Afghanistan Troop Withdrawal

[TLK Valentine]

US President Barack Obama on Thursday renewed a presidential waiver, again delaying plans to relocate the American Embassy in Israel from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem for another six months.

You were saying.....

Which Donald also signed in June of 2017...
...and again in December of that year -- after announcing the move.

Your point?

 

[hislegacy]

US President Barack Obama on Thursday renewed a presidential waiver, again delaying plans to relocate the American Embassy in Israel from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem for another six months.

You were saying.....

Again, that waiver is the one which congress passed in 1995. Not the waiver US gov agreed with Israeli Gov. Clinton did the same thing , GWB did the same thing and Obama did the same thing. There were never an agreement between US Gov and Israeli Gov to move the Embassy.

Note: delaying plans - that means an agreement was reached to move the Embassy and PLANS were made and then delayed.

The waiver was a delay on what was already in the works -

Trump fulfilled the promise never kept.

 

[lsume]

This number could be a bit of any exaggeration, but probably not if drones are counted.

What is your point? Given US foreign policy at the time, should Obama used more troops and fewere drones?

Bombing people has historically meant that mostly civilians die. Making people angry and killing innocents doesn’t often sit well with the people your trying to do what exactly for?

 

[hislegacy]

Which Donald also signed in June of 2017...
...and again in December of that year -- after announcing the move.

Your point?

100% correct - Trump kept the promised and executed the plans the former administration never acted on.

 

[Tiberius Lee]

Note: delaying plans - that means an agreement was reached to move the Embassy and PLANS were made and then delayed.

The waiver was a delay on what was already in the works -

Trump fulfilled the promise never kept.

You can’t provide a single proof / news article that “this plan” is between US government and Israeli government, you can’t because there is none.

From the same article you sited it says , Obama like his 2 predecessor waivered this congress law past 20 years.

In keeping with every other presidential administration over the last 20 years, a White House statement cited “national security interests” in waiving Congress’s 1995 decision to recognize Jerusalem as Israel’s capital and transfer its embassy there.

 

[mark46]

You can’t provide a single proof / news article that “this plan” is between US government and Israeli government, you can’t because there is none.

From the same article you sited it says , Obama like his 2 predecessor waivered this congress law past 20 years.

In keeping with every other presidential administration over the last 20 years, a White House statement cited “national security interests” in waiving Congress’s 1995 decision to recognize Jerusalem as Israel’s capital and transfer its embassy there.

Curiously, this was one of Trump's better foreign policy decisions. What were the adverse effects? Did it cause us to lose allies among the Arabs (a strange idea considering the Arab treaties with Israel and the US closeness with Saudi Arabia).

The PROBLEM with Trump's policy was being TOO cozy with Saudi Arabia and Russia.

 

[hislegacy]

From the same article you sited it says , Obama like his 2 predecessor waivered this congress law past 20 years.

Do you read what you post.

 

[TLK Valentine]

100% correct - Trump kept the promised and executed the plans the former administration never acted on.

After signing the waiver not to...
Then making the promise to do so...
(and then signing the waiver yet again).

Clearly something happened between June and December of 2017 that prompted Donald to change his mind.

 

[hislegacy]

Here, I’ll make it easy, no article, just the law

https://www.congress.gov/104/plaws/publ45/PLAW-104publ45.pdf

13) In March of 1995, 93 members of the United States Senate signed a letter to Secretary of State Warren Christopher encouraging ‘‘planning to begin now’’ for relocation of the United States Embassy to the city of Jerusalem.
(14) In June of 1993, 257 members of the United States House of Representatives signed a letter to the Secretary of State Warren Christopher stating that the relocation of the United States Embassy to Jerusalem ‘‘should take place no later than . . . 1999’’.
​

you were saying.....

 

[Tiberius Lee]

Do you read what you post.

Yes I have. You can argue that Trump fulfill what congress intended US foreign policy should be toward Israel. But the congress law is not a agreement between US Gov and Israeli government.

Any way, this will be my last post on this.

 

[SoldierOfTheKing]

It was a mistake for Regan administration to completely leave Afghanistan in 80s , and it is a mistake now.

You spelled “Soviet Union” wrong...

 

[Nithavela]

President Biden announced troop withdrawal from Afghanistan. As a conservative who deeply care about US foreign policy and stability of World, I think this is a mistake. We had less then 2500 troops in Afghanistan. They could have stayed there for years along with other NATO troops and give assistance to Afghan government.

I know many on the right and left agree with this “troop withdrawal” but I fear we will repeat history once again. It was a mistake for Regan administration to completely leave Afghanistan in 80s , and it is a mistake now.

Having said that, from Biden speech I agree on one thing

“When I came to office, I inherited a diplomatic agreement, duly negotiated between the government of the United States and the Taliban, that all U.S. forces would be out of Afghanistan by May 1, 2021, just three months after my inauguration,” Biden said.

“It is perhaps not what I would have negotiated myself, but it was an agreement made by the United States government, and that means something. So, in keeping with that agreement and with our national interests, the United States will begin our final withdrawal — begin it on May 1 of this year.”

One hand I think it is a mistake to withdraw troops from Afghanistan, on the other hand the agreement was made with US in previous administration, regardless it is a mistake or not, US Gov should fulfill her International agreement.

Your thoughts ?

The last US government didn't hesitate one second to rip up the agreements of the Obama administration. What's the point in voting for the other party if they just stay the course?

 

[wing2000]

Yes I have thoughts. that agreement is nothing but an excuse, it was violated multiple times by the Taliban, it is no longer valid, which is why Trump was not intending to proceed. Also we are going to regret not having the intelligence resources we now have due to our being in country. This stinks of the very same mistake the Obama administration made in Iraq, that mistake cost us dearly this one will also. Our troops are at very little risk, we should maintain a minimal amount of troops there as long as it serves our interests.

On what basis are your asserting "Trump was not intending to proceed"?

 

[wing2000]

President Biden announced troop withdrawal from Afghanistan. As a conservative who deeply care about US foreign policy and stability of World, I think this is a mistake. We had less then 2500 troops in Afghanistan. They could have stayed there for years along with other NATO troops and give assistance to Afghan government.

I know many on the right and left agree with this “troop withdrawal” but I fear we will repeat history once again. It was a mistake for Regan administration to completely leave Afghanistan in 80s , and it is a mistake now.

Having said that, from Biden speech I agree on one thing

“When I came to office, I inherited a diplomatic agreement, duly negotiated between the government of the United States and the Taliban, that all U.S. forces would be out of Afghanistan by May 1, 2021, just three months after my inauguration,” Biden said.

“It is perhaps not what I would have negotiated myself, but it was an agreement made by the United States government, and that means something. So, in keeping with that agreement and with our national interests, the United States will begin our final withdrawal — begin it on May 1 of this year.”

One hand I think it is a mistake to withdraw troops from Afghanistan, on the other hand the agreement was made with US in previous administration, regardless it is a mistake or not, US Gov should fulfill her International agreement.

Your thoughts ?

My thoughts:

If after 20 years, a couple trillion dollars and thousands of KIA/WIA US service members, it's time to get out. The original military mission was to deny Al Qaeda an operating base. That was completed several years ago. Our military (and our NATO allies) should not be expected to be there indefinitely. It's up to the people of Afghanistan to determine their course of action - not outsiders.

You would have thought that after Viet Nam, the US would have learned the limits of military power. Apparently not.

 

[TLK Valentine]

The last US government didn't hesitate one second to rip up the agreements of the Obama administration. What's the point in voting for the other party if they just stay the course?

It's a foreign policy issue. A nation that completely flushes every treaty it makes every 4 years is not a nation that other nations are going to sign any treaties with in the future.

 

[SoldierOfTheKing]

It's a foreign policy issue. A nation that completely flushes every treaty it makes every 4 years is not a nation that other nations are going to sign any treaties with in the future.

US law makes a distinction between treaties and executive agreements.

As per Article II, Section 2 of the US Constitution, treaties must be approved by a two-thirds majority in the US senate. Executive agreements, like executive orders on domestic issues, are not binding on future administrations. A President cannot bind a future President, only Congress can.

 

[Pommer]

It's a foreign policy issue. A nation that completely flushes every treaty it makes every 4 years is not a nation that other nations are going to sign any treaties with in the future.

For a long moment I thought you were talking about Afghanistan.

 

[Pommer]

US law makes a distinction between treaties and executive agreements.

As per Article II, Section 2 of the US Constitution, treaties must be approved by a two-thirds majority in the US senate. Executive agreements, like executive orders on domestic issues, are not binding on future administrations. A President cannot bind a future President, only Congress can.

As it ought to be!
So what was the problem with the JCPOA?

 

[TLK Valentine]

US law makes a distinction between treaties and executive agreements.

And no foreign government is going to accept an executive agreement knowing that the next executive is probably going to discard it out of spite.

 

[Nithavela]

And no foreign government is going to accept an executive agreement knowing that the next executive is probably going to discard it out of spite.

They're probably also going to be wary of treaties. I know I would.