US Government negotiates with Taliban

[Sulania]

He did break the law. However, some rule breaking is justified. The Obama Admin said it was "urgent". I will withhold judgement until It is known what the circumstances were.

He broke the law. There is not justification for breaking the law and getting away with it. He broke the law, even though it was for a decent reason, he still broke the law. Therefor, he should face the consequenses. If we put little faith in the law of our land, then what is the point of it being there? It is there to protect us, whether you like it or not.

And to all of you people that keep making references to Bush. Get over it. That's the past, now is the present. Focus on the now, not what happend years ago.

[Condunum]

Oh yes, we made tons of progress putting little dents in production. It's not like they bounced back or anything.

Those dents in production translate into years where the Taliban was underfunded and unable to properly gain ground or resist attack.
They bounce back?
Fine by me. It wasn't about the opium in the first place. The dead and captured Taliban soldiers certainly don't bounce back.
And so long as we keep up those little dents, soon there won't be any of them left.

At that point, the opium crop can get as productive as it likes.

So your solution is wipe out the middle east? You realize that our involvement in the middle east is the single largest recruitment drive for the taliban.

[Farnhamia]

He did break the law. However, some rule breaking is justified. The Obama Admin said it was "urgent". I will withhold judgement until It is known what the circumstances were.

He broke the law. There is not justification for breaking the law and getting away with it. He broke the law, even though it was for a decent reason, he still broke the law. Therefor, he should face the consequenses. If we put little faith in the law of our land, then what is the point of it being there? It is there to protect us, whether you like it or not.

And to all of you people that keep making references to Bush. Get over it. That's the past, now is the present. Focus on the now, not what happend years ago.

Okay, well, what are the consequences? Does the law list penalties for not informing Congress?

[Napkiraly]

Bush broke the law when he illegally invaded two countries that had no WMDs and nothing to do with 9/11

Afghanistan had quite a bit to do with 9/11. Being the location of most of their training camps and whatnot.

[Distruzio]

The US government has recently negotiated with the Taliban to realease an American Army prisoner in return for the release of 5 Taliban commanders from Guantanamo Bay.

Where do you stand on the government's deal? I believe it is a foolish risk that may result in further harm in the future.

Makes sense to me. I'm glad they did it.

[Valaran]

He did break the law. However, some rule breaking is justified. The Obama Admin said it was "urgent". I will withhold judgement until It is known what the circumstances were.

He broke the law. There is not justification for breaking the law and getting away with it. He broke the law, even though it was for a decent reason, he still broke the law. Therefor, he should face the consequenses. If we put little faith in the law of our land, then what is the point of it being there? It is there to protect us, whether you like it or not.

And to all of you people that keep making references to Bush. Get over it. That's the past, now is the present. Focus on the now, not what happend years ago.

Surely, things that happened recently affect us now in a large way (and Iraq was a big event). 'Generals always fight the last war.'

Also (speaking form the UK here), didn't other presidents often break laws like this to get their way - executive actions. I'm not condoning Obama here but there is at least precedent.

[MERIZoC]

Bush broke the law when he illegally invaded two countries that had no WMDs and nothing to do with 9/11

All available evidence pointed to Saddam Hussein having WMD. Almost every agency who looked at the case confirmed that.

If what he did was illegal, why hasn't he been taken to the ICC? I'll tell you why. Because what he did wasn't illegal. You would do the same, given the circumstances.

"If OJ was guilty, why wasn't he put in jail?"

Great logic you got there. I'll tell you why he didn't go to the ICC. Because its sphere of influence is extremely small, and even if they indicted a US citizen, much less a president, there is no way they would get him/her.

[Ucropi]

Bush broke the law when he illegally invaded two countries that had no WMDs and nothing to do with 9/11

Afghanistan had quite a bit to do with 9/11. Being the location of most of their training camps and whatnot.

And America supplied the Taliban with weapons in the 80's so it's kind of their fault too.

[Ostroeuropa]

Those dents in production translate into years where the Taliban was underfunded and unable to properly gain ground or resist attack.
They bounce back?
Fine by me. It wasn't about the opium in the first place. The dead and captured Taliban soldiers certainly don't bounce back.
And so long as we keep up those little dents, soon there won't be any of them left.

At that point, the opium crop can get as productive as it likes.

So your solution is wipe out the middle east? You realize that our involvement in the middle east is the single largest recruitment drive for the taliban.

Yeh, because any time someone proposes we fight a war, they are actually proposing genocide. That was a stupid remark, and you know it, you can do better, don't be lazy man.

As for our involvement being a recruitment drive, what do you mean by involvement. Because I know what they mean by involvement, and i'm not willing to tolerate their ACTUALLY genocidal ambitions just because it'll mean we don't have to put up with them being mean to us. At least until they run out of Jews to kill.

Our message should be clear on this. If you don't pick up a weapon to join the terrorists, you are safe from us. If you do, you're fucked. No negotiation. Only surrender.

[Sulania]

He broke the law. There is not justification for breaking the law and getting away with it. He broke the law, even though it was for a decent reason, he still broke the law. Therefor, he should face the consequenses. If we put little faith in the law of our land, then what is the point of it being there? It is there to protect us, whether you like it or not.

And to all of you people that keep making references to Bush. Get over it. That's the past, now is the present. Focus on the now, not what happend years ago.

Okay, well, what are the consequences? Does the law list penalties for not informing Congress?

I'm... not sure what the consequences are. I think he should face some form of punishment, but nothing as extreme as impeachment.

As I have said, if the courts take notice (which I hope they will), they will (hopefully) come up with a fair consequence for it. I leave it to them. As it has broken the law, the courts are technically obligated to take action. But who knows, maybe justice will take a backseat to politics. Hopefully not, but who knows.

[Napkiraly]

He broke the law. There is not justification for breaking the law and getting away with it. He broke the law, even though it was for a decent reason, he still broke the law. Therefor, he should face the consequenses. If we put little faith in the law of our land, then what is the point of it being there? It is there to protect us, whether you like it or not.

And to all of you people that keep making references to Bush. Get over it. That's the past, now is the present. Focus on the now, not what happend years ago.

Okay, well, what are the consequences? Does the law list penalties for not informing Congress?

IIRC, what constitutes as an impeachable offence depends on what the majority of the House of Representatives decides at that point.

So, yes, he theoretically could be impeached over this. Not that it'll happen of course.

[Farnhamia]

Bush broke the law when he illegally invaded two countries that had no WMDs and nothing to do with 9/11

Afghanistan had quite a bit to do with 9/11. Being the location of most of their training camps and whatnot.

We invaded Afghanistan because the Taliban wouldn't hand over Osama bin Laden after we asked politely.

[The UK in Exile]

Fine, so even humoring your temper tantrum and assuming the UN somehow lost track of 75,000 hectares during 2001. production has increased consistently since occupation up until 2008 and we've had an new record last year. We've clearly done fuck all to opium production in the last 12 years.

Except for those years where we apparently did.

which one? 08, when its just 100% more than what used to be grown under taliban? or 09-10, where its 66%? always assuming the drop came about from Nato efforts and not say, a huge drop in price caused by the absolutely gargantuan amount of heroin that had been grown the previous year. It probably is that though, because 2009 was the year that we gave up, because: "might destroy some acreage, but it didn't reduce the amount of money the Taliban got by one dollar". You'd expect to see a spike in 2010 or 2011, but strangely not much of one. It's not a suprise, since they already knew it was unlikely to work in 2002.

fuck - salon magazine knows we aren't erradicating poppies. what the fuck are you on that you don't?

[Napkiraly]

Afghanistan had quite a bit to do with 9/11. Being the location of most of their training camps and whatnot.

And America supplied the Taliban with weapons in the 80's so it's kind of their fault too.

The Taliban didn't exist until 1994.

[Anarchia Prime II]

He did break the law. However, some rule breaking is justified. The Obama Admin said it was "urgent". I will withhold judgement until It is known what the circumstances were.

He broke the law. There is not justification for breaking the law and getting away with it. He broke the law, even though it was for a decent reason, he still broke the law. Therefor, he should face the consequenses. If we put little faith in the law of our land, then what is the point of it being there? It is there to protect us, whether you like it or not.

And to all of you people that keep making references to Bush. Get over it. That's the past, now is the present. Focus on the now, not what happend years ago.

Abraham Lincoln abolished Habeas Corpus during the Civil War. Was that unjustified?

[Valaran]

And America supplied the Taliban with weapons in the 80's so it's kind of their fault too.

The Taliban didn't exist until 1994.

.

I think he means the Mujahadeen, some of which became Taliban members.

[Napkiraly]

Afghanistan had quite a bit to do with 9/11. Being the location of most of their training camps and whatnot.

We invaded Afghanistan because the Taliban wouldn't hand over Osama bin Laden after we asked politely.

Yeah pretty much.

[Occupied Deutschland]

And America supplied the Taliban with weapons in the 80's so it's kind of their fault too.

The Taliban didn't exist until 1994.

Damn time-traveling Islamists.

How they figured it out with so little funding and infrastructure will forever be a mystery.

[Valaran]

He broke the law. There is not justification for breaking the law and getting away with it. He broke the law, even though it was for a decent reason, he still broke the law. Therefor, he should face the consequenses. If we put little faith in the law of our land, then what is the point of it being there? It is there to protect us, whether you like it or not.

And to all of you people that keep making references to Bush. Get over it. That's the past, now is the present. Focus on the now, not what happend years ago.

Abraham Lincoln abolished Habeas Corpus during the Civil War. Was that unjustified?

This. And things from the past constantly affect the present.

[MERIZoC]

He broke the law. There is not justification for breaking the law and getting away with it. He broke the law, even though it was for a decent reason, he still broke the law. Therefor, he should face the consequenses. If we put little faith in the law of our land, then what is the point of it being there? It is there to protect us, whether you like it or not.

And to all of you people that keep making references to Bush. Get over it. That's the past, now is the present. Focus on the now, not what happend years ago.

Abraham Lincoln abolished Habeas Corpus during the Civil War. Was that unjustified?

I'd argue it was, but whatever.

[Condunum]

So your solution is wipe out the middle east? You realize that our involvement in the middle east is the single largest recruitment drive for the taliban.

Yeh, because any time someone proposes we fight a war, they are actually proposing genocide. That was a stupid remark, and you know it, you can do better, don't be lazy man.

As for our involvement being a recruitment drive, what do you mean by involvement. Because I know what they mean by involvement, and i'm not willing to tolerate their ACTUALLY genocidal ambitions just because it'll mean we don't have to put up with them being mean to us. At least until they run out of Jews to kill.

Our message should be clear on this. If you don't pick up a weapon to join the terrorists, you are safe from us. If you do, you're fucked. No negotiation. Only surrender.

Except, as history shows, they are not safe if they don't pick up weapons. As I've tried to point out before, western imperialism sparked the huge wave of radical Islamic terrorism. We fucked with them, they fucked with us back, and it's been an endless cycle of blame the other guy until you kill everyone he can get to fight against you. Which is everyone.

And for the record, I said nothing of genocide.

[Sulania]

He broke the law. There is not justification for breaking the law and getting away with it. He broke the law, even though it was for a decent reason, he still broke the law. Therefor, he should face the consequenses. If we put little faith in the law of our land, then what is the point of it being there? It is there to protect us, whether you like it or not.

And to all of you people that keep making references to Bush. Get over it. That's the past, now is the present. Focus on the now, not what happend years ago.

Surely, things that happened recently affect us now in a large way (and Iraq was a big event). 'Generals always fight the last war.'

Also (speaking form the UK here), didn't other presidents often break laws like this to get their way - executive actions. I'm not condoning Obama here but there is at least precedent.

Do things that happend in the past still affects us? of course they do. But that was not my point. My point was that: Bush did what he did and nothing can change that. Referencing him will not help the situation. We can, however, still have an effect on what is happening now. We may not have punished Bush for what he did, but we can still punish Obama.

[Napkiraly]

The Taliban didn't exist until 1994.

.

I think he means the Mujahadeen, some of which became Taliban members.

And the US didn't have a lot of control over who got what since the US allowed Pakistan discretion in distributing the funds and weapons.

[Ostroeuropa]

Except for those years where we apparently did.

which one? 08, when its just 100% more than what used to be grown under taliban? or 09-10, where its 66%? always assuming the drop came about from Nato efforts and not say, a huge drop in price caused by the absolutely gargantuan amount of heroin that had been grown the previous year. It probably is that though, because 2009 was the year that we gave up, because: "might destroy some acreage, but it didn't reduce the amount of money the Taliban got by one dollar". You'd expect to see a spike in 2010 or 2011, but strangely not much of one. It's not a suprise, since they already knew it was unlikely to work in 2002.

fuck - salon magazine knows we aren't erradicating poppies. what the fuck are you on that you don't?

Yeh man, i'm glad there are people like you out there who are willing to believe the opinion of basically just some guy (Since he's completely unqualified to make that assessment) as opposed to a general on the ground who insists it's working. I'm sure that has nothing to do with the fact you like what he has to say.

[Ucropi]

And America supplied the Taliban with weapons in the 80's so it's kind of their fault too.

The Taliban didn't exist until 1994.

They may not have called themselves the Taliban but it doesn't change the facts