so we've opened "negotiations" with the Taliban.. and the afghans have cut ties with

[Happy_Helper]

I don't think we have moral justification to destroy a nation's infrastructure simply because they are funding terrorism - which incidentally is something all the Muslim Middle Eastern and most other Muslim nations do to an extent. When it shifts to openly supporting and protecting the terrorists, openly giving them shelter and places to train, then I think at that point we do have moral justification to attack.


Absolutely preclude it, no. However, exporting terrorism would become very difficult indeed if a nation has no functioning sea ports, air ports, trains, electricity, etc. Difficult to exercise command and control if it must be done by satellite phone or foot-mobile messengers. Difficult to commit terrorist acts and skip back over the border to sanctuary if you must go on foot or by horse or camel. Not impossible, of course, but much more difficult.

I think morally we almost had to try to remake and rebuild Afghanistan. But we've obviously failed, and hopefully we'll use that failure as justification to radically change our strategy if forced to react again.

Afghanistan had very little "infrastructure" when we attacked but that didn't keep them from "exporting terrorism." (Where were all these trains and airports and electrical power plants you are imagining existed? Let alone all the sea-ports in that land-locked desert country?) The terrorists lived in caves and tents and got around in off road trucks, on motorcycles and even on camels. Destroying the infrastructure would make the already miserable populace of 35 million people sicker, poorer and more miserable and would have no ill effect on terrorists hiding out there.

We've helped them build up infrastructure (i.e., nation-built), which was wise. We did the same thing after WW2 for all the countries we wiped out, and most of the countries our enemies wiped out (except the USSR, the only one that didn't get totally wiped out and still had the potential to compete with us to some extent, economically and militarily).

Lack of infrastructure breeds/exacerbates poverty/futility which breeds corruption which creates a lovely environment for terrorists to cheaply bribe local "authorities" (i.e., that was the Taliban and it's role in the 1990s) so they have a place to hide, train, plan and execute their plans.

Destroying a country's infrastructure is the opposite of what any sane person opposing terrorists (who hate us) wants because it creates an atmosphere/environment where nobody cares what happens and any terrorist can pay for a place to hide and conduct acts of terror (they don't need infrastructure for that).

We're talking to the Taliban now because they aren't terrorists, they are the people who've lived their all their lives, who've fought for at least the last ten years, and many of them for the last 20-30 years, who might just want to finally take a break from fighting and be a part of their society (which largely we've built into something better than it's been in their lifetimes, yes). If it doesn't work on all of them, we (or the new authorities we've installed) can hunt them down and kill the dissenters later. Read the Prince by Machiavelli, this is the standard operating procedure for thousands of years for winning over a conquered land, even if the warfare itself is a little different (i.e., has less unnecessary civilian casualties).

 

[sm625]

Afghanistan is all about poppy production, it has nothing to do with fighting terrorism. Just like vietnam was all about cocaine and heroin. Its big money, colossal sums of money, and it is 5 times as valuable as federal reserve funny money because it is black market money, it has 5 times the velocity. This drug money is critical to our financial system.

 

[JohnOfSheffield]

When it comes to extremists there is nothing worse than a Taliban, he wants YOU to live by his rule and will not stop fighting until the entire world does as it's told.

You can't negotiate with these people any more than you can talk a child murdering necrophiliac out of killing children and raping them. I used that analogy for a reason, Talibans can't rape children but if they kill them first it's ok, it's a practice they actually put in place in Afghanistan.

The only good taliban is a dead Taliban.

 

[JohnOfSheffield]

Afghanistan is all about poppy production, it has nothing to do with fighting terrorism. Just like vietnam was all about cocaine and heroin. Its big money, colossal sums of money, and it is 5 times as valuable as federal reserve funny money because it is black market money, it has 5 times the velocity. This drug money is critical to our financial system.

No, stop listening to idiots telling you what's what and start reading up on this and form your own opinion on the matter.

This has NOTHING to do with the heroin production, the Talibans are against that and are actively killing people involved with it.

 

[zinfamous]

No we cant. Even today Nazi's could win elections in Austria if it werent a banned party.
Even though the millions of people killed by the communists to purge the ideologically unsound from the populace. What took them down was the idea of more liberty and less statism. And even after all the killing we did in Vietnam, Afghanistan, and Iraq. The idea continues to survive and looks to be taking control. Certainly in Afghanistan as instead of eradicating them we are negotiating for a peaceful exit.

You need to think back further.

Where are all the Mayans? How well did their religion and culture survive after the conquistadors arrived?

Where are all the gnostics practicing their various forms of Christianity? Those guys used to thrive before "saint Paul" showed up.

 

[raildogg]

Stuipid negotiations, they never work in the true sense. Just like with the Israelis and Palestinians. You can sign all the negotiations you want, the hearts and minds of the people remain the same. So it has no meaning.

 

[raildogg]

You need to think back further.

Where are all the Mayans? How well did their religion and culture survive after the conquistadors arrived?

Where are all the gnostics practicing their various forms of Christianity? Those guys used to thrive before "saint Paul" showed up.

Societies rise and fall. The Europeans have raped the world for the past 500 years. Their time to fall may come as well, who knows.

 

[chucky2]

snip

We're talking to the Taliban now because they aren't terrorists, they are the people who've lived their all their lives, who've fought for at least the last ten years, and many of them for the last 20-30 years, who might just want to finally take a break from fighting and be a part of their society (which largely we've built into something better than it's been in their lifetimes, yes). If it doesn't work on all of them, we (or the new authorities we've installed) can hunt them down and kill the dissenters later. Read the Prince by Machiavelli, this is the standard operating procedure for thousands of years for winning over a conquered land, even if the warfare itself is a little different (i.e., has less unnecessary civilian casualties).

Where in gods name did you get the bolded?

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

The thread title is blatantly misleading. Actually, it not merely misleading, it's just plain wrong. Ties have not been cut. Karzai stamped his foot furiously and will likely try to stir up shit to obtain some sort of political favors, but Karzai knows better than anyone that his best ally is the US and that cutting ties would be the same as cutting his own throat. Without the US Karzai has about as much power as a 90W psu.

 

[zephyrprime]

Did the idea of japanese nationalism die after we dropped two nuclear weapons?
This is fascinating to hear people really believe an idea can be killed with a weapon considering such a long and storied history proving otherwise.

Look at history. There have been numerous tribes and nations that have been taken over 100% or completely eradicated. The Romans alone probably did it 100 times. So yes, you can destroy an idea completely. It is only when sizable remnants are left that the idea can come back.

 

[werepossum]

Afghanistan had very little "infrastructure" when we attacked but that didn't keep them from "exporting terrorism." (Where were all these trains and airports and electrical power plants you are imagining existed? Let alone all the sea-ports in that land-locked desert country?) The terrorists lived in caves and tents and got around in off road trucks, on motorcycles and even on camels. Destroying the infrastructure would make the already miserable populace of 35 million people sicker, poorer and more miserable and would have no ill effect on terrorists hiding out there.

We've helped them build up infrastructure (i.e., nation-built), which was wise. We did the same thing after WW2 for all the countries we wiped out, and most of the countries our enemies wiped out (except the USSR, the only one that didn't get totally wiped out and still had the potential to compete with us to some extent, economically and militarily).

Lack of infrastructure breeds/exacerbates poverty/futility which breeds corruption which creates a lovely environment for terrorists to cheaply bribe local "authorities" (i.e., that was the Taliban and it's role in the 1990s) so they have a place to hide, train, plan and execute their plans.

Destroying a country's infrastructure is the opposite of what any sane person opposing terrorists (who hate us) wants because it creates an atmosphere/environment where nobody cares what happens and any terrorist can pay for a place to hide and conduct acts of terror (they don't need infrastructure for that).

We're talking to the Taliban now because they aren't terrorists, they are the people who've lived their all their lives, who've fought for at least the last ten years, and many of them for the last 20-30 years, who might just want to finally take a break from fighting and be a part of their society (which largely we've built into something better than it's been in their lifetimes, yes). If it doesn't work on all of them, we (or the new authorities we've installed) can hunt them down and kill the dissenters later. Read the Prince by Machiavelli, this is the standard operating procedure for thousands of years for winning over a conquered land, even if the warfare itself is a little different (i.e., has less unnecessary civilian casualties).

You really don't think Afghanistan had roads, buildings, houses and railroads? Talk to Nebor or someone who has been there; it was (and is) a very poor country, but it did have infrastructure, especially around the major cities. (Hint: Cities cannot exist without infrastructure; the population density is too high.) The terrorists had no need to live in the hinterland where there was no infrastructure because they WERE the Taliban and ruled the nation.

Afghanistan before the war traded with Pakistan, India, Russia and Iran to the tune of billions of dollars. Do you really think all that went by camel? Afghanistan is also somewhat unique in that it has relatively few redundant rail lines and paved roads, which must usually run considerable distances and cross some very rough terrain; destroy the bridges and block the passes, then destroy the couple dozen airports capable of taking heavy aircraft, and Afghanistan's ability to export terrorism would have been severely degraded. Same principle extends to other nations with whom we might face the same situation, with the obvious differences of needing to add sea ports where applicable and complications due to redundancy and terrain. (By which I mean it's much more complicated to cut off a nation if it has several score good roads running to its neighbor or can simply drive heavy trucks across plains or deserts.)