Frist calls for efforts to bring Taliban into Afghan government

Text-only Version: Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.



PVS
http://www.iht.com/bin/print_ipub.php?file=/articles/ap/2006/10/02/asia/AS_GEN_Afghanistan_Frist.php





discuss

*topic reposted for closed thread*

jaden101
and once again for the recorded...retarted idea to bring the taliban into power

they were popular as a government because they stamped out corruption and may well get voted into power...(see my Hamas point in closed thread)

saying that...it would most likely be a different scenario because women can vote...i cant really see them voting taliban somehow

Darth Kreiger
Originally posted by jaden101
and once again for the recorded...retarted idea to bring the taliban into power

they were popular as a government because they stamped out corruption and may well get voted into power...(see my Hamas point in closed thread)

saying that...it would most likely be a different scenario because women can vote...i cant really see them voting taliban somehow

Nailpolish = Cut-off Finger

jaden101
Originally posted by Darth Kreiger
Nailpolish = Cut-off Finger

indeed...by the aptly named "ministry for the protection of virtue and prevention of vice"...and that was the least of womens worries under the taliban

the problem is how would you even begin negotiations if it were a plausible idea?

the ideals of the taliban are so at odds with sharia law (that they imposed in 1994 when they came to power) that there is no way to reconcile the 2 through negotiations

a related point is that the BBC are currently running a tv series about whether it is time to start negotiating with al-qaeda....there is clearly no middle ground that is acceptable to each party...it is a battle of ideals and either one of them prevails or the world retreats its quest for globalisation and we all go back to being nations of inward looking xenophobes

and even then i dont think that is possible given the increasing size of the worlds populations and our dependancy on other countries to provide goods etc

Ya Krunk'd Floo
I find it ridiculous that people can actually try to argue for this. Also, most of those that do, are the same people who cited reasons for the invasion of Afghanistan like "Oh, the Taliban are bad. We're doing Afghanistan a favor..."!

If the ultimate reason for the invasion was to oust the terrorist-harbouring Taliban, how can anyone - who wishes to be taken seriously, Ush - really believe that this is the only option available. "They're bad, but we can't beat them, so let's put them back" - that's the basic reasoning.

PVS
its really been an eye opener for me. i was sure the response would not be what it was. it.....gives me a migrane if i try too hard to make sense of it...laboring over the impossible is draining

Darth Kreiger
Originally posted by Ya Krunk'd Floo
I find it ridiculous that people can actually try to argue for this. Also, most of those that do, are the same people who cited reasons for the invasion of Afghanistan like "Oh, the Taliban are bad. We're doing Afghanistan a favor..."!

If the ultimate reason for the invasion was to oust the terrorist-harbouring Taliban, how can anyone - who wishes to be taken seriously, Ush - really believe that this is the only option available. "They're bad, but we can't beat them, so let's put them back" - that's the basic reasoning.

Ironically, no one supports this notion, PVS thinks this is Conservative view, we explain

PVS
ironically, i read nothing but support from people whos' opinions are at least 25%-50% respected on this forum. (yes, the implications were deliberate, so dont ask)

jaden101
politicians rarely open their idiotic traps without speaking to an advisor...clearly the person advising Frist is an idiot

it looks highly reactionary...he visited a base in a taliban stronghold...gets a bad impression...knows that there is generally little support for sending more troops and spending more money...and so cow-towing seems like an option people might like

it gets put forward as an option...everyone goes **** up and calls it for the idiotic idea...and the whole gets forgotten about (at least until after the mid-terms)

Darth Kreiger
Originally posted by PVS
ironically, i read nothing but support from people whos' opinions are at least 25%-50% respected on this forum. (yes, the implications were deliberate, so dont ask)

Support from the Country for Clarification....

25-50% Respected because Liberals think Conservatives are all "War-Mongering Douchebags" ninja

PVS
Originally posted by Darth Kreiger
Support from the Country for Clarification....

25-50% Respected because Liberals think Conservatives are all "War-Mongering Douchebags" ninja

...what? no....forget it. you win the thread by sympathy vote

jaden101
looking back over the old thread i saw that ush supported the idea...and cited northern ireland as an example...there is still huge amounts of personal violence (murders, knee-cappings etc) based around sectarianism...not to mention that the northern ireland assembly was disbanded due to corruption and spy-rings...and now the leading unionists are one of the more extreme factions...and were voted into power...and thus killed off any hope for real settlement there

Ya Krunk'd Floo
Originally posted by Darth Kreiger
Ironically, no one supports this notion, PVS thinks this is Conservative view, we explain

Ironically, you seem to be able to write, but you can't read.

KidRock
Setting up the Taliban as puppets isnt a bad idea. It will cut the killing of US soldiers by Taliban guerillas and the taliban wont have any real power. It's not like the country will turn into what it was prior to the US invasion. You're nuts if you(or the media) try to imply Bush will setup a new Taliban government then just leave the country.

PVS
the implication is that the taliban will reclain rule regardless, and that offering them representation will only offer a springboard to that. as far as "give peace a chance"....we did....and they attacked us...

KidRock
The Taliban wont reclaim rule of Afghanistan while Bush is in the whitehouse. Like I said I think having the Taliban be represted is bs, nothing but a farce by the US to give the implication that the Taliban actually does have some power in hope to slow down the guerilla attacks.

You put someone like John Kerry in the whitehouse and I wouldnt be surprised to see the military pull out of Afghanistan and see the Taliban come to power again.

Imperial_Samura
Originally posted by KidRock
The Taliban wont reclaim rule of Afghanistan while Bush is in the whitehouse. Like I said I think having the Taliban be represted is bs, nothing but a farce by the US to give the implication that the Taliban actually does have some power in hope to slow down the guerilla attacks.

You put someone like John Kerry in the whitehouse and I wouldnt be surprised to see the military pull out of Afghanistan and see the Taliban come to power again.

Arguably I think it is counter productive to reinstall any of the Taliban, but it isn't so unusual. As we saw in Iraq with former "moderate" members of the old regime being reinstalled due to the lack of people with sufficient knowledge/skill in the field of political administration - of course the lack of such people is due to the former regimes driving out of such people, and now with the massive brain drains being experienced in both nations as everyone capable of leaving does.

Though it is likely just as much a propaganda move. The US has failed to stamp out the Taliban - they are still a powerful faction carrying out attacks and destabilising the rebuilding. Bring in some "moderate" members willing to smile for the cameras and say "The Taliban is now working with - clearly things are going good" - the implementation of which will likely not have the desired effects.

Alliance
Originally posted by PVS
http://www.iht.com/bin/print_ipub.php?file=/articles/ap/2006/10/02/asia/AS_GEN_Afghanistan_Frist.php

Well isn't this peachy.

jaden101
Originally posted by PVS
the implication is that the taliban will reclain rule regardless, and that offering them representation will only offer a springboard to that. as far as "give peace a chance"....we did....and they attacked us...


mmm...i think thats a bit of a simplistic take on it...you cant forget the way the US used the mujahadeen to fight the soviet union and then treated them like dirt when the soviet union fell

which is exactly what we'll do in the not too distant future with saudi arabia when their usefulness (oil) runs out

namely it'll come back and bite the US on the ass with a vengence

Ushgarak
Originally posted by Ya Krunk'd Floo
I find it ridiculous that people can actually try to argue for this. Also, most of those that do, are the same people who cited reasons for the invasion of Afghanistan like "Oh, the Taliban are bad. We're doing Afghanistan a favor..."!

If the ultimate reason for the invasion was to oust the terrorist-harbouring Taliban, how can anyone - who wishes to be taken seriously, Ush - really believe that this is the only option available. "They're bad, but we can't beat them, so let's put them back" - that's the basic reasoning.

Because it would be the smart thing to do, which is obviously why you are unable to understand it.

This IS the way these things are won. it's been used in Northern Ireland, a similar thing is being done in Iraq, and there is no reason not to do it here.

As a controlling Government, the Taliban ARE ousted. As a terrorist force, it is near impossible to defeat them militarily.

This is the way to defeat them politically. This is NOT 'return the Taliban to power'. It is "lessen the violence for everyone, and give them less room to claim unfair oppression, by not excluding them from the Democratic process, for those who give up the ways of violence." That's very different, and it is very commendable.

And jaden- as regards Northern Ireland, so what? No-one claimed it would go, in one step, to fairy tale perfection. But here is the important thing- it is much better than it was. The bombings have stopped, the military presence scaled back. Peace IS winning, and violence declining in favour of the political process, which is how it should be. Now a generation can grow up with none of this, and once that has happened, a return is unthinkable. The sectarianism will wither and die.

Northern Ireland is becoming a shining beacon of how these things can work. Shoddily, painfully, with all manner of seemingly illogical turns... but ultimately successful.

Like I say, the alternative being offered is to try and win the whole thing militarily. This cannot be done! Military can provide security for the new Government, but it can never destroy a terrorrist network with an effectively unlimited supply of manpower.

And nor would mean the deaths were for nothing. What a very odd view! The objective was to remove a security threat to the US, twinned with a more moral objective involving the creation of a stable, democratic Afghanistan. This kind of thinking is the way forwards to make that happen. It is clinging to military means alone that will mean that the dead- and plenty more to come- will have died for nothing.

The military action did two things. It removed the Government., That was vital because they were both harbouring and encouraging fundamentalist terrorism, and because no stable, democratic Afghanistan could exist whilst it was there. Secondly, as I say above, it can protect the new, fledgling Government.

But that is as far as it will take you. It has opened a door to try something better.

jaden101
how can you say Northern Ireland and Iraq are good examples and keep a straight face...more people have died in Iraq since the creation of the democracy that died during the toppling of the dictatorship

and the peace process has in Northern Ireland has been going on for 8 years (since the Omagh bombing) and has achieved a greater polarization of protestants and catholics...which is evident in the fact the Ian Paisley won the last elections

not to mention that there IS NO NORTHERN IRELAND GOVERNMENT...it was disbanded after the spy scandel...and doesn't look like getting on track any time in the near future

hardly shining examples of changes from violence to peace are they

Ushgarak
Well, for Northern Ireland, yes it is, because there was once continuous violence and now it is only sporadic. Like I said, yes, there are all sorts of troubles, but it is better than it was, and it will improve.

The task in Iraq is much harder because it is representative of a much wider struggle to do with the US. But the nay-sayers can give no better alternative and ignore the important thing- that the longer you can keep it goether, the more likely it becomes that things will improve.

And they will. It will take a damn long time, but they will. And politics is the way to do it, not violence. And Northern Ireland has not been 'given' to anyone other than the democratic will of those within it.

What really gets me is that it is these "Never give them an inch" kind of opinions that kept the Northern Ireland conflict going on for decades longer than it needed to. Ultimately, it was when the leaders on all sides agreed that giving an inch was better than another decade of deaths that things have started to improve.

I keep saying this. It is not easy, and it will start in chaos, and there will be all sorts of wrongs and idiocies along the way. But it is still the best way.

Ya Krunk'd Floo
Originally posted by Ushgarak
Because it would be the smart thing to do, which is obviously why you are unable to understand it.

This IS the way these things are won. it's been used in Northern Ireland, a similar thing is being done in Iraq, and there is no reason not to do it here.

As a controlling Government, the Taliban ARE ousted. As a terrorist force, it is near impossible to defeat them militarily.

This is the way to defeat them politically. This is NOT 'return the Taliban to power'. It is "lessen the violence for everyone, and give them less room to claim unfair oppression, by not excluding them from the Democratic process, for those who give up the ways of violence." That's very different, and it is very commendable.

The way you attempt to dress-up your naivety and incomprehension as knowingness and insight is laughable. Do you really think the Taliban are going to play donkey and go for the carrot? Don't be so foolish! The circumstances would simply lead to a situation akin to that of the Hezbollah/Hamas representation within the Palestinian government.

jaden101
Originally posted by Ushgarak
Well, for Northern Ireland, yes it is, because there was once continuous violence and now it is only sporadic. Like I said, yes, there are all sorts of troubles, but it is better than it was, and it will improve.

The task in Iraq is much harder because it is representative of a much wider struggle to do with the US. But the nay-sayers can give no better alternative and ignore the important thing- that the longer you can keep it goether, the more likely it becomes that things will improve.

And they will. It will take a damn long time, but they will. And politics is the way to do it, not violence. And Northern Ireland has not been 'given' to anyone other than the democratic will of those within it.

What really gets me is that it is these "Never give them an inch" kind of opinions that kept the Northern Ireland conflict going on for decades longer than it needed to. Ultimately, it was when the leaders on all sides agreed that giving an inch was better than another decade of deaths that things have started to improve.

I keep saying this. It is not easy, and it will start in chaos, and there will be all sorts of wrongs and idiocies along the way. But it is still the best way.

the NI situation has only improved because little happens on the UK mainland now...sectarian murders are still rife in northern ireland and are dismissed as drug related by the politicians to try and avoid uproar...and i still hardly think that a polarization to extremes of opinion is making progress...if anything it will result in more violence and resentment

the difference with Iraq and Afgahnistan is that we've taken away total control from the regimes and yet are naive to think that if we give them a tiny bit of that power back then that will appease them and stop their violence...it wont...they wont be happy until total control is theirs again

you also completely dismiss the ideology of the taliban...you expect that a group who are intent on implementing Sharia law will willingly be part of a democratic process...the 2 are utterly incompatible with one another

Text-only Version: Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.