- Joined
- Jun 23, 2009
- Messages
- 133,631
- Reaction score
- 30,937
- Location
- Bagdad, La.
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Very Conservative
It's decentralized because of the Taliban.
They are not, but it doesn't change the fact that Afghanistan has been a decentralized country for a very long time, so it's not as if we're talking about conventional governance; especially once you're out of Kabul. The Soviets would have been close to winning the war, but the question is how long would have they been able to keep it.
It's decentralized because of the Taliban.
It's a lack of bomb dropping, bullet shooting and missile launching.
It worked in Vietnam.
I recall hearing somewhere that they offered peace talks back when this **** first started, but we turned them down.From Reuters
'Unacceptable' for Taliban to refuse peace talks, U.S. official says
KABUL (Reuters) - Pressure is building on the Taliban to respond to President Ashraf Ghani’s offer for peace talks, in the face of growing demands for an end to the 17-year-long war in Afghanistan, a senior U.S. official said.
“Increasingly, I think it’s becoming unacceptable for the Taliban not to negotiate,” Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary for South and Central Asia Alice Wells told reporters during a visit to Kabul.
“Right now it’s the Taliban leaders, and frankly it’s Taliban leaders who aren’t residing in Afghanistan, who are the obstacle to a negotiated political settlement,” said Wells, one of the State Department’s top officials dealing with Afghanistan.
Her remarks were made on Saturday but embargoed for release on Sunday.
COMMENT:-
Generally speaking, the side that thinks that it is winning doesn't call for "negotiations".
On the other hand, exactly how does Mr. Trump's administration think that it is going to "negotiate" a solution which leaves the Taliban with some significant political say in Afghanistan when it is the position of the US government that the Taliban is a terrorist organization that has to be wiped out? And, why would the Taliban believe the US government when it says that it is prepared to allow the Taliban to have some significant political say in Afghanistan after the US government invaded Afghanistan in order to ensure that the Taliban had no significant political say in Afghanistan?
There it is. The Libbos don't want that because they think the Tals are the good guys.
About the most idiotic thing you've said.
We didn't win Vietnam though. So.
"Unacceptable"?
:lamo
Russia couldn't tame that country with well over a million troops. We couldn't with a whole lot less. Why the **** would they negotiate? They are perfectly well aware that it would take a tremendous effort to actually subdue that large country of ruinous terrain, root everyone out, etc. They aren't a standing army. We do not have the means to do what we would need to do were our threats to mean anything.
Unacceptable. HAH!
I recall hearing somewhere that they offered peace talks back when this **** first started, but we turned them down.
Possibly they don't trust us.
U.S. forces weren't defeated. So...
German forces weren't defeated in ww1 either.
Truth hurts?
Picky, picky, picky.
"WE" won that one.
Last Hundred Days.
Canada kicking butts and taking names.
Oh come on now!!!!!!!!!!
Everyone knows that the United States of America won both WWI and WWII and the Korean War and the Vietnam War and the War of 1812 all by itself even though Germany, China, Japan, France, the UK and Russia were allied against it.
German forces weren't defeated in ww1 either.
Last Hundred Days.
Canada kicking butts and taking names.
From Reuters
'Unacceptable' for Taliban to refuse peace talks, U.S. official says
KABUL (Reuters) - Pressure is building on the Taliban to respond to President Ashraf Ghani’s offer for peace talks, in the face of growing demands for an end to the 17-year-long war in Afghanistan, a senior U.S. official said.
“Increasingly, I think it’s becoming unacceptable for the Taliban not to negotiate,” Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary for South and Central Asia Alice Wells told reporters during a visit to Kabul.
“Right now it’s the Taliban leaders, and frankly it’s Taliban leaders who aren’t residing in Afghanistan, who are the obstacle to a negotiated political settlement,” said Wells, one of the State Department’s top officials dealing with Afghanistan.
Her remarks were made on Saturday but embargoed for release on Sunday.
COMMENT:-
Generally speaking, the side that thinks that it is winning doesn't call for "negotiations".
On the other hand, exactly how does Mr. Trump's administration think that it is going to "negotiate" a solution which leaves the Taliban with some significant political say in Afghanistan when it is the position of the US government that the Taliban is a terrorist organization that has to be wiped out? And, why would the Taliban believe the US government when it says that it is prepared to allow the Taliban to have some significant political say in Afghanistan after the US government invaded Afghanistan in order to ensure that the Taliban had no significant political say in Afghanistan?
They didn't surrender.
Thanks to The United States.
Thanks to The United States.
Prior to the US invasion and conquest of Afghanistan, the Taliban (which was the government of Afghanistan at the time) offered to turn Osama bin Laden over to the US government PROVIDED that the US government (in essence) "presented an extraditable case" (even though there was no extradition treaty between the US and Afghanistan).
At the time, the US government did NOT have an "extraditable case" to present.
The US government refused the offer and demanded that the Taliban turn Osama bin Laden over to the US regardless of the laws of Afghanistan and international law on the basis of "Because we tell you to do it.".
To say that that "justified" the invasion and conquest of Afghanistan is the same thing as saying that a robber would be "justified" in killing someone if the robber told the victim that they would kill the victim if the victim didn't hand over their money and the victim said that they would only do so in compliance with the law.
Yeahright.
The US contribution to WW1-
1- Show up when it's nearly over.
2- Spend 8 or 9 months making the same mistakes everyone else made 4 years before.
3- Join the parade.
No, a better example would be this.
Joe A goes on a rampage, shooting up, say, a mall. Jim B has been friends with Joe A and let Joe and his friends stay his house and plan their attack. The cops show up to hunt Joe A down--- Jim B attempts to give him time to escape by stalling. He knows Joe A was responsible; but Joe killed people Jim hates, so Jim simply doesn't care. The cops eventually get tired and arrest Jim for helping Joe and shooting at the police who show up to look for Joe. As it turns out, Jim has a rap sheet as long as his arm and has been terrorizing his neighborhood for years.
The Taliban are not the victims here. I hate to break it to you.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?