Afghan President Confirms United States is in Peace Talks with Taliban - Polidicks

[QUOTE=Kopimi;30549112]who cares? let the government crumble, and let a society be reborn and reconstructed on their own terms, without western interference. the west doesn't intervene for the sake of helping restore democracy, we do it so that we are the founders and operators of new democracies. let the people create their own destiny and become sovereign countries that they don't need to answer to our beckon call. [/QUOTE] Yeah, we've seen nations reconstruct society before (tried). [img]http://www.martinfrost.ws/htmlfiles/mass_grave1.jpg[/img] :godwin:

[QUOTE=CabooseRvB;30550500]Yeah, we've seen nations reconstruct society before. [img]http://www.martinfrost.ws/htmlfiles/mass_grave1.jpg[/img] :godwin:[/QUOTE] what a solid comparison, really, kudos to you i cant believe i didnt see the huge similarities between oppressed middle easterners rising up and overthrowing their dictators and forming a new democracy to a crazy austrian defying the odds and leading a downtrodden nation that has been abused by other national forces into performing a racial holocaust to bring their country back to glory. thanks for pointing this out, i cant believe how blind i was. your comparison is literally so fucking stupid i cant believe you could possibly be ignorant enough to try making it.

[QUOTE=Kopimi;30550601]what a solid comparison, really, kudos to you i cant believe i didnt see the huge similarities between oppressed middle easterners rising up and overthrowing their dictators and forming a new democracy to a crazy austrian defying the odds and leading a downtrodden nation that has been abused by other national forces into performing a racial holocaust to bring their country back to glory. thanks for pointing this out, i cant believe how blind i was. your comparison is literally so fucking stupid i cant believe you could possibly be ignorant enough to try making it.[/QUOTE] Have you even seen what the Taliban did to people when they were in power?

[QUOTE=CabooseRvB;30550637]Have you even seen what the Taliban did to people when they were in power?[/QUOTE] let the people who live in that country overthrow the taliban if they so desperately want to. do you even understand what the taliban is? the taliban is essentially the new government. americas brutal involvement in afghanistan and neighboring countries serves as fuel for taliban recruitment, they recruit villagers who want to rid their area of the americans who are harassing them and killing their children. the taliban set up a taxation system and essentially act as a guerilla government for the country because of the incompetence and lack of organization in the official government. dont get me wrong, the taliban is a horrible organization and i obviously dont support them, but you CANNOT WIN the fight against the taliban. our involvement only fuels their ability to recruit, and they will fight to the death with pleasure. they dont have a budget and they dont have politics, they just have an extreme hatred for the people that are invading their homeland and threatening their grasp of power in the area.

ITT: Kopimi trolls Facepunch.

Anyone else think this is the same as trying to talk a shark out of eating your leg? Even if you could make it understand, it's still a shark and won't give a fuck

Oh no what about democracy hurr durr

[QUOTE=TheTalon;30551519]Anyone else think this is the same as trying to talk a shark out of eating your leg? Even if you could make it understand, it's still a shark and won't give a fuck[/QUOTE] Or holding a wolf by the ears. You have to let it go someday but you are afraid it will attack you.

I think if they used WMDs this war would have been over a long time ago. We could have gassed the caves and nuked the mountains and south.

This is fucked up. I don't think it's 'peace' talks in a way, it's more the US handing over to the Afghan forces, which I guess Taliban would be happier with as they want the foreign countries out. But the Taliban would surely still be an enemy. To be honest the country would most probably turn out worse than it is. I think there would be civil war. But I dunno, hopefully the US know what they're doing.

[QUOTE=Rage.;30551993]This is fucked up. I don't think it's 'peace' talks in a way, it's more the US handing over to the Afghan forces, which I guess Taliban would be happier with as they won't the foreign countries out. But the Taliban would surely still be an enemy. To be honest the country would most probably turn out worse than it is. I think there would be civil war. But I dunno, hopefully the US know what they're doing.[/QUOTE] what are you even trying to convey here? i literally cannot understand what youre trying to say

[QUOTE=Rage.;30551993]This is fucked up. I don't think it's 'peace' talks in a way, it's more the US handing over to the Afghan forces, which I guess Taliban would be happier with as they won't the foreign countries out. But the Taliban would surely still be an enemy. To be honest the country would most probably turn out worse than it is. I think there would be civil war. But I dunno, hopefully the US know what they're doing.[/QUOTE] They're either going to end up free and in constant danger, or safe and under the oppressive rule of the Taliban.

[QUOTE=crackberry;30549259]The Taliban are just going to take over when the US leaves.[/QUOTE] That's why Coalition forces are training the ANA and helping them better establish order before we withdraw.

It's interesting to know that the Soviets left behind an Afghan force that was actually effective in fighting the mujahideen. The communist Democratic Republic of Afghanistan fell in 1992 mainly due to the cutting off of support from the collapse of the Soviet Union around half a year earlier.

[QUOTE=yaik9a;30551840]I think if they used WMDs this war would have been over a long time ago. We could have gassed the caves and nuked the mountains and south.[/QUOTE] Yet another quality post from yaik9a. :rolleye:

[QUOTE=yaik9a;30551840]I think if they used WMDs this war would have been over a long time ago. We could have gassed the caves and nuked the mountains and south.[/QUOTE] What? I understand the gassing of caves and think that is a interesting way to do it, but why nuclear bombs? That is too much.

[QUOTE=Sobotnik;30552716]What? I understand the gassing of caves and think that is a interesting way to do it, but why nuclear bombs? That is too much.[/QUOTE] Well Tactical nuclear weapons would have had a major physiological impact and also make areas uninhabitable.

yaik9a played too much Command and Conquer methinks, similar to how some kids think they're "military and gun experts" after playing too much Call of Duty.

[QUOTE=yaik9a;30552748]Well Tactical nuclear weapons would have had a major physiological impact and also make areas uninhabitable.[/QUOTE] Yes, but a nation may use those lands in the future for extraction of resources. A better way is to clear the land of all problems and then use it with maximum efficiency without the problem of radiation poisoning. Plus it may contaminate other areas which may be potentially used in an industrial machine. [QUOTE=Tac Error;30552762]yaik9a played too much Command and Conquer methinks, similar to how some kids think they're "military and gun experts" after playing too much Call of Duty.[/QUOTE] Winning wars is about having more and better artillery than the opposing side. (And a powerful economy to mass produce the artillery, and to maintain them. Artillery being anything from railway guns to trench mortars)

[quote]Weapons of mass destruction are now seen as insufficiently discriminating and responsive to be employed routinely in the sort of fragmented, non-linear combat characteristic of contemporary warfare. Situations will change too rapidly and radically and opposing forces will be too intermingled over huge areas for the effective use of such blunt instruments. Moreover, they are now unnecessary as precision and other advanced conventional munitions (e.g. fuel-air explosive and remotely-delivered mines) can accomplish battlefield missions hitherto performed by NBC weapons both more successfully and rapidly and with no attendant danger of escalation to a strategic nuclear exchange.[/quote]

[QUOTE=Kopimi;30550849] americas brutal involvement in afghanistan and neighboring countries serves as fuel for taliban recruitment, they recruit villagers who want to rid their area of the americans who are harassing them and killing their children. [/QUOTE] I see a lot of people post this, and it may even be true in certain cases, but the Taliban have been killing and raping people as punishment before the war and the whole way through it. I highly doubt there any marked amount of support for the Taliban among the Afghani people.

[QUOTE=Tac Error;30552816][/QUOTE] Yes but using these weapons allows them to flush out high volume insurgency areas and again physiologically impacting. [editline]18th June 2011[/editline] [QUOTE=Sobotnik;30552797]Yes, but a nation may use those lands in the future for extraction of resources. A better way is to clear the land of all problems and then use it with maximum efficiency without the problem of radiation poisoning. Plus it may contaminate other areas which may be potentially used in an industrial machine. Winning wars is about having more and better artillery than the opposing side. (And a powerful economy to mass produce the artillery, and to maintain them. Artillery being anything from railway guns to trench mortars)[/QUOTE] You seem to be vested in a total war sort of doctrine which in this case is not really needed.

Maybe you think the Soviet Union should've gone all Khrushchev on Afghanistan and nuked it, then?

[QUOTE=yaik9a;30552969]You seem to be vested in a total war sort of doctrine which in this case is not really needed.[/QUOTE] :irony: The use of Mustard Gas and Nuclear weapons IS total war.

[QUOTE=yaik9a;30551840]I think if they used WMDs this war would have been over a long time ago. We could have gassed the caves and nuked the mountains and south.[/QUOTE] nope

[QUOTE=JDK721;30553698]nope[/QUOTE] I'm gonna have to agree with you on this one.

[QUOTE=Psychokitten;30553703]I'm gonna have to agree with you on this one.[/QUOTE] I'm not sure why my views are so hard to agree with if you're not a conservative then most of my views should seem pretty reasonable

[QUOTE=JDK721;30553765]I'm not sure why my views are so hard to agree with if you're not a conservative then most of my views should seem pretty reasonable[/QUOTE] It's not that so much as you're a dick about it.

[QUOTE=Psychokitten;30553665]:irony: The use of Mustard Gas and Nuclear weapons IS total war.[/QUOTE] You don't get total war do you.

[QUOTE=Psychokitten;30553796]It's not that so much as you're a dick about it.[/QUOTE] what