american military presence: Live & Latest News Updates : Vimarsana.com
remember that, with signs that said we will take four, we will take five. that was just a year ago. >> brian: think about how loyal poland has been. for our operation in iraq to afghanistan. they have sent troops with nato. they are one of the last ones out and retrieving pe when afghanistan fell thanks to president biden's folly. now the first ones to stand up and host a series of events and now they know they are at the cusp. they know they have been chopped up by hitler in the past. they have been invaded and part of their land annexed by the soviets after that. and they have got the first with -- the first to break free of russia democracy. now they are saying america, we would like to give you free land. i hope you build a base. we would like a huge american military presence right in our country. we will pay for everything. >> steve: well, let's see what happens. the president running about a half an hour behind schedule. we will bring you his comments when he takes the stage. in the meantime, 7:25 now.
mean, this is us. we are a news crew. we are clearly western. and still we were exposed to all sorts of insanity. if you're an ordinary afghan trying to get past those taliban guards and trying to get into the airport, i mean, i don't see how you're able to do it. i don't see how you're able to really get in unless you have some kind of a contact or a connection or you're able to arrange something somehow. but as i said, the infrastructure simply isn't in place to even begin to do that. so, as a result, you have all these poor people sitting outside the airport for days on end now. and it's their last hope. but frankly, jake, there's no real hope. >> it's so tragic. let me ask you when it comes to the american military presence there at the airport, they've recaptured the airport, it's secure, they say. is there any rhyme or reason at the airport americans go here, afghans with sivs go to another
日本語に翻訳したコンテンツが希望のお方はこちらでご覧ください 이 페이지의 한국어 번역은 GAO-21-424 를 참고하세요 The United States has over 80,000 troops deployed in Japan and South Korea. We found...
turkey and iraq and iran you know outside of the middle east what we're hearing is that a lot of people except for the u.s. president but a lot of people in washington d.c. say that the united states has abandoned the kurds do you feel like that you've been stabbed in the back in the back by the americans since they are not helping you know well actually if they kill a dish people they used to bang and are they used to. like be alone. by they are just an itty so it's not a big shock for the kurdish people we do know that you. are protecting people against that i as because of their reince because a fair interest so we do know that at the other time they will change their own but you know but you know as long as the american military presence was there the
organized. but it makes sense to me there would be other trips planned, and they often include senators, too. in this instance, we have just eyes from our colleagues on people getting off of the bus that is democratic house members if t is often very evenly split especially when you talk about going to places that involve issues like nato, investigation, where there is an american military presence. it is also important for those that want to visit their own hometown members. that's the bus that we're looking at that has the congressional members on it that left the capital and now has gone back, we understand, to the capital with those members on it. kelly, sorry to interrupt you. go ahead. >> so we expect there would be
get briefed on china and china's evolution over the years. it is a big powerful country and in some areas we'll compete. some areas we can work together. they clearly are trying to pursue a, this one belt, one road strategy which is going spread china's influence and presence around the globe but they are encountering problems with that in terms of the different types of instability and war and conflict in different places that is disruptive to their aims. xi jinping is facing some criticism now. not serious in my mind in terms of any threats -- >> internal? >> some internal because the profile now of china has risen and it is causing some reaction, including from washington. and i think one of the things that xi jinping has tried to do is to avoid confrontation, continue to push the envelope. unfortunately there is confrontation. people are wondering whether or not they are moving too fast, with too high a profile and so
ought we be there. >> i don't think the mission should be a combat mission for u.s. military troops. i think we need to maintain a presence there as far as providing training, support, equipping the afghan forces to do their mission. we need an intelligence presence there as well because as we all well know the al qaeda and other terrorist groups have used afghanistan, particularly along the border between afghanistan and pakistan for many years to pl plot and plan attacks beyond that theater. i think the american military presence is important in order to ensure that the afghan troops can be optimal in terms of how they are going prosecute the mission against the taliban. but i tend to agree with mcchrystal there's no easy solution to afghanistan. we shouldn't overwhen it but can't abandon afghanistan
that could hit the united states where they could try and keep the weapons and get rid of the delivery. >> so they could only hit japan and south korea. >> which is sufficient. you don't want that to happen. trump does need this period to figure out what his negotiating position is and what they can ask for here. because when the koreans say they're willing to denuclearize, they want the u.s. nuclear capability out of south korea and japan. they don't want us to be able to strike them. >> keep 500 miles away or what? >> they want us out of the region. >> what does that mean. >> how are we in now? >> we're not stationing in japan but have the ability to strike them. they're worried about american military presence. >> how can we remove our ability to hit them with polaris missiles most anywhere in the world. >> we can't. this is the confusion they are playing. > jeanne yusts polaris missile, you never know where the subs are. i don't know whether they're going to know it either.
condition for denuclearization. it would be a major concession from pyongyang which has maintained that the american military presence was one of the main reasons for it maintaining its nuclear program. senior ofirms say mike come pay owe d-- pompeo did not ask. nobody accompanied pompeo on his trip. president moon is set for a historic meeting with un. establishing a peace treaty to ofshlly end the korean war will be on the agenda. that has been a long standing agenda from the north and one that it needs to give up its nuclear program. turning to other crisis facing the united states, that is the ongoing war in syria. a new military intelligence report says that despite last week's air strikes the assad regime is expected to resume its
there was no american outpost. there was no american military presence. eventually other americans representing different agencies were able to get into benghazi and do the same work but they, of course, couldn't do that work overtly, which is why we wanted a diplomat who could be publicly meeting with people to try to get the best assessment. but it was always going to be a constant risk, and we knew that. >> so, let me go back to the risk in 2011 because there was a lot of communication. again, once again, from your senior staff, from the state department to you or from you in 2011. and, in fact, that is when gadhafi fell. he fell in 2011. then when we go to 2012, libya, benghazi, chris stevens, the staff there, they seem to fall off your radar in 2012, and the situation's getting much worse in 2012. it was getting much worse.