US Government negotiates with Taliban

[The UK in Exile]

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.

Your own point was that the destruction of the poppies was a key element in destroying the taliban.

The destruction of the Opium crop, while something of a blunder compared to buying it legitimately and using the market to destroy the talibans income, was the biggest hit against the Taliban.

[Sulania]

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.

Your thinking of the Mujahideen, not the Taliban.

[Valaran]

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.

I don't think we can punish him without more information. He did step over the bounds, but urgency may have been an issue.

[Pacific Independence]

.

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.

The only reason they even did that was to undermine the power of the Soviet Union in the region. However, there is the choice: Islamic Afghanistan or Communist Afghanistan?

[Napkiraly]

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.

There is a secret hot tub in Bagram. That's why the coalition invaded the place.

[Ostroeuropa]

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.

I'm sure it was evil western imperialism that led them to throw a huge fucking fit and attack embassies when we demanded they not commit genocide against the hindus in indonesia.
We're such monsters.

Your narrative simply doesn't work here.

[Condunum]

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.

My god that's ironic of you to say. A General on the ground says it's working, and get the statistics say otherwise.

[The UK in Exile]

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.

The US envoy to, and presidential special adviser on, Afghanistan and Pakistan isn't qualifed?

Yes. Because Generals in wars always tell the unvarnished truth to reporters.

[Sulania]

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.

I don't think we can punish him without more information. He did step over the bounds, but urgency may have been an issue.

Perhaps your right. Perhaps I'm right. We will have to wait and see, I guess. I just hope this situation ends for the benefit of everyone involved.

[Farnhamia]

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?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Habeas_cor ... _Civil_War

Lincoln suspended - not abolished - habeas corpus in response to information that mobs threatened Union supply lines in Maryland in 1861. His generals wanted to bombard Baltimore. The suspension was challenged in court and Chief Justice Taney, sitting as a Federal judge, overruled it on the grounds that only Congress can do that. The Attorney General ignored the ruling but Lincoln released most of the prisoners in February of 1862.

Anyway, it's complicated and more than just "Lincoln abolished habeas corpus."

[Condunum]

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.

I'm sure it was evil western imperialism that led them to throw a huge fucking fit and attack embassies when we demanded they not commit genocide against the hindus in indonesia.
We're such monsters.

Your narrative simply doesn't work here.

Neither does yours. Your solution hasn't worked for decades either.

[Distruzio]

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.

Sweetheart, why do you keep pointing out shit that happened in the past? Those damned terrorists should get over all that nonsense from way back when. It was, like, 5 years ago man! Just admit that picking up a gun to avenge your family and to address threats to your way of life is terrorism and those who do so are evil men deserving death. We shouldn't try to understand them. We shouldn't try to avoid creating more of them.

What I'm asking (in a totally non-sarcastic way that is intended as ridiculous satire and in no way suggests that I actually agree with you) is, why do you hate children?

[Ucropi]

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

Your thinking of the Mujahideen, not the Taliban.

Which Bin Laden later joined restructured and renamed the Taliban. I dislike debating with Americans on their history because you go for the pro-American white washing of history. You didn't lose the Vietnam war, you merely withdrew your forces and left the South to fall to the communist North.

[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.

Your own point was that the destruction of the poppies was a key element in destroying the taliban.

The destruction of the Opium crop, while something of a blunder compared to buying it legitimately and using the market to destroy the talibans income, was the biggest hit against the Taliban.

Yes, it was and is a key element of destroying the Taliban.
If I want to bring down Mcdonalds, I could decide to up and start killing lots of cows.
But once mcdonalds is gone, I don't necessarily have to give much of a shit about killing cows anymore.
Nor do I have to care that "Oh noes, there are still cows left" if the burger prices substantially increase and cripple mcdonalds.

[Valaran]

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.

I don't think we can punish him without more information. He did step over the bounds, but urgency may have been an issue.

Oh, and examining the past is (nearly) always useful to do when confronted with the present.

[Condunum]

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.

Sweetheart, why do you keep pointing out shit that happened in the past? Those damned terrorists should get over all that nonsense from way back when. It was, like, 5 years ago man! Just admit that picking up a gun to avenge your family and to address threats to your way of life is terrorism and those who do so are evil men deserving death. We shouldn't try to understand them. We shouldn't try to avoid creating more of them.

What I'm asking (in a totally non-sarcastic way that is intended as ridiculous satire and in no way suggests that I actually agree with you) is, why do you hate children?

I don't hate them.... I mean, they sure taste good.

[Ostroeuropa]

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.

My god that's ironic of you to say. A General on the ground says it's working, and get the statistics say otherwise.

Depends on which statistics. The number of villages involved have decreased by over 50%.
Which suggests that the campaign to purge the crop from some areas has worked. Which means the taliban now cannot reliably recruit in those areas and is crippled.

[Napkiraly]

The Taliban didn't exist until 1994.

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

Actually it does. For one, not all those who fought in the Mujahideen ended up joining the Taliban. Some fiercely resisted them.
Secondly how was the US supposed to know that some of those guys were to go on and join a group that wouldn't exist until 1994?
The CIA doesn't have the ability to see into the future.

[Dread Lady Nathicana]

There is a thread on this already - thanks. viewtopic.php?f=20&t=298732

[Distruzio]

My god that's ironic of you to say. A General on the ground says it's working, and get the statistics say otherwise.

Depends on which statistics. The number of villages involved have decreased by over 50%.
Which suggests that the campaign to purge the crop from some areas has worked. Which means the taliban now cannot reliably recruit in those areas and is crippled.

So... farmers equal terrorists? Fewer farmers equals fewer terrorists?

I must be missing some important information here. I'm genuinely confused about how this makes sense and genuinely interested in finding out.

[Condunum]

My god that's ironic of you to say. A General on the ground says it's working, and get the statistics say otherwise.

Depends on which statistics. The number of villages involved have decreased by over 50%.
Which suggests that the campaign to purge the crop from some areas has worked. Which means the taliban now cannot reliably recruit in those areas and is crippled.

Meanwhile, production and recruitment skyrocketed elsewhere.

[Transoxthraxia]

Unacceptable, especially considering the guy they're getting back is a turncoat.

[Ostroeuropa]

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.

The US envoy to, and presidential special adviser on, Afghanistan and Pakistan isn't qualifed?

Yes. Because Generals in wars always tell the unvarnished truth to reporters.

You mean a politician is telling the truth as opposed to merely reacting to public sentiment at the time and telling us what we want to hear.
That's what you're going to go with.
Fuck it, ok. If you want to trust politicians, go ahead. I'd sooner trust the General.

[Draica]

Look at the liberals here, rushing to defend their lord and savior, NDAA-Signing and patriot-act extending Emperor Barackus Hussien Obama the Third. "Yeah, he broke the law, but for good reason." So when Bush breaks the law it's bad, but when Obama does it it's good?

*Claps hands* Yes, let's all pray at the altar of Hussein. He is morally superior, that's right. let's love him and his administration now. It's Bush's fault that Obama broke the law, yes it's all bush's fault. When wwwe break the law, we normally pay a penalty. But our Emperor Hussein doesn't. Yes. Keep following Hussein NS brainwashed liberals.

[Condunum]

Unacceptable, especially considering the guy they're getting back is a turncoat.

Believe what the media says. The media is the truth. The media does not lie.