Post Reply
Page 5 of 7  •  Prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Switch to Forum Live View Taliban Kill 7 in Afghan Capital after Obama Leaves
2 years ago  ::  May 03, 2012 - 11:47AM #41
teilhard
Posts: 51,405

Well ... Ummmm ... That isn't how it works -- FIRST conduct The Trial proving "Guilt" and THEN arrest the Guy ...


Of course, The Taliban were in the Habit of just lopping-off Hands and so on ...


So ... Oh, yeah, sure ... The Taliban were deeply sincerely concerned about a Guy's Rights being respected ... uh huh ... 


Look, The Taliban were Hosts and Sponsors of al Qaida and Osama bin Laden ... Their Request for more Information was nothing but a stalling Tactic ...


May 3, 2012 -- 9:55AM, Nepenthe wrote:


May 2, 2012 -- 5:35PM, teilhard wrote:


Uh huh ...


The Taliban had NO Idea who Osama bin Laden was and what al Qaida was doing ...


Uh huh ...



What the Taliban did or did not know was not the point brought up.  Physical evidence directly linking Osama to a terrorist attack in a materialistic manner was what was requested.  I say materialistic because vocal support of terrorist activitity is not illegal.  So, all we had to do was provide physical evidence that Osama was physically involved in any of the terrorist attacks associated with him.  That should not have been so hard for a nation that believes in the concept of Justice, should it?





Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  May 03, 2012 - 1:06PM #42
SecondSonOfDavid
Posts: 3,344

There is no quick and easy answer to Afghanistan.  Any high school graduate should be able to recall what happened to the British and the Soviets when they invaded.  From terrain, to logistics, to culture, the deck is stacked heavily against any would-be invader.


 


GWB’s initial strategy was a sound one. The US backed the Northern Alliance against the Taliban, making the issue a choice for Afghans about which internal group they preferred.  This led to the first free elections in memory for Afghanistan, and U.S.-led construction of schools and medical clinics.  Seeing they could not win, the Taliban went into hiding and Al-Qaida did the same for a time.


 


Problem is, no strategy can continue without evolving, and the Jihadists adapted their strategy, using a mix of terror tactics and political influence to re-establish the drug trade.  The Coalition’s focus on terrorism allowed Taliban leaders to build financial support and leverage political influence by controlling the poppy trade.  As Coalition members began to bow out, especially Britain’s exist after the 2005 London terror attacks, the U.S. found itself economically strained and politically isolated.  Around 2007, the Taliban began to reassert itself in Afghanistan, retaking rural bases and making inroads towards Kabul.  After the Obama Administration came into office with the implicit message that the U.S. would take troops home, the Taliban gradually claimed more power and became a potent threat again.


 


The chief mistake made was not the invasion of Afghanistan, but the plan to create a strong central government for the country.  The Taliban represents a genuine threat to the region and to U.S. interests and citizens worldwide.  The invasion of Afghanistan was an important and necessary action which unquestionably prevented several major terrorist campaigns from success.  But while a federal system of government similar to Mexico might be feasible, a completely centralized government would be unacceptable to most Afghans, just as many rural Afghans bitterly resent the presence of foreigners, no matter their motives.  As a result, Karzai’s administration lacks popular support in many parts of the nation, and the centralized government prevents regional autonomy which could be used to keep the Taliban from claiming territory or recruiting new members.


 


The question at hand, then, is how the Obama Administration intends to address the matter. Karzai is the de facto head of Afghanistan, but Obama must not appear to Afghans to be controlling Karzai.  The United States enjoys a reputation among Afghans as helpful and well-intentioned, but Afghans – even the ones who like us the best – expect us to go home.      

That which does not kill me, will try again and get nastier.
Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  May 03, 2012 - 1:15PM #43
rabello
Posts: 21,689

May 3, 2012 -- 10:20AM, Fodaoson wrote:


May 3, 2012 -- 12:10AM, rabello wrote:


Did you read the article "We Did Not Choose This War and other Hypocrisies" yet, written by a vet?





Being a Veteran does not do away with one’s political opinion, or the  right  to express that opinion.   




I didn't say it did.


teilhard speaks with extreme prejudice against all of the Afghan people and spreads propaganda about "NORMAL" countries, and what he thinks poor people should do to keep the gods from shocking and aweing them, and I wanted to know if he had other opinions, such as his opinion to a veteran's pointing out that Obama's speech was hypocritical.  I don't know if teilhard is a veteran, or not.

Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  May 03, 2012 - 1:31PM #44
rabello
Posts: 21,689

May 3, 2012 -- 11:26AM, catboxer wrote:


Professor Juan Cole owns this topic.


The war is a lie, and everybody knows it.




Thank you for linking this article.  Everybody should know it by now.


There was no reason for Obama to have "sneaked in and out of Afghanistan by the cover of night" (as Cole put it), burdening the Afghan people with his presence and endangering the lives of other people, by giving extremists the opportunity to (again as Cole puts it) "(announce) that Obama is not welcome in Afghanistan"


He said the war on terror (or whatever he calls it to distinguish himself from Bush) started in Afghanistan and ends in Afghanistan.....I guess he doesn't consider drone bombings to be military operations as acts of war.   

Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  May 03, 2012 - 1:51PM #45
Nepenthe
Posts: 2,720

May 3, 2012 -- 11:47AM, teilhard wrote:

So ... Oh, yeah, sure ... The Taliban were deeply sincerely concerned about a Guy's Rights being respected ... uh huh ... 




What they were concerned with doesn't matter.  What does matter is what we, the United States, was concerned with.  And it sure wasn't self-defense or justice.

Greater love has no one than this, than to lay down one's life for his friends.
Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  May 03, 2012 - 1:58PM #46
SecondSonOfDavid
Posts: 3,344

May 3, 2012 -- 1:51PM, Nepenthe wrote:


May 3, 2012 -- 11:47AM, teilhard wrote:

So ... Oh, yeah, sure ... The Taliban were deeply sincerely concerned about a Guy's Rights being respected ... uh huh ... 




What they were concerned with doesn't matter.  What does matter is what we, the United States, was concerned with.  And it sure wasn't self-defense or justice.




Actually yes, the United States was directly and gravely concerned with both points.



Lying about it does not change things.

That which does not kill me, will try again and get nastier.
Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  May 03, 2012 - 2:06PM #47
rabello
Posts: 21,689

May 3, 2012 -- 1:58PM, SecondSonOfDavid wrote:


May 3, 2012 -- 1:51PM, Nepenthe wrote:


May 3, 2012 -- 11:47AM, teilhard wrote:

So ... Oh, yeah, sure ... The Taliban were deeply sincerely concerned about a Guy's Rights being respected ... uh huh ... 




What they were concerned with doesn't matter.  What does matter is what we, the United States, was concerned with.  And it sure wasn't self-defense or justice.




Actually yes, the United States was directly and gravely concerned with both points.



Lying about it does not change things.




Lying?


We can't say the US, under Bush or Obama, was or is "gravely" concerned with justice. 


We can say that the US, under Bush and Obama was and is "gravely" concerned with one paradigm of "self-defense", that being formally called "preemptive war" (actually military attack/invasion/occupation), and in the vernacular: "kill ALL of 'them' before 'they' can kill any of 'us'" (teilhard's and other hawk's 10+ year old argument).  However, bodies blown to bits don't get "graves" and nobody in America knows how many graves we've put Afghans into, so even the word "gravely" doesn't really apply.

Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  May 03, 2012 - 2:44PM #48
SecondSonOfDavid
Posts: 3,344

May 3, 2012 -- 2:06PM, rabello wrote:


May 3, 2012 -- 1:58PM, SecondSonOfDavid wrote:


May 3, 2012 -- 1:51PM, Nepenthe wrote:


May 3, 2012 -- 11:47AM, teilhard wrote:

So ... Oh, yeah, sure ... The Taliban were deeply sincerely concerned about a Guy's Rights being respected ... uh huh ... 




What they were concerned with doesn't matter.  What does matter is what we, the United States, was concerned with.  And it sure wasn't self-defense or justice.




Actually yes, the United States was directly and gravely concerned with both points.



Lying about it does not change things.




Lying?


We can't say the US, under Bush or Obama, was or is "gravely" concerned with justice.




Since that would be true, sure we can.






May 3, 2012 -- 2:06PM, rabello wrote:


We can say that the US, under Bush and Obama was and is "gravely" concerned with one paradigm of "self-defense", that being formally called "preemptive war" (actually military attack/invasion/occupation), and in the vernacular: "kill ALL of 'them' before 'they' can kill any of 'us'" (teilhard's and other hawk's 10+ year old argument).  However, bodies blown to bits don't get "graves" and nobody in America knows how many graves we've put Afghans into, so even the word "gravely" doesn't really apply.






Sorry, I live on planet Earth.  Your planet obviously has a different history and set of values than we humans do.





That which does not kill me, will try again and get nastier.
Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  May 03, 2012 - 3:45PM #49
teilhard
Posts: 51,405

It WAS both Self-Defense and Justice ...


May 3, 2012 -- 1:51PM, Nepenthe wrote:


May 3, 2012 -- 11:47AM, teilhard wrote:

So ... Oh, yeah, sure ... The Taliban were deeply sincerely concerned about a Guy's Rights being respected ... uh huh ... 




What they were concerned with doesn't matter.  What does matter is what we, the United States, was concerned with.  And it sure wasn't self-defense or justice.





Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  May 03, 2012 - 3:46PM #50
teilhard
Posts: 51,405

No ... "Pre-emptive War" would be launching a First Strike against a perceived Enemy that HASN'T yet struck US ...


May 3, 2012 -- 2:06PM, rabello wrote:


May 3, 2012 -- 1:58PM, SecondSonOfDavid wrote:


May 3, 2012 -- 1:51PM, Nepenthe wrote:


May 3, 2012 -- 11:47AM, teilhard wrote:

So ... Oh, yeah, sure ... The Taliban were deeply sincerely concerned about a Guy's Rights being respected ... uh huh ... 




What they were concerned with doesn't matter.  What does matter is what we, the United States, was concerned with.  And it sure wasn't self-defense or justice.




Actually yes, the United States was directly and gravely concerned with both points.



Lying about it does not change things.




Lying?


We can't say the US, under Bush or Obama, was or is "gravely" concerned with justice. 


We can say that the US, under Bush and Obama was and is "gravely" concerned with one paradigm of "self-defense", that being formally called "preemptive war" (actually military attack/invasion/occupation), and in the vernacular: "kill ALL of 'them' before 'they' can kill any of 'us'" (teilhard's and other hawk's 10+ year old argument).  However, bodies blown to bits don't get "graves" and nobody in America knows how many graves we've put Afghans into, so even the word "gravely" doesn't really apply.





Quick Reply
Cancel
Page 5 of 7  •  Prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
 
    Viewing this thread :: 0 registered and 1 guest
    No registered users viewing
    Advertisement

    Beliefnet On Facebook