Obama: Lets Taliban In Politics; Send Just Enough Troops To Keep Enemy At Bay - Polidicks

[QUOTE=massn7;17735209]Mcguffin, you fall flat when you fail to realize that the extremist leaders don't [i]want[/i] to negotiate.[/QUOTE] I wouldn't say that. Even in the most extreme of groups there's usually at least one leader willing to capitalize on offered aid, and if you can get your foot into the door the others will usually follow suit. Regardless, I'm afraid that neither of us really knows the answer because we haven't tried yet.

[QUOTE=massn7;17735209]Mcguffin, you fall flat when you fail to realize that the extremist leaders don't [i]want[/i] to negotiate.[/QUOTE] boy do i ever love unsourced anecdotal evidence about hundreds of different groups

[QUOTE=Canuhearme?;17730778]That's quite hypocritical of you.[/QUOTE] Really? I didn't think I advocated any war in the Middle East.

[QUOTE=Mr. Mcguffin;17735249]I wouldn't say that. Even in the most extreme of groups there's usually at least one leader willing to capitalize on offered aid, and if you can get your foot into the door the others will usually follow suit. Regardless, I'm afraid that neither of us really knows the answer because we haven't tried yet.[/QUOTE] Well you're right there, we haven't tried. Theoretically it could work, but I have my doubts. [QUOTE=Chippay;17735251]boy do i ever love unsourced anecdotal evidence about hundreds of different groups[/QUOTE] Give me an instance since 2001 where one of the leaders has come forward and asked to negotiate.

[QUOTE=Boba_Fett;17735243]They are people. They can think and act for themselves. But, they've been told America is terrible. We could waste billions of dollars to try and convince these people otherwise, but they would reject it. Our soldiers would get slaughtered trying to help the people, and they would use it as propaganda. Their leaders would convince them that they would rather die than receive help from western "Imperialist" powers. It's ethnic nationalism at its best.[/QUOTE] Irrelevant. A constant presence correlating with increased living standards will result in better relations. The scenario you're suggesting only happens when money is thrust onto a poor nation from afar and left to the leaders to take it. And I'm sorry, but how do you figure that more soldiers will be killed through negotiation and aid than all out war against an insurgency?

[QUOTE=massn7;17735272]Well you're right there, we haven't tried. Theoretically it could work, but I have my doubts. Give me an instance since 2001 where one of the leaders has come forward and asked to negotiate.[/QUOTE] When has the US offered to negotiate with them? We're too busy bombing them.

[QUOTE=massn7;17735272] Give me an instance since 2001 where one of the leaders has come forward and asked to negotiate.[/QUOTE] here's one that should strike-home with some americans [url]http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2001/nov/05/afghanistan.terrorism3[/url] (ps, this ignores your arbitary 2001 rule, as extremism didn't start in 2001) there's also the (former) marxist rebels in nepal, you know, the ones who gave up their civil war in favour of joining in democratic elections (ps, this is was after 2001) honestly there's many, it's just that they aren't usually negotiated with. hope this helps :)

[QUOTE=massn7;17735272]Well you're right there, we haven't tried. Theoretically it could work, but I have my doubts. Give me an instance since 2001 where one of the leaders has come forward and asked to negotiate.[/QUOTE] Of course there are unknowns. But that doesn't mean that the better alternative is complete and total military clusterfuck. Why would they? It's not as if we've shown any more willingness than them.

[QUOTE=Boba_Fett;17735243]They are people. They can think and act for themselves. But, they've been told America is terrible. We could waste billions of dollars to try and convince these people otherwise, but they would reject it. Our soldiers would get slaughtered trying to help the people, and they would use it as propaganda. Their leaders would convince them that they would rather die than receive help from western "Imperialist" powers. It's ethnic nationalism at its best.[/QUOTE] Maybe they believe that because we've been occupying their territory? Remember the Gulf War? I'm sure they loved that over there. Nobody in the Middle East hates us because we're rich and free, they hate us because we don't leave them alone.

[QUOTE=PvtCupcakes;17735317]Maybe they believe that because we've been occupying their territory? Remember the Gulf War? I'm sure they loved that over there. Nobody in the Middle East hates us because we're rich and free, they hate us because we don't leave them alone.[/QUOTE] there's also the whole billions of dollars in aid to israel military bases across the middle east etc

[QUOTE=massn7;17735272]Well you're right there, we haven't tried. Theoretically it could work, but I have my doubts. Give me an instance since 2001 where one of the leaders has come forward and asked to negotiate.[/QUOTE] IIRC in Iraq the Sunni Insurgents tried to negotiate with the US. I think it's really retarded that the USA says they want to spread freedom and democracy but they ban a party from one of the countries they are trying to help. FFS if you let them run for office they will be shot down, if they get the chance to speak their minds to the people freely they won't seem so mystical anymore and will look rather retarded instead. [editline]03:05AM[/editline] [QUOTE=Chippay;17735341]there's also the whole billions of dollars in aid to israel military bases across the middle east etc[/QUOTE] Basically we have been imperialistic pricks to the Middle East for Decades. That's why they hate us so much.

[QUOTE=yawmwen;17735356]IIRC in Iraq the Sunni Insurgents tried to negotiate with the US. .[/QUOTE] you're thinking of the awakening councils [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Awakening_Council[/url] [url]http://www.aawsat.com/english/news.asp?section=3&id=11292[/url]

[QUOTE=Chippay;17735426]you're thinking of the awakening councils [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Awakening_Council[/url] [url]http://www.aawsat.com/english/news.asp?section=3&id=11292[/url][/QUOTE] Ah, ok.

[QUOTE=Chippay;17735312]here's one that should strike-home with some americans [url]http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2001/nov/05/afghanistan.terrorism3[/url] (ps, this ignores your arbitary 2001 rule, as extremism didn't start in 2001) there's also the (former) marxist rebels in nepal, you know, the ones who gave up their civil war in favour of joining in democratic elections (ps, this is was after 2001) honestly there's many, it's just that they aren't usually negotiated with. hope this helps :)[/QUOTE] Why do you ignore my "arbitrary 2001 rule;" can you not find such an instance? Of course extremism didn't start in 2001, but that's when widespread hostilities started between the Taliban and the US, which is obviously the theme of this thread. And are there any Marxist rebels from Nepal in Afghanistan? Also, it's common knowledge that we had multiple chances to apprehend Bin Laden prior to the shitstorm that started in 2001. Come on Chippay. I'm not saying we shouldn't negotiate, I'm saying it's difficult to even fathom doing so when both parties can't come forward and agree to negotiate in the first place.

[QUOTE=massn7;17735515]Why do you ignore my "arbitrary 2001 rule;" can you not find such an instance? Of course extremism didn't start in 2001, but that's when widespread hostilities started between the Taliban and the US, which is obviously the theme of this thread. And are there any Marxist rebels from Nepal in Afghanistan? Also, it's common knowledge that we had multiple chances to apprehend Bin Laden prior to the shitstorm that started in 2001. Come on Chippay. I'm not saying we shouldn't negotiate, I'm saying it's difficult to even fathom doing so when both parties can't come forward and agree to negotiate in the first place.[/QUOTE] obviously i can, as i also gave you an example after 2001. why bother asking for evidence if you're just going to ignore my post and just post a bunch of irrelevant babble? but i do like how you attempted to shift your point to the taliban, it's always nice when you can get someone to revise their argument in one post

[QUOTE=massn7;17735515]Also, it's common knowledge that we had multiple chances to apprehend Bin Laden prior to the shitstorm that started in 2001. [/QUOTE] Yeah like when we gave him supplies to fight the Soviets. Now it's not so funny when we're on the receiving end.

[QUOTE=Chippay;17735574]obviously i can, as i also gave you an example after 2001. why bother asking for evidence if you're just going to ignore my post and just post a bunch of irrelevant babble? but i do like how you attempted to shift your point to the taliban, it's always nice when you can get someone to revise their argument in one post[/QUOTE] You can't be serious Chippay, read the title of the thread. It should be obvious who we're talking about. [b]Taliban[/b] leaders, since 2001 requesting negotiation. Find it.

[QUOTE=massn7;17735683]You can't be serious Chippay, read the title of the thread. It should be obvious who we're talking about. [b]Taliban[/b] leaders, since 2001 requesting negotiation. Find it.[/QUOTE] no, i'm not going to provide you evidence because you realized your original post was a load of shit i took issue with your original post, and you evidently now know that it is completely indefensible because you've moved away from it completely.

[QUOTE=Chippay;17735732]no, i'm not going to provide you evidence because you realized your original post was a load of shit i took issue with your original post, and you evidently now know that it is completely indefensible because you've moved away from it completely.[/QUOTE] One second, I'll go edit my post so it says Taliban leaders so I can appease your anally specific mentality. It's obvious what the subject is and who we're talking about in here - it's in the thread title and reiterated in the OP; it's obvious what I meant, Mr. Mcguffin understood it just fine, and you're just grasping at straws to find something to fault my post on. You find me what I asked for and I'll gladly stand corrected and step down.

It's irrelevant. I wouldn't expect the people we've attacked to call for negotiations when they're as fractured as a militant group.

[QUOTE=massn7;17735942]One second, I'll go edit my post so it says Taliban leaders so I can appease your anally specific mentality. It's obvious what the subject is and who we're talking about in here - it's in the thread title and reiterated in the OP; it's obvious what I meant, Mr. Mcguffin understood it just fine, and you're just grasping at straws to find something to fault my post on. You find me what I asked for and I'll gladly stand corrected and step down.[/QUOTE] no, it really wasn't. the person you were replying to was referring to extremism as a whole. and evidently mcguffin understood it the same way i, and everyone else who had the misfortune of reading your posts did. note that he says "groups" as in the [B]several[/B] extremist groups he was referring too. and i did give you what you asked for, which is why you changed your argument. why you're still posting is beyond me though. [editline]03:49AM[/editline] [QUOTE=Mr. Mcguffin;17735973]It's irrelevant. I wouldn't expect the people we've attacked to call for negotiations when they're as fractured as a militant group.[/QUOTE] didn't you hear? despite what the topic was at the time we're apparently only discussing a single extremist group, the taliban.

[QUOTE=Mr. Mcguffin;17734445]First you start off with the assumption that they're actual human beings. Then you make the startling discovery that the only people who are willing to kill themselves are people who are so desperate there's hardly an alternative. Then you work towards negotiating with the leaders of the extremist group to make living conditions better in the area where these extremists are coming from. Better living conditions and clear peaceful intentions means less angry ass muslims and less extremists in general. You build good will with the people and you get rid of the source of the enemy. This isn't fucking rocket science.[/QUOTE] Holy shit someone with a brain.

Anyone who has kept track of history can see that most nations do very pragmatic things in politics. The US backed the Mujeheddin (one faction of which was the Taliban) against the Soviet Union, and then of course they went to war with them for sheltering Al-Qaeda, and now they're trying a different approach for the same reason that McGuffin pointed out. Heck, the same thing was occurring in Iraq- the US backed the genocidal Saddam Hussein in the 1980s against Iran, and then went against them culminating in two wars over it. During Bush's second administration they put forward a "reconciliation" policy and allowed former Ba'athists back into the government. If you want to look even further back, German Nazis and Italian fascists were brought back into their respective governments (In the German case though only the FRG allowed for this, DDR didn't), though into the mainstream parties. And even then, the current clowns the US let into the government are still just as idiotic. Note that Afghanistan still calls itself an "Islamic Republic" and has passed legislation curtailing various things that are against sharia law.

[quote]Note that Afghanistan still calls itself an "Islamic Republic" and has passed legislation curtailing various things that are against sharia law.[/quote] If it's not "officially" a republic, then they're going to have to deal with a lot more shit than if they stuck that label on it. It's not against international law to be a hypocrite.

[QUOTE=Xystus234;17737180]If it's not "officially" a republic, then they're going to have to deal with a lot more shit than if they stuck that label on it. It's not against international law to be a hypocrite.[/QUOTE] No, my point is some have accused the current plan of allowing Islamic extremism back into the country. While their idea of an Islamic republic is far less reactionary and repressive than the Taliban's form, it's still essentially a socially backwards state with a hardline regime.

You know, the Taliban were never our enemy, until we invaded and occupied their country. Al Qaeda was and still is our primary enemy. I don't see why we need to be trying to build the 51st state instead of just hunting and killing our actual enemy. If the Afghan people want to be run by ultra-religious whackjobs, that's their prerogative. It's pretty damn presumptuous of us to decide for them that propped-up, corrupt, heroin-run democracy is the best form of government for them.