When will US troops leave Afghanistan?

When will US troops leave Afghanistan?

Attached: American soldiers guarding poppy fields.jpg (1123x749, 869K)

When will you have sex?

When heroine becomes non-profittable

Looks like it's going to take some time.

Attached: Opium production record high 2017.png (1325x836, 1.8M)

Attached: Drumpf sends more troops to Afghanistan.png (707x658, 473K)

they are going to leave soon, they are handing the country over back to the taliban
vietnam 2.0

> The talks between U.S. special envoy Zalmay Khalilzad and top Taliban official Mullah Abdul Ghani Baradar center on the United States withdrawing its troops from Afghanistan in exchange for the Taliban pledging to block international terrorist groups from operating on Afghan soil.

bzuaahhahahahahaha

>when you run out of countries to invade so you have to withdraw to re-invade them

such is life

If we did the Afghan government would implode.

This, honestly.

why would they? they profit over endless war, the war industry needs an output and a reason to keep existing.
and now that they have bretty much stopped losing soldiers thanks to drone strikes they can keep the party going indefinitely.

god can you imagine total war in 2019?

Attached: boner.jpg (672x434, 23K)

they don't need to tax opium trade in order to gain a profit, they do it through the military industrial complex, which lobbies hard as fuck and is a strong motor of US's domestic economy.
by maintaining a strong demand for weaponry they also keep being the best in the world in this field, which in turn gain them profits by selling these weapons to a bunch of other countries, why do you think Yellow Man keeps sperging out about muh 2% military expenditure to NATO allies.
Afghanistan is mostly just a test ground for new weapons, public opinion is fine because there's not that many deaths nowadays because drones.

also notice the brainwashing of the average american:
>afghanistan's economy largely reliant on opium
>taliban run the opium trade
>americans routinely destroy the livinghood of afghani farmers by destroying their crops
>americans expect afghani farmers and general population to just be gud bois and side with them after that
>americans expect the taliban to just give up opium trade because drugs bad mmkay

of course the military and geopolitical minds know this will never happen and the country is bound to be plagued by perpetual internal conflict but they just keep telling the average Joe that TALIBAN BAD and needs to be destroyed to "fix" afghanistan, which of course would lose its only source of income if it lost the opium trade.

Yes, I have mentioned this before, but this sin't a boon to the US state as it has been implyed by the italian user, it's just specific industries profiting mostly at the cost of its own citizen's labor.

I'm asking if the US state is literally getting oil and opium from other countries and profiting from it.

that's not how you make a profit as a State, you make profit through legally taxing corporations and workers, and by taxing exchanges with foreign countries.

I was speaking in terms of our yearly budget. The military takes up half of federal discretionary spending every year, and that's only one part of maintaining the empire. We have no money left for education, infrastructure, healthcare etc. We're not going to be able to spend all that money in the future.

We don't get oil from our wars, but we do force the trade within their borders to be in USD. The price of oil is directly tied to the strength of the US dollar, which means that it's in oil producing countries best interest to keep the USD strong and friendly with America. Iraq invaded our ally Kuwait and didn't trade in USD so they got BTFO. Venezuela doesn't trade in USD either and we're contemplating an intervention. This total control of the largest commodity in the world ensures that we can basically borrow as much money as we want, so the government doesn't have to worry about it's budgeting very much and Americans can live with a low tax burden.

> they do it through the military industrial complex
I see, so it's exactly as I said. It's just their military industry that's gaining anything from it. Do you think no other country would take america's place if it didn't interfere though? I'm sure countries like Russia and France would gladly sell them weapons instead. Maybe that's why their doing it. "better us than them", they think, as every other state does.
Yes, this is why I'm always confused with this narrative of a large empire like the US invading countries because they want to syphon its strategic resources.

That's because our taxes are extremely low. We could easily afford things again if we taxed every bracket their fair share like we did in the 50s and 60s

Attached: 1960 tax brackets.png (611x380, 45K)

You should read Taliban: Militant Islam, Oil and Fundamentalism in Central Asia. Companies like ExxonMobil are the ones prolonging these wars since the other competitors like Argentinian and French oil firms trying to develop pipelines in the region to bypass Iranian oil markets and prevent ex soviet states from strengthening ties with Russia

It's a completely different economy from the 50's, when you held monopoly militarily and europe and japan were rebuilding. If you tried this tax rate again you'd go bankrupt. They'd just leave and you'd be isolated economically.

That's not going to happen. The billionaires will always find a way to weasel their way out of paying and leave the poor and middle class to pick up the tab for their wars. We'll just keep incurring debt in maintaining our overstretched military presence until the dollar loses reserve status. We can't even pay for the wars we're fighting now which we aren't even winning anyway. What happens when more and more smaller countries tell us to fuck off and we don't have the economic and military strength to keep them all in line anymore?

> It's just their military industry that's gaining anything from it.
well them, the workers and the State by default, we're talking pretty big profits here.

>Do you think no other country would take america's place if it didn't interfere though?
history of Afghanistan is just a foreign invasion after another so yes

>I'm sure countries like Russia and France would gladly sell them weapons instead
to whom? The Afghani Army budget is so small it wouldn't make any difference for either of those countries. That said France and Russia are very active players in contemporary geopolitcs so they understand these concepts very well.

>Maybe that's why their doing it. "better us than them", they think, as every other state does.
no the Americans are very glad to be stationed permanently in Afghanistan. mind you I'm not saying the sole reason for US's intervention was to make money through the military industrial complex, but to the question "when are they going to leave afghanistan?" I personally think one big reason is not to lose those profits. of course Afghanistan is a precious location being both in the middle east and close to China and Russia.

>I'm always confused with this narrative of a large empire like the US invading countries because they want to syphon its strategic resources
they have a very refined way to manage the global oil resources in this favor, the other user already explained you how petrodollars work.
of course some people tend to reduce this dynamic to very simple terms and parrot what they don't understand so you'll hear this thing everywhere.

>to whom?
To whoever is strategically interesting for them to arm. Isn't it how these things usually work? It's an interesting region to have under your thumb.

What I'd like to know is if the event that whould end the petrodollar would be any good for me, in particular. It's not like there will be eternal world peace if the US army suddenly vanishes from the world. Wouldn't the other players just scramble to pick up the spoils and try to tie their own currency to petrol? How do you think the world would look like

my personal opinion is that we're at the dawn of an era of increased multipolarity and this will tendency will increase in the coming years.
you know how we went from a bipolar world (cold war) to a semi-unipolar world (the 90's and the 00's) with the US in charge, to the 10's which have seen the rise of a bunch of new actors both economically and militarily, I think this trend will be even more pronounced as we enter the 20's.
The US has lost a lot of its grip in key areas (see the shitshow in Syria), while Russia is back in force in the region, also many countries are beginning to have the courage to say fuck off to the Americans when the demands are too out of the ordinary, which is something new.
Economically China is going to keep rising and locking satellites through debt-trap diplomacy and other tools which will be possibly softer than military intervention, eventually creating its own sphere of influence.
the Middle East is also locked in a regional cold war with three central actors (IRN, KSA, TUR) which are increasingly escaping the control of their historical western ties and making their own rules.

All this to say that it's going to be a wild ride once the established order starts to really crack and I will lmao forever at those who talked about the "end of history" after the fall of the USSR, instead buckle up buckaroos because we're going to have a laff.

Well, you didn't say anything that most people haven't realised a decade ago. I just wanted to know if this will be any better for "world peace", which I assume most people bitching about US endless wars seem to be concerned with. Your scenario seems to suggest an even more dangerous and unstable world with even more war.

>Your scenario seems to suggest an even more dangerous and unstable world with even more war.
correct, well possibly, I can't predict the future, but the ingredients are there.