin production, and who's pockets and political slush funds it goes into.
The American taxpayers lost, as they always do.

And a shitload of American, Afghan and other lives which for some reason you don't seem to think merits mention.

The poor old seppos can't help digging themselves into a corner.

Only this time they are trying to keep their side of the bargain and it is the ungrateful Afghans who are betraying them.

You would think the US would have got something for all that money they poured into the Afghan government and which the Afghans then gleefully poured into the UAE property and investment markets.

Just two days after the US and the Taliban signed an agreement intended to bring peace to Afghanistan and facilitate the withdrawal of US troops, the Taliban said it would resume offensive operations against the Afghan security forces, throwing a wrench into the peace deal.
A Taliban spokesman, Zabihullah Mujahid, told Agence France-Presse on Monday that the seven-day reduction in violence that preceded the US-Taliban deal signed on Saturday in Doha, Qatar, "has ended now and our operations will continue as normal."
Per the agreement, "our mujahideen will not attack foreign forces but our operations will continue against the Kabul administration forces," the spokesman added.

https://www.businessinsider.com/taliban-says-it-is-resuming-offensive-operations-against-afghan-forces-2020-3?r=US&IR=T

^Seems like you were right then Árry- Vietnam redux. Hey, first time for everything.

Originally Posted by sabang

^Seems like you were right then Árry- Vietnam redux. Hey, first time for everything.

If baldy wants to win some quick popularity points, he could ask the Afghans for a refund.

Just when you thought the seppos could sneak away and cut their losses.... silly fuckers.

The US military on Wednesday said it had conducted an airstrike against Taliban forces, just days after signing a historic peace deal with the militant group.
In a tweet, US military spokesman Colonel Sonny Legget said it was a "defensive strike" to counter an assault on government forces in Afghanistan.

https://www.dw.com/en/us-conducts-first-airstrike-on-taliban-since-peace-deal/a-52632029

Originally Posted by OhOh

"KABUL (Reuters) - The government of Afghanistan has made no commitment to free 5,000 Taliban prisoners as stated in a pact signed between the United States and Taliban Islamic militants, President Ashraf Ghani said on Sunday.

The Taliban demand for the release of its prisoners from Afghan jails cannot be a pre-condition to direct talks with the hardline group, Ghani told a news briefing in the capital, Kabul.

Saturday’s accord between the United States and the Taliban said both were committed to work expeditiously to release combat and political prisoners as a confidence-building measure, with the coordination and approval of all relevant sides.

Up to 5,000 jailed Taliban will be released in exchange for up to 1,000 Afghan government captives by March 10, the pact added."

It appears the bought and paid for "Government of Afghanistan", who were excluded by a "here today gone tomorrow" politician's Historic Agreement, have shattered Pontius Pompeo's pathetic peace proposal.

As others have said previously, "Who does one sign an agreement with, in Washington?" "They are not agreement capable.

News thread HoHo.

Link please.

I'm pretty sure that was a plotline in Ep 2 of the last season of Homeland.

The hard-line Islamist group had observed a "reduction in violence" in the week leading up to the agreement.


The deal included a commitment to hold peace talks with the Afghan government.

But the group's spokesman said on Monday the talks would not go ahead if 5,000 Taliban prisoners held by the government were not released.

The release formed part of the agreement signed on Saturday in Qatar with the US.

But on Sunday, Afghanistan's President Ashraf Ghani told reporters his government had agreed to no such release.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-51706126

Originally Posted by harrybarracuda

News thread HoHo.

Link please.

Where is that "requirement" actually stipulated?

Originally Posted by OhOh

Afghanistan did not commit to release 5,000 Taliban, Ghani says

"President Ashraf Ghani said on Sunday."

Afghanistan did not commit to release 5,000 Taliban, Ghani says - Reuters

See my previous two posts.

Glad to see that you two can stroke each other off again.

Originally Posted by OhOh

Where is that "requirement" actually stipulated?

It has been a rule since day one to stop people posting fake news.

Where that paragraph has gone I'll leave to the mods, because the pinned posts are long gone.

Now it seems it's fixed...(how did he get the phone No.?)

Trump holds phone call with Taliban leader Baradar

KABUL: U.S. President Donald Trump had a phone call with Taliban fighter-turned-negotiator Mullah Baradar, the insurgent group said late Tuesday, days after Washington signed a historic deal with the militants.

"The President of the United States... held a phone call with the Political Deputy of the Islamic Emirate, the respected Mullah Baradar Akhund," spokesman Zabihullah Mujahid tweeted.

The call came a day after the Taliban ended a partial truce and threw into doubt peace talks between Kabul and the insurgents that are due to begin on March 10.

Under the terms of the agreement signed Saturday in Doha, foreign forces will quit Afghanistan within 14 months, subject to Taliban security guarantees and a pledge by the insurgents to hold talks with Kabul.

Trump holds phone call with Taliban leader Baradar | News , World | THE DAILY STAR

US conducts first air strike on Taliban since deal

The US military has conducted an air strike against Taliban fighters in Afghanistan, just hours after President Donald Trump said he had had a "very good talk" with a leader of the group.

The US signed a deal with the Taliban on Saturday aimed at bringing peace to Afghanistan after years of war.

But a US forces spokesman said it launched an air strike on Wednesday in response to Taliban fighters attacking Afghan forces in Helmand province.

Afghan conflict: US conducts first air strike on Taliban since deal - BBC News