US Government negotiates with Taliban

[The United National Federation]

We probably should've gone in guns blazing.

[Distruzio]

Why does that maxim work for nobody except terrorists?

Because, terrorists fundamentally don't play by the rules of civilization. Unlike armies, they often don't wear uniforms, they target neutral and non combatant civilians, they use any means necessary to achieve their goals. In other words they unlike actual nations don't fight fair.

Ummm.... if fair warfare is what your standard is then perhaps you should revisit warfare in general post French Revolution? Because no nation fights the way you describe. Like.... never.

[Valaran]

Why does that maxim work for nobody except terrorists?

Because, terrorists fundamentally don't play by the rules of civilization. Unlike armies, they often don't wear uniforms, they target neutral and non combatant civilians, they use any means necessary to achieve their goals. In other words they unlike actual nations don't fight fair.

But nations don't fight fair either. (torture, blackmail). You can assume they do until they are proven guilty, but that would be naive polciy

[Farnhamia]

We probably should've gone in guns blazing.

Gone in where?

[Kelinfort]

Why does that maxim work for nobody except terrorists?

Because, terrorists fundamentally don't play by the rules of civilization. Unlike armies, they often don't wear uniforms, they target neutral and non combatant civilians, they use any means necessary to achieve their goals. In other words they unlike actual nations don't fight fair.

And the Nazi's were completely civilised as you stated in your other post.

[Distruzio]

Because, terrorists fundamentally don't play by the rules of civilization. Unlike armies, they often don't wear uniforms, they target neutral and non combatant civilians, they use any means necessary to achieve their goals. In other words they unlike actual nations don't fight fair.

But nations don't fight fair either. (torture, blackmail)

Don't forget economic warfare and sanctions, nation building (which requires and necessitates the destruction of local infrastructure and delegitimizing domestic regimes), etc etc etc.

[Ashmoria]

Just imagine if this was Mitt Romney, I'm sure almost everyone here would be ripping him apart.

Seriously, how loyal are you people to the President?

No, a POW at home is good. This is what I hate. A POW is returning home, and I hope more will, and yet, people are using this to attack the president. Attack the policies, not a goddamn freedom exchange in a nation we're leaving in a year.

he was the last US pow in Afghanistan.

[Distruzio]

Because, terrorists fundamentally don't play by the rules of civilization. Unlike armies, they often don't wear uniforms, they target neutral and non combatant civilians, they use any means necessary to achieve their goals. In other words they unlike actual nations don't fight fair.

And the Nazi's were completely civilised as you stated in your other post.

Or, to turn his logic more completely, the Americans were in the way they dealt with the Japanese, the Vietnamese, the Koreans, the Iraqis (from 1991 to 2005), the Afghanis (from 2001 to now), and how many others?

[Limborg]

Why does that maxim work for nobody except terrorists?

Because, terrorists fundamentally don't play by the rules of civilization. Unlike armies, they often don't wear uniforms, they target neutral and non combatant civilians, they use any means necessary to achieve their goals. In other words they unlike actual nations don't fight fair.

You say national armies don't target civillians? You say they don't use any means necessary to achieve their goals?

[Valaran]

But nations don't fight fair either. (torture, blackmail)

Don't forget economic warfare and sanctions, nation building (which requires and necessitates the destruction of local infrastructure and delegitimizing domestic regimes), etc etc etc.

Oh yeah, some of many examples of when nation 'break the rules'. Though personally, I find sanctions are better than actual war, and nation building can work (the US did in after WWII in Japan).

[Llamalandia]

So here's the thing we traded 5 of our prisoners from Gitmo for this one guy. Now I'm for all for not leaving a man behind in a war zone, but basically this meant the US essentially made a deal with terrorists, which something we say we never do it's part of policy in fact.

So my question is this, was this guy worth the cost to rescue. Personally, I think he wasn't, given that we had to negotiate with terrorists. I believe it was mostly done by Obama for political reasons to make our withdrawal from Afghanistan look "cleaner".

So what say you nation staters was it the right decision to do the deal, or should we have found another to get him back?

ps. much respect to all US troops, veterans and allies.

Edit: link added

http://www.cnn.com/2014/05/31/us/bergda ... le_sidebar

you should know how many goverments say they would never negotiate with terrorists, and yet at the same time they do.

That's true, the my understanding is that since Reagan signed the executive order prohibiting the practice, I don't think the USA has done it, at least not to this degree.

[Limborg]

you should know how many goverments say they would never negotiate with terrorists, and yet at the same time they do.

That's true, the my understanding is that since Reagan signed the executive order prohibiting the practice, I don't think the USA has done it, at least not to this degree.

I don't know about that, but over here (Europe) pretty much every goverment says the same, but then they end up paying randsom or something like that to get their men free. Wich i actually find very good, i think a goverment should do everything possible to protect its citzens, even if it would be against their intrests.

[Llamalandia]

Because, terrorists fundamentally don't play by the rules of civilization. Unlike armies, they often don't wear uniforms, they target neutral and non combatant civilians, they use any means necessary to achieve their goals. In other words they unlike actual nations don't fight fair.

You say national armies don't target civillians? You say they don't use any means necessary to achieve their goals?

They don't intentionally target civilians solely as civilians I should say, I don't know I'd need to check the exact text of Geneva, but while collateral damage is allowed, deliberately attacking civilians wholly uninvolved in any war effort is illegal. Even Obscene levels of collateral damage are prohibited even if they further military objectives if I recall Geneva IV correctly.

[Limborg]

Don't forget economic warfare and sanctions, nation building (which requires and necessitates the destruction of local infrastructure and delegitimizing domestic regimes), etc etc etc.

Oh yeah, some of many examples of when nation 'break the rules'. Though personally, I find sanctions are better than actual war, and nation building can work (the US did in after WWII in Japan).

sanctions bettern the war? depends i think. Sanctions, most of the time, target more of the regular people then the actuall "bad guys" wich makes it even worse, but then again, it all depends on the way you wage a war.

[Llamalandia]

That's true, the my understanding is that since Reagan signed the executive order prohibiting the practice, I don't think the USA has done it, at least not to this degree.

I don't know about that, but over here (Europe) pretty much every goverment says the same, but then they end up paying randsom or something like that to get their men free. Wich i actually find very good, i think a goverment should do everything possible to protect its citzens, even if it would be against their intrests.

hey, you know to each his own, but the US doesn't negotiate, it's become a core principle in US foreign policy since at least the 80's.

[Valaran]

You say national armies don't target civillians? You say they don't use any means necessary to achieve their goals?

They don't intentionally target civilians solely as civilians I should say, I don't know I'd need to check the exact text of Geneva, but while collateral damage is allowed, deliberately attacking civilians wholly uninvolved in any war effort is illegal. Even Obscene levels of collateral damage are prohibited even if they further military objectives if I recall Geneva IV correctly.

Just because it is illegal does not mean that they do not do it deliberately. That has never stopped nations before.

(North Korea would be a recent example of this)

[Limborg]

You say national armies don't target civillians? You say they don't use any means necessary to achieve their goals?

They don't intentionally target civilians solely as civilians I should say, I don't know I'd need to check the exact text of Geneva, but while collateral damage is allowed, deliberately attacking civilians wholly uninvolved in any war effort is illegal. Even Obscene levels of collateral damage are prohibited even if they further military objectives if I recall Geneva IV correctly.

Well, problem is, collateral damage should be solely the theory of "there accidently happend to be civillians out there" while in RL its more like "ah, one bad guy, 100 civillians, just drop the bomb"

I mean, that is equal to intentionally targeting civillians and this is often used in (for example) drone strikes and air strikes.

[Valaran]

Oh yeah, some of many examples of when nation 'break the rules'. Though personally, I find sanctions are better than actual war, and nation building can work (the US did in after WWII in Japan).

sanctions bettern the war? depends i think. Sanctions, most of the time, target more of the regular people then the actuall "bad guys" wich makes it even worse, but then again, it all depends on the way you wage a war.

No action like this is perfect and I understand that, but actually killing said civilians and losing your own soldiers I would argue is worse (war also destroys the economy). Also, if the 'bad guys' have their money in the actual government/general economy, then targeted sanction don't actually work

[Limborg]

I don't know about that, but over here (Europe) pretty much every goverment says the same, but then they end up paying randsom or something like that to get their men free. Wich i actually find very good, i think a goverment should do everything possible to protect its citzens, even if it would be against their intrests.

hey, you know to each his own, but the US doesn't negotiate, it's become a core principle in US foreign policy since at least the 80's.

Lol, you should know how many times the US dealth with Terrorists after the 80s... They even supported them. So no, its not a core principle in US foreign policy, more like a made up comic for the public to believe.

[Limborg]

sanctions bettern the war? depends i think. Sanctions, most of the time, target more of the regular people then the actuall "bad guys" wich makes it even worse, but then again, it all depends on the way you wage a war.

No action like this is perfect and I understand that, but actually killing said civilians and losing your own soldiers I would argue is worse (war also destroys the economy). Also, if the 'bad guys' have their money in the actual government/general economy, then targeted sanction don't actually work

Again, ti depends very much on the way you head for war. But well, it also depends on the timeframe in wich the sanctions are placed. How long will they stay active... Its hard to tell without clear numbers of the damages of sanctions.

[Llamalandia]

They don't intentionally target civilians solely as civilians I should say, I don't know I'd need to check the exact text of Geneva, but while collateral damage is allowed, deliberately attacking civilians wholly uninvolved in any war effort is illegal. Even Obscene levels of collateral damage are prohibited even if they further military objectives if I recall Geneva IV correctly.

Well, problem is, collateral damage should be solely the theory of "there accidently happend to be civillians out there" while in RL its more like "ah, one bad guy, 100 civillians, just drop the bomb"

I mean, that is equal to intentionally targeting civillians and this is often used in (for example) drone strikes and air strikes.

No actually, in your example it would depend on the value of the target. I mean, had we know say bin laden was hiding out in say a hospital full of people, yeah, we might have bombed it if we thought that was the better course of action than using a navy seal team. It depends on the importance of the target you're going after not just the raw numbers in these kinds of calculation. If in the same scenario we knew a brand new al quaeda recruit was there instead of bin laden, we probably just say screw it not worth the collateral damage and let him go.

[Llamalandia]

hey, you know to each his own, but the US doesn't negotiate, it's become a core principle in US foreign policy since at least the 80's.

Lol, you should know how many times the US dealth with Terrorists after the 80s... They even supported them. So no, its not a core principle in US foreign policy, more like a made up comic for the public to believe.

I don't really rememember clinton doing that or bush either? Care to cite some specific instances from the 90 or 2000's to back that up?

[Murkwood]

Because, terrorists fundamentally don't play by the rules of civilization. Unlike armies, they often don't wear uniforms, they target neutral and non combatant civilians, they use any means necessary to achieve their goals. In other words they unlike actual nations don't fight fair.

But nations don't fight fair either. (torture, blackmail). You can assume they do until they are proven guilty, but that would be naive polciy

What is "fair"?

[Alexanda]

To quote Margret Thatcher; 'We do not (should not) negotiate with terrorists.'

[Limborg]

Well, problem is, collateral damage should be solely the theory of "there accidently happend to be civillians out there" while in RL its more like "ah, one bad guy, 100 civillians, just drop the bomb"

I mean, that is equal to intentionally targeting civillians and this is often used in (for example) drone strikes and air strikes.

No actually, in your example it would depend on the value of the target. I mean, had we know say bin laden was hiding out in say a hospital full of people, yeah, we might have bombed it if we thought that was the better course of action than using a navy seal team. It depends on the importance of the target you're going after not just the raw numbers in these kinds of calculation. If in the same scenario we knew a brand new al quaeda recruit was there instead of bin laden, we probably just say screw it not worth the collateral damage and let him go.

It's actually not. Targets of Dronestrikes are often very low ranked men, and still they get bombed while they're on a wedding with god knows how many other and often innocent people.

There's also another example, Fallujah, where US soldiers fired at civillians on multiple occasions becouse there may, or may not have been fired from protesting crowds. In those fights they killed civillans, that isn't colatteral damage, that is just firing randomly at a crowd of people becouse they may, or may not be bad guys amongst them.

No army, no nation on this world is playing by the books as they where made up. all nations do what they want and they do it the way they want it. It has Always been this way and it will Always continue to be this way.