US Government negotiates with Taliban

[United States of Devonta]

How about this... We trade Taliban leaders for our POWs... By the time these leaders our back in action more then five operatives have been killed by a drone.

we are still taking out less terrorists than we could be.

See now you've got Numbers killed by Drones minus Leaders minus Units recruited by released Leaders.

If you didn't negotiate... you wouldn't have those subtractions. Your suggestion is not the best for taking out the terrorists...

Well we don't release many... Just five. We can easily kill five in one strike. As to recruitment... Remember Gitmo! Yep, Its a recruitment tool for the Taliban.

[Ostroeuropa]

Because we're withdrawing, that's why. It's as ridiculous as noting that if the allies suddenly stopped pressing their gains in 1944 and withdrew home that it looks like the bombing campaigns have begun again, I guess that war shit wasn't working out. I'm absolutely baffled how you think the two are unrelated.

In a couple of decades they'll be back to attack us again, and we'll have to go back to strangling them into a slow death while people parade around butthurt about the fact we're trying to defend ourselves from pscyhopaths, and start mewling about how we should give peace a chance.

But wait didn't we already topple the government and place a new one in its place 10 years ago? Your outdated strategy cost more lives, money, time, etc. Lets go back to the 100 years war people!

Yeh we toppled the government and put a new one in it's place to run the country while we were busy killing the previous government.
Because it would be unethical to leave Afghanistan in a state of total and utter anarchy while we went about doing that.

Source on it costing more lives, money, and time.
Because i can guarantee you that these lunatics will be back unless we put a stop to them once and for all. They've done it before, lots of times.
And then there will be more death for more cost, and more time invested.

You think I want the west to be alone in this shit? Fuck no, this is the UNs business, but they aren't going to do jack shit about it since Russia and China decided to screw the pooch and go all post-soviet realist foreign policy.
And a lot of western nations are led by leaders too stupid (Or pretending to be too stupid because they know that the reactionary-left wing in their country will throw a shit fit the moment anyone acts slightly differently from a hippy) to realize that the UN has failed as an organization, and so that we have to take up the mantle ourselves of preserving global stability and such.
I'd like to do it through NATO and expand NATO to cover a lot more countries, personally.

[The UK in Exile]

Except violence http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB1 ... 2934964350

And heroine cultivation http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/n ... poppies-un

are both on the rise.

Because we're withdrawing, that's why. It's as ridiculous as noting that if the allies suddenly stopped pressing their gains in 1944 and withdrew home that it looks like the bombing campaigns have begun again, I guess that war shit wasn't working out. I'm absolutely baffled how you think the two are unrelated.
We're getting ready to pack up and leave, so we stopped destroying heroin crops, and OH FUCK THE HEROIN IS BACK, guess destroying the crops was a stupid idea.
And hey, look, as soon as the heroin comes back, the violence rises against our troops.
Almost like they.... have a source of money now somehow. Ugh, war is haaard.


In a couple of decades they'll be back to attack us again, and we'll have to go back to strangling them into a slow death while people parade around butthurt about the fact we're trying to defend ourselves from pscyhopaths, and start mewling about how we should give peace a chance.

Except as you can see, thats all bollocks. Heroin production under the occupation has been consistently higher than just leaving them to their own fucking devices. And of course the taliban never attacked us.

[Infected Mushroom]

we are still taking out less terrorists than we could be.

See now you've got Numbers killed by Drones minus Leaders minus Units recruited by released Leaders.

If you didn't negotiate... you wouldn't have those subtractions. Your suggestion is not the best for taking out the terrorists...

Well we don't release many... Just five. We can easily kill five in one strike. As to recruitment... Remember Gitmo! Yep, Its a recruitment tool for the Taliban.

those leaders may recruit more people though. Why release them at all? It changes the net balance of terrorists we eliminate to a sub-optimal level.

If you didn't release the leaders you would still get your drone strike hits... except in addition you wouldn't have to deal with those leaders and the wreckage they may cause.

whats gitmo?

[Imperializt Russia]

How about this... We trade Taliban leaders for our POWs... By the time these leaders our back in action more then five operatives have been killed by a drone.

we are still taking out less terrorists than we could be.

See now you've got Numbers killed by Drones minus Leaders minus Units recruited by released Leaders.

If you didn't negotiate... you wouldn't have those subtractions. Your suggestion is not the best for taking out the terrorists...

Enormously more are killed by drone strikes and other military operations (or captured) than by prisoner trades. Taliban prison breaks are probably what actually balances out the numbers.

[Ifreann]

Isn't it desirable for the Taliban to be taking prisoners rather than just killing them?

Define "desirable".
They have no problems with either.

Well people who are taken prisoner can be rescued. People who are killed are just dead.

[The American Natives]

So President Obama broke the law, according to a Harvard professor acting as a legal analyst.

Any chance he'd have to face the music for breaking the law, or is he too big to fail?

[Imperializt Russia]

Define "desirable".
They have no problems with either.

Well people who are taken prisoner can be rescued. People who are killed are just dead.

Either are brilliant for propaganda, depending on execution.
Poor choice of words.

[Ostroeuropa]

Because we're withdrawing, that's why. It's as ridiculous as noting that if the allies suddenly stopped pressing their gains in 1944 and withdrew home that it looks like the bombing campaigns have begun again, I guess that war shit wasn't working out. I'm absolutely baffled how you think the two are unrelated.
We're getting ready to pack up and leave, so we stopped destroying heroin crops, and OH FUCK THE HEROIN IS BACK, guess destroying the crops was a stupid idea.
And hey, look, as soon as the heroin comes back, the violence rises against our troops.
Almost like they.... have a source of money now somehow. Ugh, war is haaard.


In a couple of decades they'll be back to attack us again, and we'll have to go back to strangling them into a slow death while people parade around butthurt about the fact we're trying to defend ourselves from pscyhopaths, and start mewling about how we should give peace a chance.

Except as you can see, thats all bollocks. Heroin production under the occupation has been consistently higher than just leaving them to their own fucking devices. And of course the taliban never attacked us.

You mean to say that when we turned up with soldiers and they couldn't lie about what they were illegally growing anymore, we found more drugs?
Fucking shocking man.

[Keyboard Warriors]

Because we're withdrawing, that's why. It's as ridiculous as noting that if the allies suddenly stopped pressing their gains in 1944 and withdrew home that it looks like the bombing campaigns have begun again, I guess that war shit wasn't working out. I'm absolutely baffled how you think the two are unrelated.
We're getting ready to pack up and leave, so we stopped destroying heroin crops, and OH FUCK THE HEROIN IS BACK, guess destroying the crops was a stupid idea.
And hey, look, as soon as the heroin comes back, the violence rises against our troops.
Almost like they.... have a source of money now somehow. Ugh, war is haaard.


In a couple of decades they'll be back to attack us again, and we'll have to go back to strangling them into a slow death while people parade around butthurt about the fact we're trying to defend ourselves from pscyhopaths, and start mewling about how we should give peace a chance.

Except as you can see, thats all bollocks. Heroin production under the occupation has been consistently higher than just leaving them to their own fucking devices.

Of course it has because the Taliban generally didn't like the Heroin producers due to their stance on narcotics. Surely you understand that a hardcore islamic group that went as far to outlaw TVs and radios weren't exactly willing to host drug farms?

And of course the taliban never attacked us.

So? Hosting AQ aside, they shot and starved their own people because they thought it was funny. Let's never let them back in power again.

[United States of Devonta]

But wait didn't we already topple the government and place a new one in its place 10 years ago? Your outdated strategy cost more lives, money, time, etc. Lets go back to the 100 years war people!

Yeh we toppled the government and put a new one in it's place to run the country while we were busy killing the previous government.
Because it would be unethical to leave Afghanistan in a state of total and utter anarchy while we went about doing that.

Source on it costing more lives, money, and time.
Because i can guarantee you that these lunatics will be back unless we put a stop to them once and for all. They've done it before, lots of times.
And then there will be more death for more cost, and more time invested.

You think I want the west to be alone in this shit? Fuck no, this is the UNs business, but they aren't going to do jack shit about it since Russia and China decided to screw the pooch and go all post-soviet realist foreign policy.
And a lot of western nations are led by leaders too stupid (Or pretending to be too stupid because they know that the reactionary-left wing in their country will throw a shit fit the moment anyone acts slightly differently from a hippy) to realize that the UN has failed as an organization, and so that we have to take up the mantle ourselves of preserving global stability and such.
I'd like to do it through NATO and expand NATO to cover a lot more countries, personally.

Whoa, You need a source to prove that staying in Afghanistan longer will cost more? Common sense my dear Watson. As to the UN, Its not there job to be the world police... Its our job to an extent. We have built up the Afghan military and elections actually went better then planed. Its time we leave and continue to strike terrorist with special forces and drones. As to the left wing in Europe, They where right about Iraq pretty much... Face it the tend to be smarter then us. There our radicals on both sides of the spectrum in Europe and the EU elections have proven the fascist nationalist our making there voice herd now. Nazi's are back.

[Ostroeuropa]

Except as you can see, thats all bollocks. Heroin production under the occupation has been consistently higher than just leaving them to their own fucking devices.

Of course it has because the Taliban generally didn't like the Heroin producers due to their stance on narcotics. Surely you understand that a hardcore islamic group that went as far to outlaw TVs and radios weren't exactly willing to host drug farms?

And of course the taliban never attacked us.

So? Hosting AQ aside, they shot and starved their own people because they thought it was funny. Let's never let them back in power again.

I don't think these people are Islamic in so far as I think they are psychos.
The ban on heroin was an attempt to force a market distortion so only they could deal the heroin, which explains why they suddenly knew all the farmers who grew heroin and who to sell it too and such.
Plus, it's them playing nice with the UN and feigning lip service.

[The UK in Exile]

Except as you can see, thats all bollocks. Heroin production under the occupation has been consistently higher than just leaving them to their own fucking devices. And of course the taliban never attacked us.

You mean to say that when we turned up with soldiers and they couldn't lie about what they were illegally growing anymore, we found more drugs?
Fucking shocking man.

Well its wasn't illegal till 2001.

Co-incidently, that's the only major drop in cultivation. Turns out, Taliban were better at stopping the Taliban growing it than we were. Since we've invaded its been record crop after record crop. I've got a good feeling about 2015.

[United States of Devonta]

Well we don't release many... Just five. We can easily kill five in one strike. As to recruitment... Remember Gitmo! Yep, Its a recruitment tool for the Taliban.

those leaders may recruit more people though. Why release them at all? It changes the net balance of terrorists we eliminate to a sub-optimal level.

If you didn't release the leaders you would still get your drone strike hits... except in addition you wouldn't have to deal with those leaders and the wreckage they may cause.

whats gitmo?

Gitmo=Guantanamo Bay, Its a nickname.

They recruit more so be it... If we negotiate we might not have to worry about these recruits? And more targets to shoot at with our drones since we won't have many troops on the ground for them to attack.

[The Floating Island of the Sleeping God]

So President Obama broke the law, according to a Harvard professor acting as a legal analyst.

Any chance he'd have to face the music for breaking the law, or is he too big to fail?

Well, unless you also want to have every other living former president be put on trial for exercising executive privilege, then I doubt it.

[Condunum]

Except as you can see, thats all bollocks. Heroin production under the occupation has been consistently higher than just leaving them to their own fucking devices. And of course the taliban never attacked us.

You mean to say that when we turned up with soldiers and they couldn't lie about what they were illegally growing anymore, we found more drugs?
Fucking shocking man.

Because we totally believed them and reported what they were declaring when we didn't have soldiers there. Yup.

[Keyboard Warriors]

those leaders may recruit more people though. Why release them at all? It changes the net balance of terrorists we eliminate to a sub-optimal level.

If you didn't release the leaders you would still get your drone strike hits... except in addition you wouldn't have to deal with those leaders and the wreckage they may cause.

whats gitmo?

Gitmo=Guantanamo Bay, Its a nickname.

They recruit more so be it... If we negotiate we might not have to worry about these recruits? And more targets to shoot at with our drones since we won't have many troops on the ground for them to attack.

They won't recruit as they have in the past. There are fewer Mujaheddin coming out of the Madrases in Pakistan and there's jobs for the lower class to do now, even if that job involves cultivating heroin.

[Ostroeuropa]

Yeh we toppled the government and put a new one in it's place to run the country while we were busy killing the previous government.
Because it would be unethical to leave Afghanistan in a state of total and utter anarchy while we went about doing that.

Source on it costing more lives, money, and time.
Because i can guarantee you that these lunatics will be back unless we put a stop to them once and for all. They've done it before, lots of times.
And then there will be more death for more cost, and more time invested.

You think I want the west to be alone in this shit? Fuck no, this is the UNs business, but they aren't going to do jack shit about it since Russia and China decided to screw the pooch and go all post-soviet realist foreign policy.
And a lot of western nations are led by leaders too stupid (Or pretending to be too stupid because they know that the reactionary-left wing in their country will throw a shit fit the moment anyone acts slightly differently from a hippy) to realize that the UN has failed as an organization, and so that we have to take up the mantle ourselves of preserving global stability and such.
I'd like to do it through NATO and expand NATO to cover a lot more countries, personally.

Whoa, You need a source to prove that staying in Afghanistan longer will cost more? Common sense my dear Watson. As to the UN, Its not there job to be the world police... Its our job to an extent. We have built up the Afghan military and elections actually went better then planed. Its time we leave and continue to strike terrorist with special forces and drones. As to the left wing in Europe, They where right about Iraq pretty much... Face it the tend to be smarter then us. There our radicals on both sides of the spectrum in Europe and the EU elections have proven the fascist nationalist our making there voice herd now. Nazi's are back.

I'm a British member of the "Left" wing party there, and am decidedly to the left of most of my colleagues.
What pisses me off is that none of the left seem to remember that WE are the ones who are supposed to advocate for international intervention against dickheads and wankers. It's only because of Neocons (Who are, by the way, ex-communists and ex-socialists who decided that the left wing was endorsing too much unchristian shit) overran the other conservatives (Who HATE Neocons for being too left wing) that the left decided OH NOES TEH RIGHT WINGERS R SAYIN IT, WE SAY OPPOSITE NOW.

The emergence of the neo-conservative movement could have been our coup de grace if handled correctly, and instead nobody knew what the fuck they were talking about and proceeded to muck it up.
These people aren't fascists, they are left wingers with some crazy fucking ideas about gays and such. If we'd just talked about THOSE issues and said "But yeh, you're right about all the other shit." we'd have got along just fine. But no, the republicans say it, so it's evil.
A lot of neo-cons love the idea of welfare and state regulation of corporations. Look it up man.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neoconservative

[The American Natives]

According to Harvard professor and CNN legal analyst Jeffrey Toobin.

telling a surprised Wolf Blitzer that Preident Barack Obama “clearly broke the law” by failing to provide Congress 30-days notice before releasing five high-level Taliban prisoners from the Guantanamo Bay detention facility.

“You’ve looked at the law, you’ve looked at the signing statement, you’ve gone through it,” Blitzer asked Toobin. “Did the president break the law?

“Oh, I think he clearly broke the law,” Toobin replied. “The law says 30 days’ notice. He didn’t give 30 days’ notice.”

“Now it’s true he issued a signing statement,” the law professor continued, “but signing statements are not law — it’s the president’s opinion about what the law should mean. Now, it may be that the law is unconstitutional, a violation of his power as commander-in-chief, but no court has held that. The law is on the books and he didn’t follow it.”

http://dailycaller.com/2014/06/02/pro-obama-harvard-professor-president-clearly-broke-the-law-with-gitmo-prisoner-transfer/

Pretty surprising accusation, and coming from a Harvard law professor it seems credible. Especially since the man is (was?) pro-Obama.

I think this will just be swept under the rug and ignored, since the Prez is too big to fail, but what say you, NSG?

[The UK in Exile]

You mean to say that when we turned up with soldiers and they couldn't lie about what they were illegally growing anymore, we found more drugs?
Fucking shocking man.

Because we totally believed them and reported what they were declaring when we didn't have soldiers there. Yup.

It's 200,000 hectares of poppies. You can't stuff it under a mattress. Plus, why would they lie about it exactly? Not a crime to grow poppies.

[Ifreann]

If the GOP thinks they can impeach Obama, especially so close to the next election, count on them trying, trying, and trying again.

[Ostroeuropa]

Because we totally believed them and reported what they were declaring when we didn't have soldiers there. Yup.

It's 200,000 hectares of poppies. You can't stuff it under a mattress. Plus, why would they lie about it exactly? Not a crime to grow poppies.

When the UN is pressuring you to cut it out, you just say "Sure, I cut it out." and stop telling them how much you are growing.

[Marxson]

If the GOP thinks they can impeach Obama, especially so close to the next election, count on them trying, trying, and trying again.

Sadly, too true, too true.

[Condunum]

It's 200,000 hectares of poppies. You can't stuff it under a mattress. Plus, why would they lie about it exactly? Not a crime to grow poppies.

When the UN is pressuring you to cut it out, you just say "Sure, I cut it out." and stop telling them how much you are growing.

Again, 200,000 hectares of poppies. You can't just hide that.

[Sulania]

According to Harvard professor and CNN legal analyst Jeffrey Toobin.

telling a surprised Wolf Blitzer that Preident Barack Obama “clearly broke the law” by failing to provide Congress 30-days notice before releasing five high-level Taliban prisoners from the Guantanamo Bay detention facility.

“You’ve looked at the law, you’ve looked at the signing statement, you’ve gone through it,” Blitzer asked Toobin. “Did the president break the law?

“Oh, I think he clearly broke the law,” Toobin replied. “The law says 30 days’ notice. He didn’t give 30 days’ notice.”

“Now it’s true he issued a signing statement,” the law professor continued, “but signing statements are not law — it’s the president’s opinion about what the law should mean. Now, it may be that the law is unconstitutional, a violation of his power as commander-in-chief, but no court has held that. The law is on the books and he didn’t follow it.”

http://dailycaller.com/2014/06/02/pro-obama-harvard-professor-president-clearly-broke-the-law-with-gitmo-prisoner-transfer/

Pretty surprising accusation, and coming from a Harvard law professor it seems credible. Especially since the man is (was?) pro-Obama.

I think this will just be swept under the rug and ignored, since the Prez is too big to fail, but what say you, NSG?

Well, I myself supported Obama in the 2012 elections and probably defend him the most at my school. But this is irrefutable in my opinion. The President is required, by law, to give Congress thirty days notice, and he did not. Therefor, he overstepped his boundaries as President and SHOULD be held accountable. He is the man that made the decision, and as the leader, is responsible for it. It broke a clearly defined law and therefor he should be held accountable for it. It's called the balance of powers because each branch has balanced power. When one branch oversteps its boundaries, it is the duty of the other branches to put it back in line.