Talking peace with the Taliban

[DogOnPorch]

I saw his comments being directed more toward the infamous Chaimberlan story. I was hoping he would elaborate but it seems he was just being obtuse. However, your comments are not lost on me.

As far as the radical Islamist bit goes....were I an Afghani, the mere presence of foreign soldiers who dont speak my language, occupying my land and killing a lot of civilians just might make me a radical too.

By all means...join them.

[Born Free]

By all means...join them.

Maybe one day you will be able to read stuff and actually understand what it was that you read.

[DogOnPorch]

Maybe one day you will be able to read stuff and actually understand what it was that you read.

I'm merely suggesting you make fantasy a reality. Maybe you'll learn to understand what you read as well.

The US exited Vietnam but not for reasons of appeasment.

No...the "anti-war movement" did that...exited Viet-Nam. The net result was boat-people, a free country over-run by the invading Communists (resulting in hundreds of thousands dead) and a sympathetic genocide in the Killing Fields next door. A splendid victory for the "anti-war cause".

I see a similar result when fellows like yourself perhaps get your wish in Afghanistan. But no worries...to ease the guilt of such actions those involved could perhaps blame George W. Bush for those killed in the aftermath of another "anti-war victory".

[DrGreenthumb]

Well, I certainly don't think the Harper Conservatives are like the Taliban.

However, you may have misread me somewhere along the way, since you here imply that I have shown support for PM Harper.

For the record, I have never voted for him, and never would vote for him. Last election, I voted NDP.

I'm sorry to have slandered you so terribly by suggesting you supported Harper, that is a very terrible thing to accuse someone of. I guess I wasn't paying enough attention and may have confused you with blueblood. My bad. Glad you voted right in the last election. I like the NDP too, I can tolerate the Liberals, some of them are really good MP's, but the Cons, I have abolutely no use for because....

I DO think the Harper Conservatives ARE like the Taliban. Operating in Canada requires them to moderate their views at least when in public, but their politics are definitely religiously motivated. They may not be as openly mysogenistic as the taliban, but they do show their disdain for women in the workplace, from their laughable 100 dollar a month "child care" vote buy, to their killing of pay-equity for women in the budget. I'm sure many Conservative MP's like Tom Lukiwiski would happily stone homosexuals to death if they thought they could get away with it. Then we have bill c-15 that has Conservatives proposing mandaTORY prison sentences for cannabis offences when polls consistently show that a majority of Canadians would like to see pot laws liberalized, not made harsher. Harper's missionary alliance church is vehemently against cannabis use, and that is where his drug warrior mentality stems from. Very strange that supposed Christians ignore God's words in the first book of the bible when He says, "I have given you all the seed bearing plants and herbs to use."

[bloodyminded]

No...the "anti-war movement" did that...exited Viet-Nam. The net result was boat-people, a free country over-run by the invading Communists (resulting in hundreds of thousands dead) and a sympathetic genocide in the Killing Fields next door. A splendid victory for the "anti-war cause".

Sure. It's not the planners and leaders and policymakers who are responsible for their own actions...it's those who dissent and criticize the leaders who are responsible. "Personal responsibility" is meant to apply only to unemployed men and to single mothers, evidently. But surely not to the most powerful and influential people in the world. Zounds, no.

And the fact that the war itself killed millions of people is not a factor in your view. After all, when the noble heroes, fighting the Red Menace, kill millions of people, it is all good and just. Produces hardons for some people, no doubt. But when the war is stopped, all deaths can immediately be blamed on those who objected to the millions being killed.

That's a beautiful argument, taut and shining in both its circularity and its servility-to-power.

When a war of aggression is launched, the aggressors (in the case of Vietnam, the United States), are responsible for all ensuing horrors that are related to the war.

That's why it was determined at the Nuremberg Trials that a war of aggression is the supreme international crime.

That idea was put forth by the Americans, mind you. Wisely and correctly.

Edited February 1, 2010 by bloodyminded

[DrGreenthumb]

Sure. It's not the planners and leaders and policymakers who are responsible for their own actions...it's those who dissent and criticize the leaders who are responsible. "Personal responsibility" is meant to apply only to unemployed men and to single mothers, evidently. But surely not to the most powerful and influential people in the world. Zounds, no.

And the fact that the war itself killed millions of people is not a factor in your view. After all, when the noble heroes, fighting the Red Menace, kill millions of people, it is all good and just. Produces hardons for some people, no doubt. But when the war is stopped, all deaths can immediately be blamed on those who objected to the millions being killed.

That's a beautiful argument, taut and shining in both its circularity and its servility-to-power.

When a war of aggression is launched, the aggressors (in the case of Vietnam, the United States), are responsible for all ensuing horrors that are related to the war.

That's why it was determined at the Nuremberg Trials that a war of aggression is the supreme international crime.

That idea was put forth by the Americans, mind you. Wisely and correctly.

Great post. Very well put.

[DogOnPorch]

When a war of aggression is launched, the aggressors (in the case of Vietnam, the United States), are responsible for all ensuing horrors that are related to the war.

The Americans and SEATO weren't 'aggressors'. Best brush-up on your history.

[DogOnPorch]

Great post. Very well put.

You too.

[M.Dancer]

There are a lot of misconceptions floating in this thread.

1) The offer to talk represents a strategy shift.

On fact, NATO has never ruled out talks and if you look back over the course of the war you will find periodically that the invitation to Taliban members to come in from the cold has been floated.

2) That offers to talk means NATO acknowledges the war in unwinnable

Which is nonsense. The war is winnable either way. It will be winnable quicker if the Taliban splinter and join the process, but given the goal of the war, to provide stability for the government, the war is a long way from lost

The thing to remember is that every time an invitation to talk has been floated, the Taliban leadership reject it. Another thing to note is the Taliban leadership changes frequently, cause we keep killing them, providing the new Taliban leadership with the motivation to talk..and even more so, the soft Taliban whose morale for the Taliban cause isn't as religious as the often dying leaders...they are the ones most likely to switch sides, provided that NATO can provide stability to the Afghan government.

Edited February 1, 2010 by M.Dancer

[eyeball]

There are a lot of misconceptions floating in this thread.

1) The offer to talk represents a strategy shift.

On fact, NATO has never ruled out talks and if you look back over the course of the war you will find periodically that the invitation to Taliban members to come in from the cold has been floated.

The offer to talk certainly represents a political shift, so does the spin your conception is now putting on it.

2) That offers to talk means NATO acknowledges the war in unwinnable

Which is nonsense. The war is winnable either way. It will be winnable quicker if the Taliban splinter and join the process, but given the goal of the war, to provide stability for the government, the war is a long way from lost

The thing to remember is that every time an invitation to talk has been floated, the Taliban leadership reject it.

So did Harper, so did Bush and so did you.

Another thing to note is the Taliban leadership changes frequently, cause we keep killing them, providing the new Taliban leadership with the motivation to talk..and even more so, the soft Taliban whose morale for the Taliban cause isn't as religious as the often dying leaders...they are the ones most likely to switch sides, provided that NATO can provide stability to the Afghan government.

Yeah we change our leadership like they were diapers too, just not frequently enough is all.

[DogOnPorch]

the war is a long way from lost

That was true in Viet-Nam as well...

[Michael Hardner]

There are a lot of misconceptions floating in this thread.

1) The offer to talk represents a strategy shift.

On fact, NATO has never ruled out talks and if you look back over the course of the war you will find periodically that the invitation to Taliban members to come in from the cold has been floated.

2) That offers to talk means NATO acknowledges the war in unwinnable

Which is nonsense. The war is winnable either way. It will be winnable quicker if the Taliban splinter and join the process, but given the goal of the war, to provide stability for the government, the war is a long way from lost

The thing to remember is that every time an invitation to talk has been floated, the Taliban leadership reject it. Another thing to note is the Taliban leadership changes frequently, cause we keep killing them, providing the new Taliban leadership with the motivation to talk..and even more so, the soft Taliban whose morale for the Taliban cause isn't as religious as the often dying leaders...they are the ones most likely to switch sides, provided that NATO can provide stability to the Afghan government.

I'm thankful for your return, especially on a topic such as this where you can help add clarity.

One thing I have never been clear on is our goal there. If it is as you have stated to provide stability for the government, then that makes sense. Even our strategy of long-term occupation and wearing down the opposition makes sense. Granted, this was also the strategy in Vietnam but the casualties are far below what they were for that war and the opposition seems to be far weaker.

Can you, though, provide a cite for me where somebody states the objective - from the point of view of Canada or even NATO ? That would help me in future discussions, thanks.

[eyeball]

Can you, though, provide a cite for me where somebody states the objective - from the point of view of Canada or even NATO ? That would help me in future discussions, thanks.

Troll.

[M.Dancer]

Can you, though, provide a cite for me where somebody states the objective - from the point of view of Canada or even NATO ? That would help me in future discussions, thanks.

In future, when asking for citations for things that fall into the realm of common knowledge, like "is the world flat?" or "who is buries in Grant's Tomb?" please forward your request to [email protected]

http://www.isaf.nato.int/en/our-mission/

ISAF, in support of the Government of the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan, conducts operations in Afghanistan to reduce the capability and will of the insurgency, support the growth in capacity and capability of the Afghan National Security Forces (ANSF), and facilitate improvements in governance and socio-economic development, in order to provide a secure environment for sustainable stability that is observable to the population

.

[eyeball]

ISAF, in support of the Government of the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan, conducts operations in Afghanistan to reduce the capability and will of the insurgency, support the growth in capacity and capability of the Afghan National Security Forces (ANSF), and facilitate improvements in governance and socio-economic development, in order to provide a secure environment for sustainable stability that is observable to the population

This wasn't penned until Dec 2001...following the actual invasion which started in Oct 2001...to smoke Bin Laden out of his cave...THAT'S what the original objective was, everything else was, has and still is being made up on the fly as we go.

[M.Dancer]

This wasn't penned until Dec 2001...following the actual invasion which started in Oct 2001...to smoke Bin Laden out of his cave...THAT'S what the original objective was, everything else was, has and still is being made up on the fly as we go.

So what? Had it been penned before the invasion, you and the other hairshirt brigade would be screaming conspiracy as you wrap your tinfoil hats even tighter....

But the fact remains that the goal, the winning conditions have been stated and have been consisitant and have been in place ever since the fall of the Taliban...despite what your small appliances tell you at night.

[M.Dancer]

to smoke Bin Laden out of his cave...THAT'S what the original objective was, everything else was, has and still is being made up on the fly as we go.

To save mikey some time...

Can you, though, provide a cite for me where somebody states this objective - from the point of view of Canada, NATO or even Proctor Silex? That would help me in future discussions, thanks

[eyeball]

So what? Had it been penned before the invasion, you and the other hairshirt brigade would be screaming conspiracy as you wrap your tinfoil hats even tighter....

But the fact remains that the goal, the winning conditions have been stated and have been consisitant and have been in place ever since the fall of the Taliban...despite what your small appliances tell you at night.

Ah, here's the Morris we all know and love, screaming about tin-foil, as usual.

Didn't take you long to back into your stride did it?

[DogOnPorch]

Ah, here's the Morris we all know and love, screaming about tin-foil, as usual.

Didn't take you long to back into your stride did it?

Well, are you like bloodyminded and figure Viet-Nam was American aggression. Call it a test...

[M.Dancer]

Ah, here's the Morris we all know and love, screaming about tin-foil, as usual.

Didn't take you long to back into your stride did it?

It is the proper response when faced with your phantasmagorical illusions....

[Born Free]

The Americans and SEATO weren't 'aggressors'. Best brush-up on your history.

Yes they were...

[eyeball]

To save mikey some time...

Can you, though, provide a cite for me where somebody states this objective - from the point of view of Canada, NATO or even Proctor Silex? That would help me in future discussions, thanks

This act will not stand. We will find who did it. We will smoke them out of their holes; we will get them running; and we will bring them to justice. We will not only deal with those who dare attack America, we will deal with those who harbor them, and feed them, and house them. Make no mistake about it. Underneath our tears is the strong determination of America to win this war. And we will win it.

George W. Bush

September 15, 2001

Cite

Edited February 1, 2010 by eyeball

[DogOnPorch]

Yes they were...

No they weren't.

[M.Dancer]

Cite

So you think that's the mandate of the ISAF?

Or perhaps you think it's the mandate of Operation Enduriong Freedom?

...maybe the right word is feel, thinking denotes something else

....you feel Bush's quote is the mandate for Operation Enduring Freedom?

Perhaps you feel you can ...umm....prove that?

Never mind, I would want to tax your feeling abilities...here is the mandate for Operation Enduring Freedom.

The initial military objectives of OEF-A, as articulated by Former President George W. Bush in his Sept. 20th Address to a Joint Session of Congress and his Oct. 7th address to the country, included the destruction of terrorist training camps and infrastructure within Afghanistan, the capture of al-Qaeda leaders, and the cessation of terrorist activities in Afghanistan."[8][9][10]

The camps have been destroyed, Gitmo was filled and Aghanistan is no longer a sponsor for terror. Mission moved to ISAF.

[eyeball]

....you feel Bush's quote is the mandate for Operation Enduring Freedom?

It's the source of the objective you asked for.

Can you, though, provide a cite for me where somebody states this objective...

Remember now?

Edited February 1, 2010 by eyeball