Should we talk to the taliban?

[The Dark Lord]

Given that Britain's new chief of the Armed Forces (Sir David Richards) has advocated discussion with the taliban, the simple question is:
Should we talk to the taliban?


PS I think we should as we don't seem to be getting anywhere and too many British soldiers are being killed fighting what appears to be an increasingly unwinnable war

[Amnesiac]

In war you should always talk to the enemy. It may not do any good, but it's worth a shot. We should be doing anything to end this war and save lives.

PS I think we should as we don't seem to be getting anywhere and too many British soldiers are being killed fighting what appears to be an increasingly unwinnable war

A war on terrorism is as pointless as a war on drugs. Neither is winnable. Terrorism is an international, unorganized force. It can't be defeated by simply bombing the Middle East. Yes, the highest concentration of terrorists are there, but destroying them doesn't destroy terrorism internationally. It will always exist.

[Rainstorm]

Thing is, this isn't a unified enemy with a group of nations allying together. This is simply a ragtag bunch of Middle Eastern Radical Islamic's who have no central base of operations, but more or less scattered throughout the mountains and towns.

Basically, you can talk to one of them, but it doesn't mean everyone complies.

[Raptor22]

I dont think that we can bargain with an organization diametrically opposed from what the free world believes in. The are opposed to basic human rights including, rights of free speech, religion, assembly, and expression. They are opposed to women showing their skin in public and girls attending school. They are opposed to democracy and freedom of the people to engage in politics and commerce. They are opposed to fair trials by juries of their peers. Those are the reasons that the Taliban goes after America, Europe, Israel, and the rest of the free world. They are opposed to the core ideals that America and the rest of the free world stands for.

Until the Taliban chooses to join the 21st century and grant basic human rights to its members and people under its control, the Taliban should not be be negotiated with. Until then, the barbaric scumbags should be eradicated from the face of the planet, as we did in Iraq.

[Sage]

I dont think that we can bargain with an organization diametrically opposed from what the free world believes in. The are opposed to basic human rights including, rights of free speech, religion, assembly, and expression. They are opposed to women showing their skin in public and girls attending school. They are opposed to democracy and freedom of the people to engage in politics and commerce. They are opposed to fair trials by juries of their peers. Those are the reasons that the Taliban goes after America, Europe, Israel, and the rest of the free world. They are opposed to the core ideals that America and the rest of the free world stands for.

Until the Taliban chooses to join the 21st century and grant basic human rights to its members and people under its control, the Taliban should not be be negotiated with. Until then, the barbaric scumbags should be eradicated from the face of the planet, as we did in Iraq.

By that reasoning, there are millions of people we should wage war on.

[Raptor22]

By that reasoning, there are millions of people we should wage war on.

Not necessarily. The difference with Al Queda and the Taliban is that those organizations have attacked and will continue to attempt to attack the United States. Those people wake up every day with the single goal of destroying what makes the free world free. The United States doesnt negotiate with people like that...

Its like a 10 year old trying to negotiate with a child molester, all the child molester wants to do is take advantage of that child and then murder the child. Why would the child want to negotiate with that person?

EDIT: And to clarify Deschain, I believe we should wage war on those people whether they attacked us or not, because they fail to provide for human rights.

[Rainstorm]

Until the Taliban chooses to join the 21st century and grant basic human rights to its members and people under its control, the Taliban should not be be negotiated with. Until then, the barbaric scumbags should be eradicated from the face of the planet, as we did in Iraq.

For some reason, when I read your last sentence, I pictured Hitler standing on a podium over Nazi Germany, ranting about all Jews should be killed.

And I dissagree. They should be negotiated with, in order to try and find a peaceful agreement for this war.

[Raptor22]

For some reason, when I read your last sentence, I pictured Hitler standing on a podium over Nazi Germany, ranting about all Jews should be killed.

And I dissagree. They should be negotiated with, in order to try and find a peaceful agreement for this war.

The problem is, the people will then return to hosting Al Queda and using their territory to attack the United States from. They are religiously compelled to do it, there is no way to change them. Let me use my analogy again, you cant cure a child molester, they are sexually compelled to do what they do and you cant prevent them from doing it. So what good would negotiating with them do?

If we negotiate the taliban, they will say what they need to say to get the US to leave, and then return to conducting human rights violations against its people and launching attacks on the United States and our Allies. We are no different from, and no safer than we were on September 10, 2001. Negotiating with the Taliban will prove that we have learned absolutely nothing in the last 15 years of American foreign policy.

[Rainstorm]

The problem is, the people will then return to hosting Al Queda and using their territory to attack the United States from. They are religiously compelled to do it, there is no way to change them. Let me use my analogy again, you cant cure a child molester, they are sexually compelled to do what they do and you cant prevent them from doing it. So what good would negotiating with them do?

If we negotiate the taliban, they will say what they need to say to get the US to leave, and then return to conducting human rights violations against its people and launching attacks on the United States and our Allies. We are no different from, and no safer than we were on September 10, 2001. Negotiating with the Taliban will prove that we have learned absolutely nothing in the last 15 years of American foreign policy.


You see, it's their land. America doesn't own every piece of land on Earth, and can't demand and enforce the Human Rights that we have there. If The Taliban want's to run the nations the way it is now, let them. It's like saying that we could march into Mongolia and demand everyone to drop what they're doing and move into a city.

Won't ever happen in our lifetime. The Taliban beliefs are set on hundreds of years of beliefs of Islam, and the traditions passed down from their ancestors.

What would you like to do? Set off a nuclear warhead in their territory and exterminate them all? That makes us just as barbaric as them.

Negotiations are the only way this war will ever end.

[Raptor22]

You see, it's their land. America doesn't own every piece of land on Earth, and can't demand and enforce the Human Rights that we have there. If The Taliban want's to run the nations the way it is now, let them. It's like saying that we could march into Mongolia and demand everyone to drop what they're doing and move into a city.

Won't ever happen in our lifetime. The Taliban beliefs are set on hundreds of years of beliefs of Islam, and the traditions passed down from their ancestors.

What would you like to do? Set off a nuclear warhead in their territory and exterminate them all? That makes us just as barbaric as them.

Negotiations are the only way this war will ever end.

The only problem is, its not really their territory. It only became their territory after we helped them kick the Soviets out in the 1980s. Before that it was led by a king with democratically elected local leaders. Women were allowed to wear decent clothing and citizenry were allowed to engage in commerce, free speech and political assembly while still being an Islamic state. I dont have anything wrong with Islam, only the perversions of Islam that the Taliban vouch for. The Taliban also support genocide against certain races of people within the lands they occupy.

I dont see anything wrong with insisting that the world:

Allow for free speech
Ensure rights for the accused
Prevent genocide
Allow rights for women
Allow religious freedom
Allow political freedom
Allow for freedom of assembly

I really dont think that its too much to ask.

[Jove]

Un, the barbaric scumbags should be eradicated from the face of the planet, as we did in Iraq.

Would you like to try that statement again? you have 2 credits remaining.

[Magus]

Gee. Must I do this?

Let me clarify the goals using our friendly encyclopaedia.

The Taliban, alternative spelling Taleban, (Pashto: طالبان ṭālibān, meaning "students") is a Sunni Islamist political movement that governed Afghanistan from 1996 until it was overthrown in late 2001. It has regrouped since 2004 and revived as a strong insurgency movement governing mainly local Pashtun areas during night and fighting a guerrilla war against the governments of Afghanistan, Pakistan, and the NATO-led International Security Assistance Force (ISAF). The Taliban movement is primarily made up of members belonging to ethnic Pashtun tribes, along with volunteers from nearby Islamic countries such as Uzbeks, Tajiks, Punjabis, Arabs, Chechens and others. It operates in Afghanistan and Pakistan, mostly in provinces around the Durand Line border. U.S. officials say their headquarters is in or near Quetta, Pakistan, and that Pakistan and Iran provide support, although both nations deny this.


Given that Britain's new chief of the Armed Forces (Sir David Richards) has advocated discussion with the taliban, the simple question is:
Should we talk to the taliban?


PS I think we should as we don't seem to be getting anywhere and too many British soldiers are being killed fighting what appears to be an increasingly unwinnable war

That depends. Do you want to talk them out or subdue them are the two options you people have provided.

They want to rule over Afghanistan, reminding people that this group is an affiliated to other terrorist groups around the region, like Al-Qaida(Where I think it is an U.S governmental façade).

If they want to reign over the region, then there will be a huge destabilization because of this.

The methodology of negotiation must be different. These people have nothing to lose in fight.

Let us think about the Mujahidoon back in the Soviet-Afghan war.

They want freedom from any external forces, and that includes the N.A.T.O, which includes Britain.

You see, it's their land. America doesn't own every piece of land on Earth, and can't demand and enforce the Human Rights that we have there. If The Taliban want's to run the nations the way it is now, let them. It's like saying that we could march into Mongolia and demand everyone to drop what they're doing and move into a city.



America, however, is a supreme ruler of the Earth. America's goals are clear, they want peace of the world. To achieve peace, first we must use destruction and demolition.

Won't ever happen in our lifetime. The Taliban beliefs are set on hundreds of years of beliefs of Islam, and the traditions passed down from their ancestors.

What would you like to do? Set off a nuclear warhead in their territory and exterminate them all? That makes us just as barbaric as them.

Negotiations are the only way this war will ever end.

And so is Saudi Arabia, as their belief sets back 1400 years, and they are following it strictly and adherently. But, can you not see the contrast between the Saudi's sovereign and the Taliban's head leader?


The only problem is, its not really their territory. It only became their territory after we helped them kick the Soviets out in the 1980s.

Back at that time it was Mujadheedon and not Taliban. As I stated before, those two are totally different entities.


Before that it was led by a king with democratically elected local leaders. Women were allowed to wear decent clothing and citizenry were allowed to engage in commerce, free speech and political assembly while still being an Islamic state.

I think they still do the same up until now and still with Karezai. I agree where there was a time that it was like that. But it is not what are you thinking what it is now. Those are still ongoing events in Afghanistan.

I dont have anything wrong with Islam, only the perversions of Islam that the Taliban vouch for. The Taliban also support genocide against certain races of people within the lands they occupy.

Perversions of Islam? Is this a religious debate?

Genocide. Oh, that is very - very bad.


I dont see anything wrong with insisting that the world:

Allow for free speech
Ensure rights for the accused
Prevent genocide
Allow rights for women
Allow religious freedom
Allow political freedom
Allow for freedom of assembly

I really dont think that its too much to ask.

Yeah, sure. :yawn:

May 20th - Everybody Draw Mohammed Day; YAY! Let us draw teh friken peadophele so-caled false profit Mohamar!! :yawn:

Freedom of speech? Yes. Freedom of religion? No.

And not when it is raising and spreading religious tension and intolerance amongst people.

[Continuum]

America, however, is a supreme ruler of the Earth. America's goals are clear, they want peace of the world. To achieve peace, first we must use destruction and demolition.


If they need destruction, why not use a nuke? America has thousands of them, most of them stockpiled. If they really do need force to instantly bring peace, they've probably destroyed the Soviet Union and other rival countries ages ago. But look, there's the international committee to monitor their actions. They're not the only rulers here on earth and countries like Iran and others try to develop a cultural identity on its own to 'try' and cope up with America's influence.


Terrorists don't have sovereignty on their mother region, but at least they have a voice of their own (even if that voice is mostly said with terror) and should be heard at least. If they just suppress and suppress wouldn't that look like fascist?


Allow for free speech
Ensure rights for the accused
Prevent genocide
Allow rights for women
Allow religious freedom
Allow political freedom
Allow for freedom of assembly


I don't think so. The world isn't as perfect as people say it is. Only a handful of countries exercise all of these, and most of them are in europe.

[darkwoon]

America, however, is a supreme ruler of the Earth. America's goals are clear, they want peace of the world. To achieve peace, first we must use destruction and demolition.
Although I tend to agree with most of the things you said, I'm quite doubtful about the America's goals. European countries of the XIXth century, China in the XVth, or Rome in the Ist all claimed their main goal was "peace of the world"; but the real goal of all those states was actually "establish unquestionable domination". Note that I don't say it is morally "right" or "wrong" - it seems quite a logical policy to follow.

Don't you think that America's goals are probably more about control of economical ressources and less about the noble - but very abstract - idea of global peace?

As for the OP's question, I believe it doesn't matter. Speak with talibans or not; invest massive military forces, or withdraw completely; build or destroy - whatever the "allies" do will not change the global outcome. At best, you'll replace one dictatorial government by another dictatorial government. The mistake the US made in this war was to believe you could fight a whole culture with guns and money - but that's not how it works.

[scuba steve]

we've probably gave it a shot before...

my answer would be no, Taliban are vigilante paramilitarys they don't want to talk.

[[[chickaroo92]]]

We have spoken, on numerous occasions.
They don't give a flying Monkey! Can't you see that?
Yeah, talk and talk. But talking is a sign of weakness, especially in this type of situation.
And, sometimes talking doesn't do anything, because words can change over the course. You say something, but then it can completely change.
Say, " Don't blow us up!" and they will end up doing it sooner or later.
Talking works up to a point, but then you have rethink your strategies. Defend yourself in a way which YOU know will save your life. Talking doesn't work, it hasn't work. Just look.

[Raptor22]

I think they still do the same up until now and still with Karezai. I agree where there was a time that it was like that. But it is not what are you thinking what it is now. Those are still ongoing events in Afghanistan.



Perversions of Islam? Is this a religious debate?

Genocide. Oh, that is very - very bad.

Yeah, sure. :yawn:

May 20th - Everybody Draw Mohammed Day; YAY! Let us draw teh friken peadophele so-caled false profit Mohamar!! :yawn:

Freedom of speech? Yes. Freedom of religion? No.

And not when it is raising and spreading religious tension and intolerance amongst people.

The way that the Taliban ruled Afghanistan using shari'a law, is a perversion of Islam. The Taliban still threaten citizens with death if they go to the local market, or vote in the elections in southern Afghanistan.

I think the whole controversy over the draw Mohammad thing is ridiculous. I agree with this guy: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-KWeDHEPvuU

I think you should watch the PBS Frontline documentary about our current situation in southern Afghanistan. I know I learned a hell of a lot from watching it and it changed some of my opinions. See what you think:

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/obamaswar/view/

If they need destruction, why not use a nuke? America has thousands of them, most of them stockpiled. If they really do need force to instantly bring peace, they've probably destroyed the Soviet Union and other rival countries ages ago. But look, there's the international committee to monitor their actions. They're not the only rulers here on earth and countries like Iran and others try to develop a cultural identity on its own to 'try' and cope up with America's influence.


Terrorists don't have sovereignty on their mother region, but at least they have a voice of their own (even if that voice is mostly said with terror) and should be heard at least. If they just suppress and suppress wouldn't that look like fascist?



I don't think so. The world isn't as perfect as people say it is. Only a handful of countries exercise all of these, and most of them are in europe.

But is it unfair to say that a nation should allow these?

[Magus]

Although I tend to agree with most of the things you said, I'm quite doubtful about the America's goals. European countries of the XIXth century, China in the XVth, or Rome in the Ist all claimed their main goal was "peace of the world"*; but the real goal of all those states was actually "establish unquestionable domination*". Note that I don't say it is morally "right" or "wrong" - it seems quite a logical policy to follow.

*Sounds like Historian's fallacy.

You should be. We all are doubtful and or blind about America's true motives.
But that does not exclude the "Peace of the world" motive.


Don't you think that America's goals are probably more about control of economical ressources and less about the noble - but very abstract - idea of global peace?

I am not really sure about America's economical condition to ascertain its necessity of any economical and or financial resources. However, I think America needs the stabilization in the region, and primarily the Gulf.

As you have seen the intervention of the Gulf War: America aided Kuwait, Kuwait provided crude petroleum in return. America needs Iraq; America Needed the gulf.

America engaged with Iraq in 2003, to remove an obstacle they call Sadam Hussien; he was a threat, and thus they made several of veils, and with Weapons of Mass Destruction as one to remove him. With this, they achieved a virtual equilibrium for now.

If they need destruction, why not use a nuke? America has thousands of them, most of them stockpiled.
Sorry people, but I am going to use "false analogy".

Example:

Let us assume that you are living in an apartment(region), your flat is infested(grouped) with that lustrous American roaches(Talibans) in your home(region), and you considered them as a pest(threat) in your home(region). You want to remove them somehow(eliminate threat), but you if you tried to use a wrecking ball(atom bomb) not will you only killed the the infestation, but also killed or damaged other innocents(people of the region). Instead, you went on and used a spray insecticide(troopers). This way you have killed the roaches(Killed Taliban; thus, eliminated the regional threat(not specifically, though)). Now, both you and the people are safe from the threat.


If they really do need force to instantly bring peace, they've probably destroyed the Soviet Union and other rival countries ages ago. But look, there's the international committee to monitor their actions. They're not the only rulers here on earth and countries like Iran and others try to develop a cultural identity on its own to 'try' and cope up with America's influence.
*Looks up wiki on Japanese-American war, and Vietnam-American war. And tries to find the contrast*

Sure, they would have defeated the Soviet Union. :yawn:

But you know, most people despise America for this sole reason. That America is a supreme ruler; however, this is virtually true. Russia didn't intervened, Europe didn't intervened, Most certainly Asia didn't intervened with the conflict going on in Middle East.

The italicized part is, somewhat, true.

Terrorists don't have sovereignty on their mother region, but at least they have a voice of their own (even if that voice is mostly said with terror) and should be heard at least. If they just suppress and suppress wouldn't that look like fascist?
They should be heard, but what if they don't follow this mutually(listen to us in return)?

The way that the Taliban ruled Afghanistan using shari'a law, is a perversion of Islam. The Taliban still threaten citizens with death if they go to the local market, or vote in the elections in southern Afghanistan.

True, Taliban did implement the unorthodox version of Shari'a law within its vicinity. However, this is that retract any movement that will go against them.

They have accused a 7 year old boy of Espionage!


I think the whole controversy over the draw Mohammad thing is ridiculous. I agree with this guy: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-KWeDHEPvuU

I don't like your agreement with whoever that guy is. Because it is dead right irrelevant. I said the word "irrelevant" because it is has nothing to do with Afghanistan.

You should see the comment section.

man I cant beleve these people just lean back and watch this shit the goverment lets all this scum in! fuck these radicals think there the answer to all mankind go look at Britain alone very disturbing half a million pedophile hate mongering allah worshipping cock chuggers there fucking problem and trouble makers trust me they will start terrorist attacks in Britain its been done already look at 911 I hate these cocksuckers send em back to the middle east all of them

That's the most idiotic, epitome of ignorance and stupidity. He should read some encyclopaedia instead of raising intolerance and hatred. Which of course, that will further want be targeted. He is like "Hey! FUCJ ISLAM FUCJ THAT PEDOPHILE MOHAMMAR!! COME BOMB ME YOU MOTHER FUCJERS!" He is bringing this on himself.

I brought up that issue of Mohammed drawing day, because I was referring to that so called "Rights". Seemingly, they are contradictory.

If Mohammad wasn't depicted as the way the depicted, then there would be no such controversy. But guess what? He was depicted as if he was Osama Bin Laden or some terrorist, and perhaps as a pedophile.

That's why the rage, and not because he was depicted. Mohammad was depicted through out history. He was depicted as per Dante's Inferno, in the eighth circle or something, he was depicted preaching. But not this kind of depiction, but as a criticising and ridiculing depiction.

The man in the radio show talks about what people doing to other, and this has nothing to do with Islam whatsover.

He says that Muslims chucks bombs at children at Israel, huh?

I think that's totally far from truth.

Israel And Pakistan think alike, too. Country, based on a disease called religion.

My people bombed the Iranian Mosques for what? For that religion?
No, but because we want freedom.

Palestinian bombed Israeli civilian for what? For religion?
No, but again it comes towards freedom.

Yes, I admit it has gone irrelevant. But I don't want to slip this chance.

(The following images are disturbing, watch at your own discretion.)
Facial, Topical burns. Nothing big. (http://artintifada.files.wordpress.com/2009/01/leb54.jpg)
Oh, I told you not to play with fire, Kiddo. (http://www.richardsilverstein.com/tikun_olam/wp-content/uploads/2009/01/gaza-boy-blinded-by-white-phosphorus.jpg)

Unfortunately, that's my limit. I can not bring forth images which are completely charred and disfigured bodies of children. You google them.

And they are talking about Islam's atrocities? Not reading through Israeli Zionism motive? A Jewish state! Oh great, a religious state.

So, cutting the head of or charring Children are now O.K via vengeance or because of Espionage.

I think you should watch the PBS Frontline documentary about our current situation in southern Afghanistan. I know I learned a hell of a lot from watching it and it changed some of my opinions. See what you think:


Sorry, my bandwidth won't allow it, and the video is just not showing up.

But I don't care what your people doing there, whether it is Raping Afghani girls or teaching Maths to Afghani children; killing Afghani "bastards" because they were mistook of those who are from Al-Qaeda and Taliban; killing women and children due to "collateral damage".

So as long they are going to do something to accomplish "peace in the region" issue. It is a toll we are willing to take.

[Antares]

I honestly don't see what bad can come from it...
talking is better than fighting ;)

[CaptainObvious]

The only problem is, its not really their territory. It only became their territory after we helped them kick the Soviets out in the 1980s. Before that it was led by a king with democratically elected local leaders. Women were allowed to wear decent clothing and citizenry were allowed to engage in commerce, free speech and political assembly while still being an Islamic state. I dont have anything wrong with Islam, only the perversions of Islam that the Taliban vouch for. The Taliban also support genocide against certain races of people within the lands they occupy.

I dont see anything wrong with insisting that the world:

Allow for free speech
Ensure rights for the accused
Prevent genocide
Allow rights for women
Allow religious freedom
Allow political freedom
Allow for freedom of assembly

I really dont think that its too much to ask.

And who gets to be the world judge to decide that? More importantly, what country would not be guilty of one of those acts in someone's eyes? For example, there is an extremely good argument that America's actions in the late 1990's to pressure Saddam constituted genocide upon the Iraqi population. Is America no longer a legitimate government on that basis?

What if I tell you that I consider unrestricted access to abortion a fundamental right for women and consider America's government to be illegitimate on the basis of its outlawing abortion?

The world is a hell of a lot more complex you appear to believe. Whose vision of what is constituted by human rights should prevail?

[Raptor22]

And who gets to be the world judge to decide that? More importantly, what country would not be guilty of one of those acts in someone's eyes? For example, there is an extremely good argument that America's actions in the late 1990's to pressure Saddam constituted genocide upon the Iraqi population. Is America no longer a legitimate government on that basis?

What if I tell you that I consider unrestricted access to abortion a fundamental right for women and consider America's government to be illegitimate on the basis of its outlawing abortion?

The world is a hell of a lot more complex you appear to believe. Whose vision of what is constituted by human rights should prevail?

Well I respect your opinion however mine is diametrically opposed to yours.

Lets respectfully agree to disagree considering that there is no common ground between our positions.

I will say that Iraq due to our intervention does satisfy my expectations outlined in my last post...

[Whisper]

Should we talk to the taliban?
No negotiation with terrorists
period.

[The Dark Lord]

No negotiation with terrorists
period.

Why not?

[Magus]

Why not?

(Jee. It was like my whole posts was dead right neglected. )

They don't want to listen to them; that's it.

They want to regain control over the region, that's why. Why do you want to negotiate with people who are so believing in themselves?

I mean, they made a young child, to decapitate an Afghani captured soldier. If I were him, the endless chill will run through my spine and hesitate. They are brain washed to the limit they don't know what's right from wrong.

And you want U.S/NATO to negotiate with them?

Assuming that they had negotiated with them. In what way will that help?

[Continuum]

They should be heard, but what if they don't follow this mutually(listen to us in return)?


Sure they won't, but they're not really that stupid to bite off more than they could chew, or else america will again stick their nose up again. They won't like that would they?



Sorry people, but I am going to use "false analogy".

Example:

Let us assume that you are living in an apartment(region), your flat is infested(grouped) with that lustrous American roaches(Talibans) in your home(region), and you considered them as a pest(threat) in your home(region). You want to remove them somehow(eliminate threat), but you if you tried to use a wrecking ball(atom bomb) not will you only killed the the infestation, but also killed or damaged other innocents(people of the region). Instead, you went on and used a spray insecticide(troopers). This way you have killed the roaches(Killed Taliban; thus, eliminated the regional threat(not specifically, though)). Now, both you and the people are safe from the threat.



Couldn't you just talk to the roaches so everyone's happy? :sarcasm:


But is it unfair to say that a nation should allow these?

It isn't because it's the UN I'm talking about so it includes every nation's opinion.


Although I tend to agree with most of the things you said, I'm quite doubtful about the America's goals. European countries of the XIXth century, China in the XVth, or Rome in the Ist all claimed their main goal was "peace of the world"; but the real goal of all those states was actually "establish unquestionable domination". Note that I don't say it is morally "right" or "wrong" - it seems quite a logical policy to follow.


You cannot have total peace in the world today because our ideas and opinions differ from each other and we always fight for them. The same applies to nations.

[CaptainObvious]

Well I respect your opinion however mine is diametrically opposed to yours.

Lets respectfully agree to disagree considering that there is no common ground between our positions.

I will say that Iraq due to our intervention does satisfy my expectations outlined in my last post...

I would assume you're misunderstanding me, since the arguments I laid out there aren't "my position", but rather a number of possible holes in yours. Basically, who gets to determine what constitutes human rights?

[karl]

Negotiate with terrorists? Chamberlain tried to negotiate with Hitler, and we all know what happened. The Taliban will never negotiate, they have no need to.

[The Dark Lord]

(Jee. It was like my whole posts was dead right neglected. )

They don't want to listen to them; that's it.

They want to regain control over the region, that's why. Why do you want to negotiate with people who are so believing in themselves?

I mean, they made a young child, to decapitate an Afghani captured soldier. If I were him, the endless chill will run through my spine and hesitate. They are brain washed to the limit they don't know what's right from wrong.

And you want U.S/NATO to negotiate with them?

Assuming that they had negotiated with them. In what way will that help?

And the USA haven't done anything wrong? I think it depends how highly you value the soldier's lives and how winnable this war actually is.

Negotiate with terrorists? Chamberlain tried to negotiate with Hitler, and we all know what happened. The Taliban will never negotiate, they have no need to.

The difference between Chamberlain/Hitler and today is that Germany was much stronger than Britain and Britain was totally isolated leaving Chamberlain no choice.

[Magus]

Couldn't you just talk to the roaches so everyone's happy? :sarcasm:

That didn't sound too sarcastic, it was funny.

Do you know why I equate them with roaches? Because the damn roaches won't or try to understand your dialect, the human's dialect. Same goes to the Talibans.

Talibans will never try to understand you, reason with you, chat with you.

They are brain washed war mongrels. It is ironic that Taliban means Student; those young children are cold heartedly learning to decapitate the head of their own Afghani brethren(Al-Jazeera English). No fear, no nothing. Such brutality and hostility. I have never witnessed that kind of thing my self.

And you people are telling us that they should go on a negotiation?

You people expect an answer like this:

"Yeah, America is right. Ok boys. Drop your guns, let us leave for home now and forever, this conflict is taking us no where. *tears drippin' * Oh... I missed my mom!" ?

And the USA haven't done anything wrong? I think it depends how highly you value the soldier's lives and how winnable this war actually is.

Whatever US done was for the good of the people. Collateral damage is just a toll we must take in a war.

[The Dark Lord]

That didn't sound too sarcastic, it was funny.

Do you know why I equate them with roaches? Because the damn roaches won't or try to understand your dialect, the human's dialect. Same goes to the Talibans.

Talibans will never try to understand you, reason with you, chat with you.

They are brain washed war mongrels. It is ironic that Taliban means Student; those young children are cold heartedly learning to decapitate the head of their own Afghani brethren(Al-Jazeera English). No fear, no nothing. Such brutality and hostility. I have never witnessed that kind of thing my self.

And you people are telling us that they should go on a negotiation?

You people expect an answer like this:

"Yeah, America is right. Ok boys. Drop your guns, let us leave for home now and forever, this conflict is taking us no where. *tears drippin' * Oh... I missed my mom!" ?



Whatever US done was for the good of the people. Collateral damage is just a toll we must take in a war.

Soldiers are dying daily, I appreciate that you might think that it is a price worth paying but I think the UK/US troops that are dying for nothing, we have been in afganistan since 2001 and have made very little progress. We should be bringing our heros home, not leaving them underequipped and dying

[Magus]

Soldiers are dying daily, I appreciate that you might think that it is a price worth paying but I think the UK/US troops that are dying for nothing, we have been in afganistan since 2001 and have made very little progress. We should be bringing our heros home, not leaving them underequipped and dying

You excluded the Afghani, the Pakistani, and other innocents in this conflict. They are also dying for the same goal those Nato troops are dying for.

Leaving Afghanistan will just destabilize the region. A terrible ordeal will arise then.

Your heroes are Soldiers, it is their fate if they are to die or disfigure. And they are not fighting for nought, they are fighting for Peace.

Al-Qaeda's agenda is far more worse than those of Taliban. So your heroes are actually trying to take two entities; one that's corrupting the region, and the other are threatening the globe, stressing on 9/11.

[The Dark Lord]

You excluded the Afghani, the Pakistani, and other innocents in this conflict. They are also dying for the same goal those Nato troops are dying for.

Leaving Afghanistan will just destabilize the region. A terrible ordeal will arise then.

Your heroes are Soldiers, it is their fate if they are to die or disfigure. And they are not fighting for nought, they are fighting for Peace.

Al-Qaeda's agenda is far more worse than those of Taliban. So your heroes are actually trying to take two entities; one that's corrupting the region, and the other are threatening the globe, stressing on 9/11.

You are failing to see the significance of our troops dying, if you think that the fight against terror is so great, why isn't your country fighting in Afganistan?

[Raptor22]

You are failing to see the significance of our troops dying, if you think that the fight against terror is so great, why isn't your country fighting in Afganistan?

Every single one of the NATO soldiers fighting in Afghanistan right now signed up to be there. If they feel that the cause is strong enough to be fought for, they choose to go and fight for it. If they dont, they shouldnt join the military.

[Church]

The only way I ever plan on talking to a Taliban member is a little statement I like to call a 5.56 mm Nato

[Raptor22]

The only way I ever plan on talking to a Taliban member is a little statement I like to call a 5.56 mm Nato

I like the way you think. :D :P

:usflag:

[Magus]

You are failing to see the significance of our troops dying, if you think that the fight against terror is so great, why isn't your country fighting in Afganistan?

I don't have a country, yet. It is a divided nation, oppressed by Islamic doctrine of Pakistan and Iran.

We are also called terrorist, we are called atheist(we are secularist, though) and they(paki) have the "rights" to kill us.

No education. No health facility. Treated the worst, as if we are the scum of the earth.

That's why I am an advocate of stabilization in the region.

Those Afghani soldiers who are fighting with NATO are non other than the Northern Baluch(South of Afghanistan); thus, we are aiding you in your fight.

[The Dark Lord]

We are also called terrorist, we are called atheist(we are secularist, though) and they(paki) have the "rights" to kill us.

The only people who say that are ignorant bigots.

I just don't see how the war in Afganistan is winnable. How much more blood be shed before we give up. Britain did not cause the problems in the region and should not be taking responsibility for the problems. I would rather the British servicemen/women came home safe, then stay in that hell hole you think is worth fighting for.

[Tiberius]

For some reason, when I read your last sentence, I pictured Hitler standing on a podium over Nazi Germany, ranting about all Jews should be killed.

And I dissagree. They should be negotiated with, in order to try and find a peaceful agreement for this war.

You really think you can negotiate with religious fantastics who's entire mind-set is bent on the destruction of America and the other "infidels" in the world?

The moment you start to negotiate with these people is the very moment you concede to them that you are afraid of them and that you are weak enough to be destroyed by them. It's all or nothing for these people and they won't accept anything besides those two options, so why should we be so arrogant as to think we can convince them otherwise?

[Antares]

I actually forgot that American policy is to not "negotiate" with terrorists.
And I think the focus behind the use of the term negotiate is to bargain with things that either they way or we want.

At the moment, I don't think they have anything that we necessarily want...other than them to stop killing us, and vice versa so...I think that there aren't any negotiations to happen.

I do think that talks in general should occur so we understand more about them and they understand more about us.
Probably the best thing that can happen and like I said, I don't see anything bad that can come from it.
You don't have to leave the table with a specific gain, just more of a mutual...confidence?

[CaptainObvious]

You really think you can negotiate with religious fantastics who's entire mind-set is bent on the destruction of America and the other "infidels" in the world?

You generally can't, but this is not an accurate description of the Taliban. The Taliban are not primarily focused on America's destruction except insofar as America is at war with them in Afghanistan. The Taliban's primary concern is and always has been that they be able to rule their little medieval theocratic, woman-hating Islamic state. That's entirely compatible with peace, if they're left alone. Of course, we don't particularly want to leave them alone to run that kind of thing, so obviously peace won't occur, but to act as if that's because the Taliban is insatiably focused on America's destruction isn't accurate.

[Magus]

You generally can't, but this is not an accurate description of the Taliban. The Taliban are not primarily focused on America's destruction except insofar as America is at war with them in Afghanistan. The Taliban's primary concern is and always has been that they be able to rule their little medieval theocratic, woman-hating Islamic state. That's entirely compatible with peace, if they're left alone. Of course, we don't particularly want to leave them alone to run that kind of thing, so obviously peace won't occur, but to act as if that's because the Taliban is insatiably focused on America's destruction isn't accurate.

Both of you and him are badly informed.

As I said before, you have Saudi Arabia who are living in "little medievel theocratic, women-what? Islamic state", so does Pakistan, and same goes for Iran. That goes on for several other Arabic and South East Asian countries.

I think you people mixed up Al Qaeda and Taliban. I suggest reading this thread from the beginning.

The aim of the people(NATO) who went there wasn't Taliban, they were after Al Qaeda, up until Taliban stood up for Al Qaeda.

[CaptainObvious]

Both of you and him are badly informed.

As I said before, you have Saudi Arabia who are living in "little medievel theocratic, women-what? Islamic state", so does Pakistan, and same goes for Iran. That goes on for several other Arabic and South East Asian countries.

I think you people mixed up Al Qaeda and Taliban. I suggest reading this thread from the beginning.

The aim of the people(NATO) who went there wasn't Taliban, they were after Al Qaeda, up until Taliban stood up for Al Qaeda.

I don't see what part of what I said makes you think I'm badly informed. I'm well aware that Saudi, parts of Pakistan, as well as other Muslim states currently enforce some or many of the rules the Taliban wish to put in place in Afghanistan. That fact is one of the many contradictions of our war against them (that we purport to be fighting them because of their lack of respect for human rights while human rights are violated as badly or worse by America's other allies) - welcome to international relations. :P

I think the fact that you are ESL and I speak in a somewhat complex dialect causes you to misunderstand what I'm saying, since all of what you have said here is both compatible with what I said and stuff of which I'm already well aware/agree.

[bmurdock60]

I am for negotiation but honestly i don't think it will happen and would never work out

[The Dark Lord]

Your heroes are Soldiers, it is their fate if they are to die or disfigure. And they are not fighting for nought, they are fighting for Peace.

It is not, nor will it ever be, the fate of soldiers to die for anyone. They are no longer fighting for peace. Peace is no longer an option. Britain should withdraw now. No more british lives should be wasted in that dreadful, hate filled region. We are better than that, and owe it to our soldiers.

[Magus]

I don't see what part of what I said makes you think I'm badly informed. I'm well aware that Saudi, parts of Pakistan, as well as other Muslim states currently enforce some or many of the rules the Taliban wish to put in place in Afghanistan. That fact is one of the many contradictions of our war against them (that we purport to be fighting them because of their lack of respect for human rights while human rights are violated as badly or worse by America's other allies) - welcome to international relations. :P
If you are well aware, then why are you stressing on Taliban's goal being
"ruling their little medievel theocratic, women-hating Islamic state"?

You are not telling me Taliban's main objective, but you are telling me that U.S fighting Taliban because they are not adherents of the Human rights, whilst there are allies of U.S who violates those human rights. This is getting absurd.


I think the fact that you are ESL and I speak in a somewhat complex dialect causes you to misunderstand what I'm saying, since all of what you have said here is both compatible with what I said and stuff of which I'm already well aware/agree.
Yes, perhaps I misunderstood you because of your "complex dialect". i speke ltile englesh i use google tranlsate, tank u for udertsanding.

It is not, nor will it ever be, the fate of soldiers to die for anyone. They are no longer fighting for peace. Peace is no longer an option. Britain should withdraw now. No more british lives should be wasted in that dreadful, hate filled region. We are better than that, and owe it to our soldiers.

Do you mind explaining slogans like this, "I will die for my country"?

And you never told us on how talking to Taliban is effective. You are just showing your outrage because the British are fruitlessly dying.

[The Dark Lord]

Do you mind explaining slogans like this, "I will die for my country"?

And you never told us on how talking to Taliban is effective. You are just showing your outrage because the British are fruitlessly dying.

I have never once used the slogan "I will die for my country". The reason to talk to the Taliban is because there has been coalition forces in Afganistan for nearly 10 years and there is little, if any, progress being made. The coalition forces are not winning the war on terror there, and therefore it is basic common sense to negociate. President Hamid Karzai also advocates talking to the taliban.

[Whisper]

I'm ignoring the rest of the thread and responding to a question about my previous post.
deal.

Why not?
Because you can't negotiate with extremists, this isn't a freedom movement, this isn't a group of thugs looking for power and cash, its flat out unadulterated extremism
as far as they're concerned we're all infidels and according to their interpretation of the Koran we need to be eradicated

This isn't a standard war
we could "end it" (http://sites.google.com/site/timothycizadlo/ground-zero-ocean.jpg) anytime we choose (even without nukes, strictly with conventional weaponry we could level the entire middle east)
we simply don't want to cause that kind of devastation or civilian deaths
We want freedom and equality, a STABLE democracy. If you know anything about old world history you'll realize how long it took the western civilization to perfect this (stretching back to the roman republic)
A dictatorship is easy and quickly enacted
A truly safe guarded stable democracy isn't
Are we going about it the right way? maybe, maybe not, but we're not leaving we tried that in desert storm, it didn't work out so well and if anything built more resentment against the west

You can't build the groundwork for a stable country using an extremist group such as the Taliban
what the did to us aside how they have treated their own people, their brothers and sisters, their nation, is unforgivable and if we suddenly start talking to them and trying to make it work it both makes us look weak to the Afghan and Iraqi people


I firmly believe that INTERPOL should arrest the entire lead Bush administration along with Tony Blair and his eliete circle for starting an iligal war
but whats done is done
we are there
whether we wish to be or not
and both leaving or taking short-cuts (such as attempted negotiations with a terrorist organization bent on destroying the west and oppressing its own people) now will do more harm than good

[The Dark Lord]

Because you can't negotiate with extremists, this isn't a freedom movement, this isn't a group of thugs looking for power and cash, its flat out unadulterated extremism
as far as they're concerned we're all infidels and according to their interpretation of the Koran we need to be eradicated

This isn't a standard war
we could "end it" (http://sites.google.com/site/timothycizadlo/ground-zero-ocean.jpg) anytime we choose (even without nukes, strictly with conventional weaponry we could level the entire middle east)
we simply don't want to cause that kind of devastation or civilian deaths
We want freedom and equality, a STABLE democracy. If you know anything about old world history you'll realize how long it took the western civilization to perfect this (stretching back to the roman republic)
A dictatorship is easy and quickly enacted
A truly safe guarded stable democracy isn't
Are we going about it the right way? maybe, maybe not, but we're not leaving we tried that in desert storm, it didn't work out so well and if anything built more resentment against the west

You can't build the groundwork for a stable country using an extremist group such as the Taliban
what the did to us aside how they have treated their own people, their brothers and sisters, their nation, is unforgivable and if we suddenly start talking to them and trying to make it work it both makes us look weak to the Afghan and Iraqi people


I still don't see how a war which began in 2001 and still ongoing is winnable. Too many British servicemen are dying, Afganistan is no longer worth it. A lasting peace and democracy is no longer possible in such a hate filled region.

I firmly believe that INTERPOL should arrest the entire lead Bush administration along with Tony Blair and his eliete circle for starting an iligal war


You are mistaking Afganistan for Iraq. Afganistan is legal, Iraq is not.

[Lucifer]

I haven't read the entire thread and I do not plan on it.
Anyways, no, you shouldn't talk to the Taliban. They've already stated their purpose and talking to them is not going to change their minds. The only option left is to eradicate them. Also, how are you going to solve an 'increasingly unwindable war' through talking?
Too many British servicemen are dying
The number of British military personnel killed on operations in Afghanistan since 2001 stands at 322 after Staff Sergeant Brett Linley, of the Royal Logistic Corps, was killed in an explosion in the Nahr-e Saraj district of Helmand province on 17 July.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/8579889.stm
The total number of UK troops killed in operations in Iraq has reached 179 after a soldier died from a gunshot wound in Basra on 12 February 2009
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/8040620.stm
Not that much considering the war has been going on since 2001.

[Amnesiac]

I haven't read the entire thread and I do not plan on it.
Anyways, no, you shouldn't talk to the Taliban. They've already stated their purpose and talking to them is not going to change their minds. The only option left is to eradicate them. Also, how are you going to solve an 'increasingly unwindable war' through talking?

I wouldn't say the only option left is to eradicate them. We know what happened in Vietnam. If things are dragging out for years and not going anywhere, you leave. It would be better for the United States and other western nations to build up domestic defenses against terrorist attacks while aiding, but not all out invading, the nations where many of them are harbored. I'm gonna change my stance and say, when it comes to a non-government group such as the Taliban, you can't really talk to them. They have goals that they are so disturbingly dedicated to that they will stop at nothing to achieve them.

Yes, I am jumping into the debate, no I haven't read everything, it's 1 in the morning and I'm not interested in going through every post :rolleyes:

[Whisper]

I still don't see how a war which began in 2001 and still ongoing is winnable. Too many British servicemen are dying, Afganistan is no longer worth it. A lasting peace and democracy is no longer possible in such a hate filled region.
Dude there has been huge strives in establishing peace, opening schools, hospitals, etc.....
Like I said it takes time
There isn't a draft and it is VERY VERY VERY rare that an enlistment period would last an entire decade
They willingly choose to join the armed forces and they are doing ALLOT of good where they are, yes its dangerous, thats the life of a solider
a life that they choose


You are mistaking Afganistan for Iraq. Afganistan is legal, Iraq is not.
No i'm not getting them confused
I'm joining them together to understand the greater picture
we aren't battling a country with set boarders and a set military guard
we're fighting a mobile, camouflaged, insurgency
They are all over the middle east (hence the air strikes within Pakistan's boarders)


Its not a "war" in the traditional sense
that was fought and won within 2 weeks of the operation starting
This is STABALIZATION
that takes a LONG time (which is why the west usually installs dictators, it pisses people off but its allot easier to ensure our interests are protected and the country is handled, its an easy way out. One we want to avoid here.)
and if we leave now and repeat the mistakes of desert storm (abandoning a destabilized nation)
We WILL be forced to go back when the next attack happens (which could realistically be a dirty bomb [nuke] detonated in a western city)
and when we go back the civilian population will DESPISE us because not only did we aban don anybody who helped to Saddam in desert storm but now we'd be abandoning entire villages to the wrath of the Taliban

not to mention we could quite possibly be face to face with a nuclear Iran