RE: 34,000 (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion



Message

tazzygirl -> RE: 34,000 (11/24/2009 5:27:25 PM)

So if they... Taliban... regain control of Afghanistan... then because their (Afghan) politics are sympathetic to Islamic fundamentalists. Ok... explain why that would destablize the boarder, therefore Pakistan. Maybe i will be caught up then.



LadyEllen -> RE: 34,000 (11/24/2009 5:33:01 PM)

Alternatively the Boer War might offer lessons - round 'em up into concentration camps, destroy the crops and buildings, deny them any means of survival over the winter. Send the mountain troops and arctic troops in and kill every person seen - anyone not in the camps will be Taliban after all. Those in the camps can be processed, identified as friendly or otherwise and eventually released when there are no Taliban remaining.

Meanwhile, we might adopt a governmental organisation shaped around the regional and tribal realities of the country rather than trying to impose a centralised system that whilst it might suit us, doesnt suit them, and not provoke more problems in our backyards as the above and other "zero hour" solutions seem to imply.

E



ThatDamnedPanda -> RE: 34,000 (11/24/2009 6:24:29 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: tazzygirl

So if they... Taliban... regain control of Afghanistan... then because their (Afghan) politics are sympathetic to Islamic fundamentalists. Ok... explain why that would destablize the boarder, therefore Pakistan. Maybe i will be caught up then.


One word - extortion.

The fundamental problem (no pun intended) is that the Taliban is already waging a low-level guerilla war against the Pakistani government, and a significant and constantly growing number of Pakistanis are sympathetic to the Taliban and share their vision of a strict Islamic fundamentalist government, ruled by shariah law. So many that Pakistan's government can not safely alienate them by taking a strong stand against the Taliban. The President of Pakistan must walk an incredibly precarious tightrope between (on the one hand) trying to control the Taliban and (on the other hand) not pissing off the tens of millions of Pakistani citizens, military leaders, and government officials who support them.

In fact, earlier this year he signed peace treaties with the Taliban in which he agreed to let portions of his country be governed by the Taliban's shariah law in return for their not instigating a rebellion. This is a remarkable concession for any sovereign government to make, and illustrates both the public popularity of the Taliban in Pakistan and what a serious threat the Pakistani government perceives them to be. And this is essentially just a band of guerillas living in caves. If they're allowed to take control of the entire country next door, the amount of power and influence they would wield on Pakistani politics would probably be enough to completely destabilize the government.



tazzygirl -> RE: 34,000 (11/24/2009 6:28:12 PM)

Thank you again.

Im not being argumentative. Why are we interferring in the governmental process of another country? I mean, if the people want the taliban in power, who are we to say no? If the people in charge cannot hold the power, do we have a right to intercede?



ThatDamnedPanda -> RE: 34,000 (11/24/2009 6:29:31 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: LadyEllen

Alternatively the Boer War might offer lessons - round 'em up into concentration camps, destroy the crops and buildings, deny them any means of survival over the winter. Send the mountain troops and arctic troops in and kill every person seen - anyone not in the camps will be Taliban after all. Those in the camps can be processed, identified as friendly or otherwise and eventually released when there are no Taliban remaining.

Meanwhile, we might adopt a governmental organisation shaped around the regional and tribal realities of the country rather than trying to impose a centralised system that whilst it might suit us, doesnt suit them, and not provoke more problems in our backyards as the above and other "zero hour" solutions seem to imply.

E


That's a very interesting observation, and I hadn't thought about that. I think my relative ignorance of British history is showing here. I think you've suggested some real food for thought there, Lady E. I'm intrigued by it.



servantforuse -> RE: 34,000 (11/24/2009 6:34:02 PM)

BRAIN is just going to love this. I'm thinking he has a complete meltdown. Remember the Statler Brothers song, " Counting Flowers On the Wall"....



ThatDamnedPanda -> RE: 34,000 (11/24/2009 6:35:28 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: tazzygirl

Thank you again.

Im not being argumentative. Why are we interferring in the governmental process of another country? I mean, if the people want the taliban in power, who are we to say no? If the people in charge cannot hold the power, do we have a right to intercede?


I can think of approximately 100 reasons, varying in yield anywhere from 25 to 36 kilotons. If Pakistan's government falls to the Islamists, it will be the Islamists who take control of those warheads. Give us those nukes and they can do anything they want with their country, as far as I'm concerned. But any outcome that essentially involves al Qaeda becoming the 6th-largest nuclear power on the planet is nothing short of horrifying to contemplate, and completely unacceptable.



Kirata -> RE: 34,000 (11/24/2009 6:40:56 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: ThatDamnedPanda

The fundamental problem (no pun intended) is that the Taliban is already waging a low-level guerilla war against the Pakistani government, and a significant and constantly growing number of Pakistanis are sympathetic to the Taliban and share their vision of a strict Islamic fundamentalist government, ruled by shariah law. So many that Pakistan's government can not safely alienate them by taking a strong stand...

That would seem to render the notion of defeating them in Afganistan in order to prevent them from destabilizing Pakistan somewhat abstruse.

K.




tazzygirl -> RE: 34,000 (11/24/2009 6:51:38 PM)

Then why dont we just take the nukes?



Kirata -> RE: 34,000 (11/24/2009 6:59:09 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: tazzygirl

Then why dont we just take the nukes?

Just wander in and say, "Fuck you, we're taking these"?

K.



TheHeretic -> RE: 34,000 (11/24/2009 7:01:50 PM)

Well, President Obama has taken months to develop this strategy, I will wait to see what he has to say when he does the next prime-time speech. 

I wonder how long it will be before the anti-war crowd turns on him?



rulemylife -> RE: 34,000 (11/24/2009 7:03:46 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: willbeurdaddy

And that nightmare will come true, at the loss of far more lives than were lost in Iraq, unless someone realizes that a ground war in Afghanistan is unwinnable.


So what is the alternative?  Withdraw and let the Taliban rule again and re-open the terrorist training camps? 



rulemylife -> RE: 34,000 (11/24/2009 7:06:54 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: TheHeretic

Well, President Obama has taken months to develop this strategy, I will wait to see what he has to say when he does the next prime-time speech. 

I wonder how long it will be before the anti-war crowd turns on him?


I think you are mistaking the anti-war crowd as being, well, anti-war, when a large segment was only against the Iraq invasion.



Kirata -> RE: 34,000 (11/24/2009 7:12:07 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: rulemylife

So what is the alternative? Withdraw and let the Taliban rule again and re-open the terrorist training camps?

I thought the camps were run by Al Quiada, that the Taliban essentially only afforded Al Quaida a "safe haven" in which to organize and train. It is my understanding that the Taliban do not themselves have an agenda of global jihad. If they want the US to get out of Afganistan and stay of their hair, it should be clear to them at this point that it would not be in their interest to allow Al Quaida to operate within their territory.

K.



rulemylife -> RE: 34,000 (11/24/2009 7:16:41 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Kirata

I thought the camps were run by Al Quiada, that the Taliban essentially only afforded Al Quaida a "safe haven" in which to organize and train. It is my understanding that the Taliban do not themselves have an agenda of global jihad. And at his point I think it has become clear to them that if they want the US to stay out of their hair, it is not in their interest to encourage Al Quaida operations within their territory.

K.


The fact they did offer them a safe haven is what scares me, and the very real possibility of a recurrence. 

They don't seem to be particularly concerned by our presence there since they have re-established control over large parts of the country.



Kirata -> RE: 34,000 (11/24/2009 7:22:38 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: rulemylife

The fact they did offer them a safe haven is what scares me, and the very real possibility of a recurrence.

Well as it seems to me, there's the makings for a deal there. They agree to keep Al Quaida from operating in Afghanistan, and we go happily home and stay there.

K.



Kirata -> RE: 34,000 (11/24/2009 7:24:36 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: rulemylife

They don't seem to be particularly concerned by our presence there since they have re-established control over large parts of the country.

Well that's because they're doing fairly well. But 34,000 additional US troops might get their attention, and even make them start to think that Al Quaida may have a point.

K.



slvemike4u -> RE: 34,000 (11/24/2009 7:27:45 PM)

And for the Taliban such a deal would be a death knell with their support from the hard liners.
The Taliban and al Quaida complement and prop each other up....The Taliban rejects al Quiada and their power base crumbles.



tazzygirl -> RE: 34,000 (11/24/2009 7:28:45 PM)

Afghan, Pakistani Taliban diverge on goals


Raza Khan THE WASHINGTON TIMES

ISLAMABAD, Pakistan | Both go by the name "Taliban," but militants in Afghanistan and Pakistan are increasingly diverging in their ultimate goal. The Pakistanis have joined al Qaeda's campaign to attack Western targets and spread radical Islam while the Afghans want to rid their country of foreign troops but harbor no global ambitions, according to a number of prominent analysts.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/nov/18/afghan-pakistani-taliban-diverge-on-goals//print/

Which Taliban are you referring too, Master Kirata? Because this seems to point towards two different ones.



willbeurdaddy -> RE: 34,000 (11/24/2009 7:30:38 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: rulemylife

quote:

ORIGINAL: willbeurdaddy

And that nightmare will come true, at the loss of far more lives than were lost in Iraq, unless someone realizes that a ground war in Afghanistan is unwinnable.


So what is the alternative?  Withdraw and let the Taliban rule again and re-open the terrorist training camps? 



See mefisto69. Eventually it will come to that anyway, better to do it sooner and not waste lives in the meantime.



Page: <<   < prev  1 [2] 3 4 5   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy
0.03125