Official: Neocons Swinging from Taliban Nuts

Originally posted by Ushgarak
A Democracy can be protected. The only way for the Taliban to remove Democracy is if they attack it, and I don't see why that is more likely if they are invited to join in the democratic process.

It's not as if this is handing them back all they want. The Taliban were not a populist movement; they seized power by military means. They don't WANT to be in a Democracy because they know they'll never get the power they had when they ruled by force. They are extremists and they are totalitarian. This is absolutely not what they want.

But it would be a fair and helpful offer.

so at best its a doomed olive branch...but why? to prove how forgiving we are?

as you seem to point out, compromise is not in their nature at all. they will not share power as to do so would be a complete contradiction of their ideal, and render themselves as infidels. the ideal is based on the destruction of anything that is not fundamentalist islam...or more specifically their interpretation of.

what does such a gesture symbolise to them other than our weakness and cowardice? what message does this extend to them besides "congratulations, you're winning"

:edit: in response to your edit, it seems hardy consequential how the general public in afghanistan views the regime, since it governs by fear, and not by appealing to their sensibilities. its a givernment of thugs, and nothing more. with an ak47 pointed to your temple, you will vote for the taliban as well as the exclusion of any other ideal represented in your democracy. a dictatorship will be democratically elected. we could argue this, or we could just watch this unfold, because it will.

It certainly does not say they are winning. But a desire from the US for a non-compromise, 'seek total victory only' approach would certainly be handing them a victory.

It is the right thing to do, politically. If Afghanistan becomes properly democratic, then attacking it in the name of attacking the US doesn't work any more. Many of those joining them do so for precisely that reason. Once that is not there, and if they have rejected the democratic process, all they have left is that they are a bunch of fundamentalist nutjobs in a country which is no longer ruled by warlords carrying iron any more.

They'll have to accept, and it will proceed well from there if done right.

"Afghanistan U.S. Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist said Monday that the Afghan guerrilla war can never be won militarily and called for efforts to bring the Taliban and their supporters into the Afghan government."

what else could that possibly mean? if it declaired that we cannot win, what else could be deducted besides the notion that they are winning?

Do you really see success and failure in Afghanistan based purely on military means?

If so, then yes, you will definitely lose unless you are prepared to annihilate the country.

Including them in the Democratic process does not say "You are winning," it says "We are doing the right thing, which is why WE will win."

And in response to your edited response to my edit... that is how it WAS, but it won;t be how it is once Democracy takes hold. Like I say, a Democracy can be protected, and if you worry that the Taliban will try and rule by fear and violence, they can try that anyway, invited to Democracy or not. So it's not really relevant.

I somehow doubt that if the Taliban is allowed back they're gonna be the same as before. Basically is just letting them keep their hatred but not allowing them to have weapons. Eventually this is like the black panthers a group of angry people disarmed.

Yup, very much so.

Originally posted by Ushgarak
Do you really see success and failure in Afghanistan based purely on military means?

If so, then yes, you will definitely lose unless you are prepared to annihilate the country.

just the taliban. i have then and now wanted to see the taliban destroyed utterly. and now it is clear that they will be allowed to rule again. it sucks for a nation which is ruled by such a dangerous regime. sure wouldnt have wanted to live in germany, 1945.

Ok, well, simple answer for you- you will never completely destroy the Taliban. Whilst under attack from the US they are too much of a rallying call for anti-US volunteers, the resource for which is endless where the US's resolve to fight and take casualties is not.

Playing smart is the way to defeat the forces of fundamentalism- and this is the way forwards.

Originally posted by Ushgarak
Ok, well, simple answer for you- you will never completely destroy the Taliban. Whilst under attack from the US they are too much of a rallying call for anti-US volunteers, the resource for which is endless where the US's resolve to fight and take casulties is not.

Playing smart is the way to defeat the forces of fundamentalism- and this is the way forwards.

or we could have devoted our resources to fighting them as opposed to changing the regime of a completely unrelated nation...we could have won this war. unfortunately there is no profit in afghanistan, unless we got into the herion business.

No, that would have made no difference. In the terms of a traditional war, the Taliban were defeated as heavily and totally as they ever could be.

If every Allied solider in Iraq was in Afghanistan instead... no difference. Just more casualties on both sides.

i disagree...i think we could have completely crushed them and aided afghanistan in building a democracy free of these thugs...which is all i can say since neither of us are fortune tellers.

i cant help but conclude from all this that you feel the iraq war is nothing more than a waste of life and resources, and was perhaps a complete waste from the get go. am i correct? if not, why?

They WERE completely crushed, in as much as a military could ever crush them.

But now they are a focal point for anti-US resistance, and as I said, the recourse for that is limitless, whereas the US' resolve is not, so putting more men in- short of that needed to keep the Government secure- achieves bugger all! You cannot shoot them all to death, it will never, ever happen.

Originally posted by Ushgarak
They WERE completely crushed, in as much as a military could ever crush them.

But now they are a focal point for anti-US resistance, and as I said, the recourse for that is limitless, whereas the US' resolve is not, so putting more men in- short of that needed to keep the Government secure- achieves bugger all! You cannot shoot them all to death, it will never, ever happen.

do you think that they would still have been a symbol of anti-us resistance if we had just attacked them and left iraq out of the equation? i feel it would have made all the difference. then it would have been a simple action-reaction war as opposed to the blatant attempt at dominating the whole of the middle east through the unprovoked war in iraq as well as pre-war rhetoric toward iran.

also, i edited my previous post, or rather added to...a question

Err, actually, yes, I very much think it would have been such a symbol. It would be much worse there, actually, because right now those who want to fight the US have to choose where to go; Iraq or Afghanistan.

And no, I don't think that about the Iraq war. The Government there, which was pretty evil, was destroyed, and now the proper application of democracy can create something better.

Originally posted by Ushgarak
Err, actually, yes, I very much think it would have been such a symbol. It would be much worse there, actually, because right now those who want to fight the US have to choose where to go; Iraq or Afghanistan.

And no, I don't think that about the Iraq war. The Government there, which was pretty evil, was destroyed, and now the proper application of democracy can create something better.

so to defeat an oppressive regime brings something better? we aided afghanistan in defeating the occupying russians...why did that not bring better days to afghanistan? im sorry, but you seem to hold to the myth that democracy spreads like wildfire once an oppressive government is toppled. i argue that all thats left is a power vaccume with civil war in the wait, as we will see in iraq.

absolute optimism in the face of contradicting history is the flaw in your argument, imho

No, defeating an oppressive regime makes it POSSIBLE, for there to be something better. Not certain. It is simple logic.

Destroying the Taliban makes it possible for democracy to come there. Defeating Hussein makes it possible for something better to come there.

Nothing better to Afghanistan came ater the Russians because no-one gave a shit beyond defeating the Russians. It's not the same. Now, selfish reasons or otherwise, the interest is very much in creating sustainable democracies.

It's definitely worth a shot, and it is far more likely to succeed than your "wipe them out" sentiment.

Originally posted by Ushgarak
No, defeating an oppressive regime makes it POSSIBLE, for there to be something better. Not certain. It is simple logic.

it also leaves it very very PROBABLE that the taliban will once again claim absolute authority in afghanistan and the threat which claimed so many innocent lives will continue to thrive and plot/conspire.

Originally posted by Ushgarak
Destroying the Taliban makes it possible for democracy to come there. Defeating Hussein makes it possible for something better to come there.

but...the whole point of this argument centers around the fact that we have no and apparently will not destroy the taliban. please cease suggesting it as some potentially compromising ideal, because it isnt. it clearly is not and they will not share power. at best they will invite such a cease-fire and feign cooperation while regrouping. regardless of our actions, they are at war with us and intend to destroy our way of life. thats why they attacked us in the first place

Originally posted by Ushgarak
Nothing better to Afghanistan came ater the Russians because no-one gave a shit beyond defeating the Russians. It's not the same. Now, selfish reasons or otherwise, the interest is very much in creating sustainable democracies.

no, the interest is simply pulling out of afghanistan and giving up. simple as that. all this optimistic talk of a new age of compromise in democracy is to pacify those who would question just what was the point in all this, and why are those who attacked us allowed to continue governing.

Originally posted by Ushgarak
it's definitely worth a shot, and it is far more likely to succeed than your "wipe them out" sentiment.

you can suggest that i call for genocide all you wish, and make as many assumptions as you please, but almost 100% unanimous support was given for u.s. forces to overthrow the taliban. only 20,000 u.s. troops were sent there, while over 170000 were sent to iraq. how does this make sense? america wanted the taliban wiped out, not just me. now all of the sudden it doesnt matter, because as long as there is a diplomatic alternative, that is the correct course of action. great, wonderful. but then you can turn around and justify the war in iraq, and forsake the same philosophy when there certainly was diplomatic means of avoiding it.

saddam hussein never attacked america, the taliban did. quite frankly i dont care how evil he was. the point of going into war was to eliminate the threat which attacked us. that has failed.

Ush is right...

Afghanistan will never be a democratic country unless you allow them to enter the government. The government can never rule the people unless the mayority agrees with it, and even then it will be damned hard for the country. Even if the US would have used all its troops in Afghanistan it's unlikely that they could have trully destroyed the Taliban, and even if they could the idea's would exist and they would enter government anyway, maybe by a different name but that would be the only difference.

And forbidding those party's, will just make sure the next best thing goes into power, that a civil war will start or that a party gets elected into power changes the law so the Taliban can enter politics then dismisses itself and hold new elections making the Taliban win... Democracy with allowing all party's is the only way to make the country democratic. Even if the chance of that actually happening and lasting is slim to none.

I guess I could be convinced into letting some of the taliban into govt. But I'd never agree to letting the former leaders participate. With them we do need to "wipe them out". It's only with the lower ranking taliban who can still think or look at things differently that I could ever accept.

Take the Germany example. We didn't let the Nazi party start up again after the war. Some people who had been members of that party may have regained voting and other rights, but not the leaders. The party was disbanded. Same thing should happen with the Taliban (and the Ba'athists in Iraq), people should be given rights, not parties.

Originally posted by docb77
I guess I could be convinced into letting some of the taliban into govt. But I'd never agree to letting the former leaders participate. With them we do need to "wipe them out". It's only with the lower ranking taliban who can still think or look at things differently that I could ever accept.

Take the Germany example. We didn't let the Nazi party start up again after the war. Some people who had been members of that party may have regained voting and other rights, but not the leaders. The party was disbanded. Same thing should happen with the Taliban (and the Ba'athists in Iraq), people should be given rights, not parties.

The Nazi's were beaten in a full out war, their leadership was arrested the people's love for the government had pretty much ceased to exist and in time the Germans became the greatest anti-nazi people out there. Until of course recently where some of them unfortunally have like many people in other country's taken a liken to the idea's of Hitler.

In Afghanistan the Taliban is popular, their leaders are free and alive and able to urge people to fight... When there is no real chance of destroying them you have to find other ways to work with them, democracy is one way. And really Osama won't run for president...