[quote]lixy wrote:
The solution is education (compared to Afghans, Iraqis are all Nobel Prize laureates). Then, you’ll get more people rallying around pionner activists to push Talibans to the fringe. That takes time and, more importantly, peace.[/quote]
That’s fine for the regions not under Shariah law, but I think we know what kind of education any region with Shariah law recieves, re-written history and exclusion of females from recieving education.
[quote]lixy wrote:
krstphr wrote:
I think the others mean that you can blame America all you want and I will agree we do things that inflame situations sometimes,
In this particular case, there is no doubt in my mind that aerial raids that kill indiscriminately benefit the Talibans.
So yeah, let’s call it “inflame situations”.
This is not bash America hour; what is your opinion on what should be done?
Pakistan may not be overwhelmingly behind the Talibans, but given a choice between the US (even smiley Obama) and the Taliban, the country will rally behind the latter.
And that is what’s happening now.
The Talibans in Pakistan are a threat to the US mostly because of American military presence in the region. Your military went to Afghanistan to kick off Al-Qaeda and that was good. But on the way, Ben Laden and the rest were not much of a priority anymore. It became about expanding the sphere of influence and controling oil flow.
“What should be done”? I sincerely think the US should stay out of it. And here’s why: If your problem with the Talibans is that their ideology doesn’t live up to your standards of civil liberties, then it shouldn’t be any of your business. Just like their war with the Soviets back in the day should have been none of your business. On the other hand, if you fear that the Talibans will get it into their collective minds to come to the US and start slaughtering you, I doubt it. The Taliban government circa 2001 have condemned 9/11. And those folks don’t do diplomacy!
Despite what you may have been told, terrorist operations don’t require government support. If a group of people wants to blow up the subway in NY, they will do it regardless of the Talibans ruling villages in Waziristan.
If the issue is the Talibans getting their hands on nukes, they certainly wouldn’t use it to attack the US. The Talibans are not Al-Qaeda! And besides, India, Israel and Russia would be all over them (and by that, I mean annihilate the place) the minute they even think about doing something foolish.
The solution is education (compared to Afghans, Iraqis are all Nobel Prize laureates). Then, you’ll get more people rallying around pionner activists to push Talibans to the fringe. That takes time and, more importantly, peace.[/quote]
I understand that the Taliban are not Al-Qaeda. I worked with some former Taliban turned US interpreters: the ideology is different, but no less dangerous. And certainly, a people will rally behind whomever affords them the most protection, or illusion of protection, no matter if they have to give up civil liberties to do it (Just look at my country and our Patriot Act).
My issue is not the Taliban using these weapons to attack the US per se, but rather our allies, which in turn could involve the US whether we like it or not. We need to have the ultimate goal of disarming ALL nuclear arms, so we don’t want to take the chance whether or not Russia, Irael or India are watching them.
I agree with you on education being the key, and for us to have dialogue instead of just attacking. With that being said, education will not even happen if the Taliban gain power in Pakistan.
Note: I am certainly not trying to attack you lixy. If I came off that way, I apologise. I would just like to have a good discussion is all (:
[quote]krstphr wrote:
I understand that the Taliban are not Al-Qaeda. I worked with some former Taliban turned US interpreters: the ideology is different, but no less dangerous. [/quote]
Dangerous is an ambiguous term here.
Let me just say that the ideology of the Al-Sauds is more dangerous than that of the Taliban.
Are you implying that Afghans or Pakistanis will rally behind the US if it afforded them the most protection?
If so, you can’t be farther from the truth.
Fair enough.
I have a feeling that it’s actually one ally you have in mind. Could be wrong though.
And I want my own talk show.
No way in Hell you can convince (or coerce for that matter) countries to drop their nukes.
Not even your own!
This is what it’s really about.
I’ll take my chances with the jacked Talibans, thank you very much. I don’t think they would be able to kill even a tiny fraction of what, say the War on Iraq killed.
But then again, I view an innocent life as an innocent life, regardless of ethnicity, nationality, skin color, etc.
Not overnight, it won’t.
But as long as we keep a neutral internet, it should happen fairly soon. The Talibans are not a sustainable regime. Butting out is the best thing the US can do to help it disintegrate/weaken.
[quote]lixy wrote:
Dangerous is an ambiguous term here.
Let me just say that the ideology of the Al-Sauds is more dangerous than that of the Taliban.
Fair enough. Moot point I suppose.
Are you implying that Afghans or Pakistanis will rally behind the US if it afforded them the most protection?
If so, you can’t be farther from the truth.
In a sense. I think that Afghans and Pakistanis would rally behind letting the US help them protect themselves from the Taliban regime and their oppressive rule. Pakistan is a little more progressive than we give them credit for. I guess what I am really trying to say is that we would be doing Pakistan a great disservice by not keeping the Taliban out of power there. Pakistan (other than their border region with Afghanistan) is pretty socially liberal, as far as Muslim countries go. They would not want to see what the Taliban had in store for them.
I have a feeling that it’s actually one ally you have in mind. Could be wrong though.
Not just one ally, and I certainly would not want to see ANY nukes used on ANY country, friend or foe.
No way in Hell you can convince (or coerce for that matter) countries to drop their nukes.
Not even your own!
Just because something is not seen as likely or possible does not make it wrong to try. I am not naive enough to believe world peace will ever happen, but to work towards nuclear disarmament is a righteous task.
This is what it’s really about.
I’ll take my chances with the jacked Talibans, thank you very much. I don’t think they would be able to kill even a tiny fraction of what, say the War on Iraq killed.
But then again, I view an innocent life as an innocent life, regardless of ethnicity, nationality, skin color, etc.
I don’t think that just giving up on trying to protect Pakistan from an oppressive regime is okay. I understand that the Taliban are not the evil superpower the US wants to think they are, but are we really just going to leave and let things happen as they will? To one of our political allies?
But as long as we keep a neutral internet, it should happen fairly soon. The Talibans are not a sustainable regime. Butting out is the best thing the US can do to help it disintegrate/weaken.[/quote]
I think the Taliban are a sustainable regime. They held onto Aghanistan for a while, and have not fragmented to the extent for them to be uneffective. How does the US butting out disintegrate/weaken the Taliban? I understand military forces being present escalates things, but being totally apathetic to Pakistan’s dilemma will not help them in the long run.
Sorry, not sure how I did that. My responses are in the shaded parts as well. Sorry
By giving up and up and up pakistan is compromising the morale of their security forces. Whatever loyal troops commanders and civilians there are. This could lead to a fatal total collapse. Are they able to withstand the future punch in the face when it comes? Will they risk their lives for the nation?
If Muslims took over our country even I might have to convert to Islam. Imagine what the people on the ground are facing in Pakistan. Their own government, army, police, are too weak or cowardly to face the situation. What can the government do? What’s a citizen to do?
[quote]pat wrote:
Talibani’s
[/quote]
[quote]lixy wrote:
Talibans
[/quote]
Taliban is plural, not singular. Christ.
The military personnel in Pakistan have never been loyal to American interests in thwarting the Taliban. Even though they may are bound to the military, the average Pakistani soldier is sympathetic to the values of the Taliban.
The army and the Taliban recruit from the same pool of adult men frustrated with the secular/moderate influences in Pakistan and western involvement.
Taleban announce key withdrawal
[quote]lixy wrote:
krstphr wrote:
I think the others mean that you can blame America all you want and I will agree we do things that inflame situations sometimes,
In this particular case, there is no doubt in my mind that aerial raids that kill indiscriminately benefit the Talibans.
So yeah, let’s call it “inflame situations”.
This is not bash America hour; what is your opinion on what should be done?
Pakistan may not be overwhelmingly behind the Talibans, but given a choice between the US (even smiley Obama) and the Taliban, the country will rally behind the latter.
And that is what’s happening now.
The Talibans in Pakistan are a threat to the US mostly because of American military presence in the region. Your military went to Afghanistan to kick off Al-Qaeda and that was good. But on the way, Ben Laden and the rest were not much of a priority anymore. It became about expanding the sphere of influence and controling oil flow.
“What should be done”? I sincerely think the US should stay out of it. And here’s why: If your problem with the Talibans is that their ideology doesn’t live up to your standards of civil liberties, then it shouldn’t be any of your business. Just like their war with the Soviets back in the day should have been none of your business. On the other hand, if you fear that the Talibans will get it into their collective minds to come to the US and start slaughtering you, I doubt it. The Taliban government circa 2001 have condemned 9/11. And those folks don’t do diplomacy!
Despite what you may have been told, terrorist operations don’t require government support. If a group of people wants to blow up the subway in NY, they will do it regardless of the Talibans ruling villages in Waziristan.
If the issue is the Talibans getting their hands on nukes, they certainly wouldn’t use it to attack the US. The Talibans are not Al-Qaeda! And besides, India, Israel and Russia would be all over them (and by that, I mean annihilate the place) the minute they even think about doing something foolish.
The solution is education (compared to Afghans, Iraqis are all Nobel Prize laureates). Then, you’ll get more people rallying around pionner activists to push Talibans to the fringe. That takes time and, more importantly, peace.[/quote]
Well, your wrong again on every account, but I don’t have the time and patience to point out every single instance of error.
The bottom line is this. These people declared war on us, not the other way around. If they hide in Pakistan that is where we must go to get them. If us attacking them did not piss them off, then I would be surprised. Whether they are piss off or not is irrelevant. The bottom line is they must be defeated. Since we are currently at war with them, it is a foregone conclusion, I would hope, that we participate in making sure the cocksuckers don’t take over Pakistan. This is not another war, its the same one, not sure what is hard to understand about that.
[quote]lixy wrote:
Taleban announce key withdrawal
BBC NEWS | South Asia | Taleban announce key withdrawal [/quote]
Thank God…I would not take my eyes off them. They still need to be destroyed.
[quote]B. wrote:
pat wrote:
Talibani’s
lixy wrote:
Talibans
Taliban is plural, not singular. Christ.
[/quote]
That would be a relevant point if I were trying to make it plural. I was simply making a word up to describe a individual’s membership to the taliban. I figured it was shorter than “individual members of the taliban”. I also do not capitalize their name because they are not worthy of any respect what so ever. Hell is to good for those pieces of shit. Now, Mr. Helper, is there anything you’s like to add, or would you like to correct the English mistakes in my post…I am sure you’ll find many. I am not following traditional APA format.
[quote]pat wrote:
B. wrote:
pat wrote:I am not following traditional APA format.[/quote]
Shame on you pat (:
[quote]B. wrote:
pat wrote:
Talibani’s
lixy wrote:
Talibans
Taliban is plural, not singular. Christ.
[/quote]
The word Taliban is Pashto, طالبان ṭālibān, meaning “students”, the plural of ṭālib. This is a loan word from Arabic طالب ṭālib,[14] plus the Indo-Iranian plural ending -an ان (the Arabic plural being طلاب ṭullāb, whereas طالبان ṭālibān is a dual form with the incongruous meaning, to Arabic speakers, of ‘two students’). Since becoming a loanword in English, Taliban, besides a plural noun referring to the group, has also been used as a singular noun referring to an individual. For example, John Walker Lindh has been referred to as “an American Taliban” rather than “an American Talib.” In the english language newspapers of Pakistan the word talibans is often used when referring to more than one taliban.
[quote]pat wrote:
B. wrote:
pat wrote:
Talibani’s
lixy wrote:
Talibans
Taliban is plural, not singular. Christ.
That would be a relevant point if I were trying to make it plural. I was simply making a word up to describe a individual’s membership to the taliban. I figured it was shorter than “individual members of the taliban”.
[/quote]
The Word you’re looking for is Talib.
[quote]lixy wrote:
Dangerous is an ambiguous term here.
Let me just say that the ideology of the Al-Sauds is more dangerous than that of the Taliban.
[/quote]
What’s your point? I consider myself an isolationist when it comes to anything but economics, but lunatics with nukes is not a chance you can take. If it were me, I would detonate the nukes. Problem solved. Let the backwards towel heads fight amongst themselves for a million years.
Why?
Then go after the nukes. not the million crazies hiding in caves.
Who to you think are more likely to use them? Who would use more discretion in using them?
Is is ok to take innocent lives, as collateral damage, in order to save more innocent lives? Who do you think will show more discretion in taking innocent lives?
[quote]dhickey wrote:
lixy wrote:
Dangerous is an ambiguous term here.
Let me just say that the ideology of the Al-Sauds is more dangerous than that of the Taliban.
What’s your point? I consider myself an isolationist when it comes to anything but economics, but lunatics with nukes is not a chance you can take. [/quote]
It may not be a chance you’re willing to take, but I have no problem with it.
I repeat: Talibans (suck it, B!) are not Al-Qaeda.
The whole point of having nukes, is to keep people like you at bay.
Sigh
[quote]Are you implying that Afghans or Pakistanis will rally behind the US if it afforded them the most protection?
If so, you can’t be farther from the truth.
Why? [/quote]
Because the US is viewed as a mean bully over there.
Because American drones kill innocent.
Because of Israel.
Etc.
[quote]No way in Hell you can convince (or coerce for that matter) countries to drop their nukes.
Then go after the nukes. not the million crazies hiding in caves. [/quote]
For a second, I had this flashback involving Cheney and WMDs.
Good thing he got the boot.
The Gambler’s Fallacy tells me it’s not the US.
But that’s just that: a fallacy!
I think likeliness to use nukes is associated with the number of conflicts you get involved in, and the other side having access to nukes. The Afghans or the Pakistanis fighting anyone past their immediate borders is implausible. And some of their neighbors’ got nukes. Heck, Afghanistan is packed with foreign soldiers whose countries have nukes.
Besides, Pakistan has about 1/100th the number of nuclear heads the US has.
I don’t know.
Care to ask the hibakusha?
Be specific. What kind of “innocent lives”? Children playing with their dolls or soldiers playing with guns? Do we have a crystal ball to predict it is saving “more innocent lives”? Who’s doing the taking of lives?
[quote]pat wrote:
GDollars37 wrote:
pat wrote:
Well, this is what you get when you don’t take terrorist threats seriously. All we need is the taliban to get nukes.
So what should we do?
If I were running the show, I would launch a full scale attack on the taliban, in Pakistan. It is clear Pakistan is not in control of the situation. The governement is unstable enough to fall, and they have nukes…Talibani’s have every intensive to over throw the governement and take over.
So is obama going to roll over and pee on himself, apologize to the taliban and try to negotiate, or find some testicles and take care of the issue?
What I know is this situation is no joke. I really don’t see a way out of a full scale military attack.
Unsurprisingly, you have no idea what you’re talking about.
Prove it, idiot.[/quote]
I’m not sure if you don’t read the news, only watch partisan TV news, or are just in denial. But Afghanistan is not going well at all, virtually anyone will confirm that. Iraq is quite possibly creeping back toward civil war (see Tom Ricks’ blog for examples), as General Odierno makes noises about keeping U.S. forces there longer than planned. And you think we should be expanding the war into a country that would make either one of those look like a cake walk? You’re like an Onion article come to life:
http://www.theonion.com/content/news/bush_announces_iraq_exit_strategy
[quote]lixy wrote:
It may not be a chance you’re willing to take, but I have no problem with it.
[/quote]
not suprising.
What’s your point?
Nuts shouldn’t have nukes. Rather than occupying the country, playing whack a mole in the mountains for decades, and rebuilding the whole place, just take the toys away from the lunitics and leave them be.
please. indoor plumbing would erase all such sentament. These people are savages. They can be easily bought or swayed. They seemed to like us just fine when they were fighting the Ruskies.
Really. Are you saying there are no nukes in Pakistan? How did Chaney get the boot? You do know we have term limits, don’t you?
Really? You don’t think is has to do the willingness to strap a bomb on yourself and walk into a grocery store full of women and childeren, all while sporting wood think about the concubines and young boys you’re going to fuck in heaven? Yeah, you’re right, they will probably just sit on nukes so people will let them live in peace.
Again, what’s your point? Have they not shown their willingness to die?
don’t be cute, just answer the question. Who would be more likely to launch an attack. The Taliban or the US? You know the fucking answer, just say it.
either. you are on an airplane that has been hijacked by lunitics. some other lunitics just flew two planes into buildings you can stop them, but you know it will cost the lives of everyone on the plane. What do you do? What if there are childeren on board? What if there is a pregnant women? What about a one armed nun with a hair lip? Does it matter?
nope. does this mean we sit back and wait for the body count to rise? this is a silly question. even for you. in the example above, how do know the hijackers aren’t going to run out of gas and run aground with no deaths? how do you know they aren’t going to land the plane safely like other hijackers?
i am sure you only decisions that only have one possible outcome.
[quote]pat wrote:
Well, this is what you get when you don’t take terrorist threats seriously. All we need is the taliban to get nukes.
So what should we do?
If I were running the show, I would launch a full scale attack on the taliban, in Pakistan. It is clear Pakistan is not in control of the situation. The governement is unstable enough to fall, and they have nukes…Talibani’s have every intensive to over throw the governement and take over.
So is obama going to roll over and pee on himself, apologize to the taliban and try to negotiate, or find some testicles and take care of the issue?
What I know is this situation is no joke. I really don’t see a way out of a full scale military attack.[/quote]
It really is the Af-Pak war - you cannot divorce the war in Afghanistan from the trouble in Pakistan. But this explanation requires much more writing than I am in the mood for now. Great thread by the way. You’re right on track.
OK- I have the solution.
It’s called total war. Put me in charge and I will guarantee you that after one war - no one will ever want to mess with the US again. Here’s the scenario:
I line my forces up on all sides of the nation that is being stupid. Tell everyone who doesn’t want to get killed to tun themselves in at the border within 48 hours.
At 48 hours we flatten everything line by line from one side to the other - not a building left standing, not a green thing growing, not a cave left intact - complete and total devastation and complete annihilation of anyone remaining in the theatre of operations. Nowhere to hid, nowhere to run - if you are in the TOO you’re dead - no exceptions, no mercy.
That’s it and the next idiot dictator who so much as raises an eyebrow in my direction better watch out.