The Taliban

Apologies to those that don't agree
Sorry if I may have offended thee
Should think through more what I say

Hope I haven't ruined your day
Or perhaps things may get better see
Listening to those folks on Fox TV
Excuse me please for what I done
Sex,Weed, and Rock and Roll will now be my only fun


Mea Culpa

BTW, I have to correct a statement from a previous post in this thread. There has been some discussion of 'neocons' on another thread. In the purest definition of a Neocon, Dick Cheney is not one. I forget who the quote is attributable to, but is goes "A neocon is a liberal mugged by reality'. Simply, the term Neocon means 'new conservative', or a democrat who eventually becomes a republican, primarily because of national security concerns. If Joe Lieberman were to defect to the republican party, as he almost did before McCain picked Palin, he would be a bona fide neocon.

Because neocons defect to the republican party for national security reasons, they do have a tendency to have very clear and unified views on foreign policy, which are coincident with Cheney's philosophy...so many people have started to use the term as a description of foreign policy philosophy...and quite often in a pejorative sense.

Now, many Neocons are like Lieberman...jewish. American jews are primarily democrats, but occasionally high profile jews will defect to the republicans, and become noecons (worried about the survival of Israel). For this reason, many have associated the pejorative use of 'neocon' to be code for 'jews'.

Anyway, I see it constantly, but I had to mention it...when I see Cheny, Rice, Rumsfeld called neocons, I usually quit reading, because 90% of those who use the term are unclear over its meaning or origin. Originally Posted by lacrew_2000

Actually...

The term Neocon has had many definitions over time. For example; This is Dick Cheney in 1992.

"I would guess if we had gone in there, I would still have forces in Baghdad today. We'd be running the country. We would not have been able to get everybody out and bring everybody home.... And the question in my mind is how many additional American casualties is Saddam [Hussein] worth? And the answer is not that damned many. So, I think we got it right, both when we decided to expel him from Kuwait, but also when the president made the decision that we'd achieved our objectives and we were not going to go get bogged down in the problems of trying to take over and govern Iraq."

The Dick Cheney of the 2000s sung a different tune. He sung a neocon tune. If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck...

Here's one of the most recent descriptions of a Neocon I found;

• a tendency to see the world in binary good/evil terms
• low tolerance for diplomacy
• readiness to use military force
• emphasis on US unilateral action
• disdain for multilateral organizations
• focus on the Middle East
• an us versus them mentality

If you want to go by "purest definition" then I think former Democrat (1929-1962) Ronald Reagan would qualify as a neocon.

once I again can anybody say in one or 2 sentences how to win no links just how to win

Iraq: Win by not going to war in Iraq.
Afghanistan: Win by not going to war in Iraq.

Ta-daa!

Sure cheaper, you kill everyone you see over there, you kill them in every conceivable way you can. Thats how you do it in two sentences. But the reality is it more complicated than you know.

one on our problems is we fight the same people that we armed not to long ago remember just take a long thought on that guys

Iraq: Win by don't going to war in Iraq.
Afghanistan: Win by don't going to war in Iraq.

Ta-daa! Originally Posted by Longermonger

It might be just a little bit two late for these suggestions to work, but I would not disagree totally with the accessment. One reality is that whether or not we went to war in Iraq, the administration did not have any plans to send more than 40,000 troops, thinking they could do it with Special Forces and local militia's. I would say that stratagey may work for the initial take over of the country but the only way to control a country is to occupy it, they should have at least doubled the troop count.

My personal opinon is the big O should tell both of their countrys they have 6 months to prepare for securing their own country, we should then pull out in phases of 10,000 troops a month in Afghanistan and 30 thousands troops a month in Iraq.

one on our problems is we fight the same people that we armed not to long ago remember just take a long thought on that guys Originally Posted by Cheaper2buyit

Brother that is always the case, one day their friends, next day their enemies. We should have never left Afghanistan after we helped Bin Ladin run the Russians out of town. If we had stayed and helped them rebuild we would have had a different outcome 20 years later, instead we pulled out and left a country ripe for take over from the Taliban.

Personally I think its time for American to back away from being the worlds policeman, and take a little more of an Isolationist prespective.

yep me too fuck em all & any time some one sends a guy or gal over here to start shit then show them what 400 bunker busters look like when they all hit one spot I mean take 5 miles and just bomb it till they have earthquakes for the next 10 years or at least after shocks

Brother that is always the case, one day their friends, next day their enemies. We should have never left Afghanistan after we helped Bin Ladin run the Russians out of town. If we had stayed and helped them rebuild we would have had a different outcome 20 years later, instead we pulled out and left a country ripe for take over from the Taliban.

Personally I think its time for American to back away from being the worlds policeman, and take a little more of an Isolationist prespective. Originally Posted by dirty dog

I agree with you on that priciple, but DD and others let me ask this: Should the U.S accept any peace talks with the taliban? If yes, wnder what condtions- for example, if the Taliban wants to share power but stikll want to enforce Shariah law should the U.S allow it?

sorry wellen your missing dirty & my point. give intel of someone who messes with the usa & their peace lays with who ever or what ever they see after all the bombs we send.
My dad always said 2 things to me. 1 if some trys to fuck with me you talk to them intill you see their weak spots & then knock the fuck out of them. 2 Its not a fight intill you see blood other wise its just story wait to end.

I agree with you on that priciple, but DD and others let me ask this: Should the U.S accept any peace talks with the taliban? If yes, wnder what condtions- for example, if the Taliban wants to share power but stikll want to enforce Shariah law should the U.S allow it? Originally Posted by wellendowed1911

The only condition that would be acceptable would be the 1 thing they were asked to do before we invaded, give us Bin Ladin. Think of it this way, what if they had given us Bin Ladin, we would not have invaded. Prior to the attack on 9/11 we did not give a rats ass for what was going on in Afghanistan. Everyone says Bush was looking for a reason to invade, not so, because if he was just looking for a reason there were many reasons available to him. No, we went to war for one reason in Afghanistan, that was because the Taliban refused to give up BL. Now once we started all the storys of oppression came out and the information about how the Taliban treated the citizens was splashed on CNN. Where was this information before, how come CNN, MSNBC and Fox were not talking about all of the suffering going on in Afghanistan, the reason, no one gave a shit, and no one would give a shit. I think this was excellent use of the media, and great PR, but do you really think that our government cared enough to invade because of how the Taliban ruled the country, no is the answer, because they were very much aware of what was going on there. So to answer your question, the US wants Bin Ladin and if at all possible a government friendly to the US in the region. To go to peace talks and broker any kind of peace that does not include the reason we are there in the first place is a declaration of defeat. This war is not being fought to free the people of Afghanistan, it was not then and it is not now. Anyone who thinks were fighting to free the Afghani people, ask yourself then why were not fighting to save those in Sudan.

You ask "If yes, wnder what condtions- for example, if the Taliban wants to share power but stikll want to enforce Shariah law should the U.S allow it? "

Should they no, but the reality is they would if they were given Bin Ladin, we could then justify fucking the Afghani's over one more time, we got the target of the war, so there is not need to fight anymore (this is not my view point, but I could see it being the governments).

The only condition that would be acceptable would be the 1 thing they were asked to do before we invaded, give us Bin Ladin. Think of it this way, what if they had given us Bin Ladin, we would not have invaded. Prior to the attack on 9/11 we did not give a rats ass for what was going on in Afghanistan. Everyone says Bush was looking for a reason to invade, not so, because if he was just looking for a reason there were many reasons available to him. No, we went to war for one reason in Afghanistan, that was because the Taliban refused to give up BL. Now once we started all the storys of oppression came out and the information about how the Taliban treated the citizens was splashed on CNN. Where was this information before, how come CNN, MSNBC and Fox were not talking about all of the suffering going on in Afghanistan, the reason, no one gave a shit, and no one would give a shit. I think this was excellent use of the media, and great PR, but do you really think that our government cared enough to invade because of how the Taliban ruled the country, no is the answer, because they were very much aware of what was going on there. So to answer your question, the US wants Bin Ladin and if at all possible a government friendly to the US in the region. To go to peace talks and broker any kind of peace that does not include the reason we are there in the first place is a declaration of defeat. This war is not being fought to free the people of Afghanistan, it was not then and it is not now. Anyone who thinks were fighting to free the Afghani people, ask yourself then why were not fighting to save those in Sudan.

You ask "If yes, wnder what condtions- for example, if the Taliban wants to share power but stikll want to enforce Shariah law should the U.S allow it? "

Should they no, but the reality is they would if they were given Bin Ladin, we could then justify fucking the Afghani's over one more time, we got the target of the war, so there is not need to fight anymore (this is not my view point, but I could see it being the governments). Originally Posted by dirty dog

DD- please do not tell me that we have been in Afghanistan for 9 years over 1 man???? i mean I have said this a million times- if we captured and killed Osama tomorrow- Al-Queada will not go away- it's un thinkable that anyone would think that killing or capturing Osama will mean that we end the war on terrorism. By the way, who knows if Osama is even alive.

No, but you asked a specific question on a peace agreement. No we have been in Afghanistan for 9 years because we lost track of our mission. We invaded because the Taliban would not give up Bin Ladin, we destabalized the country by removing the government and then we once again took up the never ending and almost always failing task of nation building. This was not our mission, the mission was to hunt down and kill those responsible for 9/11. So because we destabalized the country leaving it vulnerable to being taken over by extemists we have to install a US friendly government to secure our interests in the region. I dont think anyone believes that killing Bin Ladin will stop terrorism, but it would be a huge moral victory and destabalizing to Al Queda. To make it short and sweet, we opened a 5 pound bag of shit and poured it into a bowl made for 3 and we have spent the last 9 years trying to keep any of it from getting out of the bowl.

Let me ask you a question, do you really believe that we went to war in Afghanistan to free their people? Why haven't we done that in the Sudan where 100,000 people have been killed. Do you really think that the President that you and the rest of the left have described as a heartless idiot, bent on only making profits for himself would really go to war in Afghanistan to free the people, really, really do you really believe that. I know your smarter than that.

By the way, I think Bin Ladin has been dead since 2004.

No, but you asked a specific question on a peace agreement. No we have been in Afghanistan for 9 years because we lost track of our mission. We invaded because the Taliban would not give up Bin Ladin, we destabalized the country by removing the government and then we once again took up the never ending and almost always failing task of nation building. This was not our mission, the mission was to hunt down and kill those responsible for 9/11. So because we destabalized the country leaving it vulnerable to being taken over by extemists we have to install a US friendly government to secure our interests in the region. I dont think anyone believes that killing Bin Ladin will stop terrorism, but it would be a huge moral victory and destabalizing to Al Queda. To make it short and sweet, we opened a 5 pound bag of shit and poured it into a bowl made for 3 and we have spent the last 9 years trying to keep any of it from getting out of the bowl.

Let me ask you a question, do you really believe that we went to war in Afghanistan to free their people? Why haven't we done that in the Sudan where 100,000 people have been killed. Do you really think that the President that you and the rest of the left have described as a heartless idiot, bent on only making profits for himself would really go to war in Afghanistan to free the people, really, really do you really believe that. I know your smarter than that.

By the way, I think Bin Ladin has been dead since 2004. Originally Posted by dirty dog

Gosh DD- you took the words right out of my mouth- I remember like it was yesterday when shortly after we invaded Afghanistan George Bush was giving a speech and he said in som many words:" the people of Afghanistan deserves a better way of life the Taliban were one of the most oppressive regimes in the world..." He basically sold the speech that we Americans are there to liberate Afghanistan, but he didn't mention that prior to the invasion the Taliban were in power for 5 years without the U.S saying a word about their reigime. Also, I really HATE it when those who defend the Iraq war say we went over there to give iraqis freedom. Really? Or even better Sarah Palin was getting heckled at one of her speeches a year ago and Sarah replied:..."My son is fighting over in Iraq for your freedom.." of course she got a big applause from her supporters in the crowd, but with all do respect- Sara Palin's son or anyone else's son or daughter is not over there fighting for my freedom or any other american's freedom. No Iraqi I know ever threathened to take away my freedom. Now don't get me wrong I respect the soldiers over their because they have a job to do and I hope as many of them possible come home safely to their loved ones, but many people are caught up in the hoopla that we are just saving the world from tyrants. Yes- like you mentioned we should be in Sudan, Somalia and hell even in N.Korea if we are so concerned about human rights and freedom, but DD a ,ot of people believe in that rhetoric.
DD or any other person do you believe what many have said that the War on Terrorism is really not meant to be won- much like the War on Drugs. I mean there are a lot of people who believe that America must have a "BoogeyMan" in order to have an agenda for worldwide dominance- I mean for years it was the "Russians" and "Communist" are evil empires that must not be spreaded- now that we have become the only Super Power- all of a sudden "Al-Queada" is the BoogeyMan.