If we as democrats can't unite to fight the taliban, is there any enemy we can?

[Kurska]

Not only were we attacked first in this conflict, but the Taliban represents the very worst kinds of religious totalitarian thugs that compose the complete antithesis of the progressive ideal.

So why is this conflict so controversial on the DU?

[billyoc]

1. Find me an enemy, and we can talk about it.

[The Straight Story]

2. We can unite and fight the Unrec-i-ban

:)

[Kurska]

3. We can unite and fight Sarah Palin and maybe michael jackson. n/t

[Lone_Star_Dem]

21. Are you crazy!

Have you not see the battlefronts that have been drawn on both sides of that issue?

I'm hiding in my foxhole and not coming out until someone waves the white flag. :scared: :hide:

On edit: I so don't actually think you're crazy. I'm just joking. :pals:

[The Straight Story]

25. We will fix you soon enough with an UnHide option

:)

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

4. It's a neo-colonial war that's been lost. Now it's only about saving face.

Complete with "falling dominoes" and "incursions" into Pakistan.

Ring any bells?

[Kurska]

6. You suggest we do what? Withdraw and let the taliban retake Afghanistan, possibly Pakistan and its

nuclear weapons?

What do you "neo-colonial" fools want? What in g-d's name do you purpose we do?

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

9. I propose that we admit that the "war" is lost and get the hell out of their countries.

The erection of the Taliban as the latest bogeyman to threaten us into fruitless wars and even more "defense" spending to the ruin of our nation is exactly what Osama and his pals wanted.

We lost. Get out. Get over it.

[Kurska]

10. So we allow religious fantactics to take not only the country, but give them title of defeaters of

America.

What will we do when those fighters storm over the border and take Pakistan?

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

13. Get back to me when they storm the beaches of New Jersey.

Right. A bunch of goatherding bogeymen are going to destroy civilization around he world.

[Kurska]

16. A bunch goatherding bogeymen who defeated the most powerful army on earth.

And you want to surrender a entire region of nearly 100 million people to them?


The blood of the women they stone would be on your hands as far as I'm concerned.

[Political Heretic]

77. The entire world is not our problem.

Especially when our own reasons for being involved in the first place were anything but "righteous." Especially when our own imperialistic agenda has been at the root of much of the world's violence.

The sooner you get the fact that we are not helping, the better. That's why your arguments about what happens if we leave fall flat - because it makes the assumption that we help by staying which is equally false.

[Cant trust em]

20. Or maybe when a couple of planes get rammed into the tallest buildings in our country.

Man, that would really get me riled up.

[Kurska]

31. Or if a couple of our embassies are bombed.

(don't mention 9-11 it gets isolations all frothing at the mouth"

[Cant trust em]

41. Good luck getting any real answers on this board.

Any time a person posts anything remotely hawkish, people here run the other way. This is why republicans have always been able to paint democrats as weak on defense.

[Kurska]

46. It's all false correlations and criticism of not being Ideologically pure enough.

I can atleast take solace in the fact the far right isn't any better then the far left on that front.

[scarletwoman]

62. I'll never accuse you of not being ideologically pure enough.

I'll just accuse you of being a warmongering dolt.

[Boddingham]

27. Good answer.

:thumbsup:

[alarimer]

106. This is not ourr fight.

The Taliban are not our enemy and we cannot police the world and decide what government every country needs. Afghanistan needs to do it themselves.

[Rosa Luxemburg]

5. Bush, oil and the Taliban

http://dir.salon.com/story/politics/feature/2002/02/08/forbidden/index.html

[mmonk]

7. Geesh, America needs to make up its mind.

First it helps install the Taliban along with Pakistan and Saudi Arabia. Then it removes them by joining together with Iran and Russia to aid the Northern Alliance. It thens gets its oil man Karzai (former Unocal employee) in office so everything is fine with the pipeline. Then it hasn't supported him enough to have a strong government because we had to get the oil reserves in Iraq. Now what are we going to do?

[Kurska]

8. The Taliban needs to be crushed utterly and driven out of afghanistan.

That is the end of the line as far as I'm concerned, if we let them surge back and take the country we'll end up back there in 20 years anyways. We can fight this war now or we could fight it latter, because as long as we have even the remotest connection to the region they'll attack us again and this time with the mantle of victory.

[Name removed]

15. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Kurska]

18. I wouldn't be surpised if we didn't have invasion plans for EVERY hostile regime, incase things heat

up. That is what a army does, when it isn't defending or attacking it's planning to defend or attack.

Also the "Plans for invasion were on his desk 9/9/01" reeks of trutherism

[mmonk]

30. Maybe the BBC can add to the truthiness?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/1550366.stm

[Kurska]

35. Way to go you linked to a BBC article where they only said "A former Pakistani diplomat" is saying

that. As if it was the official policy or the belief of the BBC.

I don't see the BBC doing any original resource on that point.

Why would a "A former Pakistani diplomat" have access to the highest workings of american politics or the U.S military anways.

[mmonk]

49. Well they were who we had been working with, especially

in backing the Mujahideen against the Soviet backed government there (which is part of the background on the region and the rise of al Qaeda groups and the Taliban government). In fact, the head of Pakistan's ISI was in Washington on Sept. 11th, 2001, having breakfast with US Senators.

[Name removed]

52. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[uppityperson]

84. I agree with that but here's the problem. Who will take over then?

I really hate the Taliban but who will take over? Serious question?

I can see it happening only with massive multi-nations working on nation building there and the money isn't there to do that.

For your OP, when did the Taliban attack the USA?

[tekisui]

104. That'll never happen.

They can win the waiting game, and come back. They have years and land on their side. They were driven out by the US once, and came back stronger.

[Douglas Carpenter]

114. but that is simply NOT going to happen - Afghanistan is like Viet Nam with snow

First of all the Taliban did NOT attack us on September 11 or anywhere else. Although I would have to agree that an ally of the Taliban did.

If we can do as President Obama recently stated publicly and assure that Afghanistan cannot be used as a launching pad for attacks on the United States - which can probably be accomplished through a series of political maneuvers which may or may not require some limited military action (I don't know) that is the extent of what is possible and what would protect the security of the United States.

In the on-the-ground realities in Afghanistan, the Pashtuns make up roughly 40% of the population, by far the largest and most dominant ethnic group in Afghanistan. To many Pashtuns, the Taliban is a kind of Pastun Liberation Army. It is hard to say whether the Taliban enjoys the support of the majority of Pastuns. But there is no doubt that they do have the support of a major and significant portion. There is no doubt that whenever a bomb or missile or drone attacks a group of Taliban operatives we invariably end up killing a whole bunch of Pastun civilians - men, women and children - along with whatever low level Taliban operatives. Thus creating even more and more support for the Taliban and recruiting more and more Taliban fighters. If we reach the tipping point of turning the Taliban into the army of the Pastun people in the eyes of the majority of Pastuns, or if we have already unwittingly done so - we will lose whatever limited goals are achievable in Afghanistan. History has consistently demostrated that defeating by military means a determined insurgency is flat out impossible - short of total genocide - once it has won the hearts and minds of a people that view that determined insurgency as their army.

There are many evils in the world that simply cannot be eradicated my military means. There are many things in this world that attempts to eradicate will only make matters worse, far worse.

The one regime in the world which is probably even worse than the Taliban is North Korea. There are actually ignoramuses and lunatics suggesting we should bomb and invade North Korea to "liberate" the people and stop their nuclear program. But what would the likely consequences of such lunacy actually be? Only the utter destruction of the Korean Peninsula, the loss of millions of lives and perhaps the nuclear destruction of Japan and - God forbid other places much closer to home.

[frog92969]

11. Who attacked who?

http://archive.democrats.com/view.cfm?id=5166

"the U.S. government saw the Taliban regime ''as a source of stability in Central Asia that would enable the construction of an oil pipeline across Central Asia'', from the rich oilfields in Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan, and Kazakhstan, through Afghanistan and Pakistan, to the Indian Ocean.

Until now, says the book, ''the oil and gas reserves of Central Asia have been controlled by Russia. The Bush government wanted to change all that''.

But, confronted with Taliban's refusal to accept U.S. conditions, ''this rationale of energy security changed into a military one'', the authors claim.

''At one moment during the negotiations, the U.S. representatives told the Taliban, 'either you accept our offer of a carpet of gold, or we bury you under a carpet of bombs','' Brisard said in an interview in Paris."

[JVS]

12. Not our business. Besides, Carter and Zbigniew Brzezinski set the stage for the Taliban's ilk.

So before we talk about people here uniting against them, maybe we should consider what the even smaller group known as our rulers do to support them.

[Junkdrawer]

14. al Qaeda did 9/11. No, wait, Saddam did 9/11.. No, wait, the Taliban did 9/11.

OK, we got it now:

Hugo Chavez did 9/11 with help from Iran. Final answer.

[OmmmSweetOmmm]

17. +1

[Kurska]

19. Al qaeda did 9/11 and the taliban provided the support and shelter needed to do it.

Saddam didn't do jack, why are you assuming I support the Iraq war?

[Junkdrawer]

23. How is the taliban's role BEFORE 9/11 more important than...

Saudia Arabia or Pakistan? :shrug:

[Cant trust em]

29. Is this an argument for why we shouldn't have attacked the Taliban...

or making a case to attack Saudia Arabia and Pakistan too?

[Junkdrawer]

32. Personally, I think Somalia shoulders the largest blame...

They were the first to give Osama shelter.

[Kurska]

36. Somalia as a national unit doesn't even exist anymore n/t

[Junkdrawer]

39. All the more reason to blow up the survivors....We can win this one...

Hell, at least we can't make it much worse in the world's eyes.

[Kurska]

43. I don't think anything short of a nuke could make somalia any worse. n/t

[Political Heretic]

78. Actually the taliban offered to hand bin ladin over to us and we turned them down.

:shrug:

[Hannah Bell]

22. the taliban attacked us first? when was that?

[Junkdrawer]

26. The Taliban, al Qaeda, Hugo Chavez, Saddam and Iran all planned 9/11...

Don't you know nothing?

[Kurska]

38. No just Al qaeda with taliban military and logistical support did.

Please don't commit the logical fallacy of assuming you can alter the truth by associating it with false statements.

[Junkdrawer]

44. Please: What "military and logistical support"???

Passports, money, pilot training?

I know: They supplied the jungle gyms for the aerobics training.

[Kurska]

47. You're reall saying the Taliban didn't support al qaeda? Give them shelter and help fund them?

[Junkdrawer]

51. Oh no. Those jungle gyms are NOT cheap....

And don't get me started on the cost of used tires for the obstacle courses....

[scarletwoman]

71. The SAUDIS funded Al Qaeda. Why aren't you agitating for bombing THEM?

[uppityperson]

87. thank you for a voice of reason

[charlie]

88. Details, details

You're a real buzzkill, you know that? :)

[Kurska]

111. I like the Saudis about as much as I like the taliban.

If Osama was in Saudia Arabia at the time of 9/11 there is no doubt in my mind they would have ended up in a war with us instead, as far as I'm concerned those religious nutjobs dodged a bullet.

[Sebastian Doyle]

63. You forgot Cindy Sheehan and Cynthia McKinney

Obviously, they supervised the entire operation from their secret bunker under Lenin's tomb.

[Junkdrawer]

72. Minor players. I'm keeping my powder dry for the REAL collaborators...

The ones who supplied the jungle gyms.

[Sebastian Doyle]

74. You mean Big Toys?

Here's a picture from their own website, with a bunch of future terraists!111!!!!!111!

[Boddingham]

24. Why is opium production in Afghanistan off the chart since the invasion?

Not that I care. I think all drugs should be legalized.

[ColbertWatcher]

28. Which Taliban? The American one or the Afghani one? n/t

[sandnsea]

33. Hands off until there's a humanitarian crisis

then blame the USA for their lack of empathy, except when the US has been attacked and then blamed the USA for not keeping hands off other country's internal affairs.

I think the basic problem is that everybody knows we need a humanitarian building strategy and it's been so badly implemented that many think it can't be salvaged.

Others seriously do not believe there is any such thing as al qaeda and that it's all a Bushco/CIA plot.

[Cant trust em]

37. How dare you bring common sense into this argument!

There you go again.

[Fumesucker]

34. Perhaps we should defeat our own religious totalitarian thugs first

Before trying to defeat them on the other side of the world.

In case you hadn't noticed, the Republicans still seem to largely control the Congress of the USA and have a large influence on the POTUS.

[Kurska]

42. Our own religious thugs are dangerous aswell, as evidenced by the murder of abortion doctors.

Which is no less disgusting then the slaughter of school girls by the Taliban, I am however convinced that our secular society can chew bubble gum and walk at the same time aren't you?

[Fumesucker]

45. The Soviet Union shares a border with Afghanistan..

And got their asses handed to them by the spiritual forebears of the Taliban, it broke the Soviet Union.

Our supply lines are vastly longer than those of the SU were and in modern warfare logistics is almost everything, recall that Napoleon remarked that an army travels on its belly.

Afghanistan will eventually break us too, it's where empires go to die.

[Kurska]

48. Prophet of disaster n/t

[Fumesucker]

54. Show me the invasion of Afghanistan that has gone well..

Just one since, say, Alexander the Great.

We have already been in Afghanistan nearly twice as long as it took to utterly defeat the Wehrmacht, the Kriegsmarine, the Luftwaffe, the Waffen SS, the Imperial Japanese Army, the Imperial Japanese Navy and the Imperial Japanese Air Force as well as random Italian and other forces.

How much longer should we sacrifice blood and treasure in a futile conflict on the other side of the world?

[Junkdrawer]

57. Look: the taliban provided jungle gyms for the hijackers. We have pictures:

If it weren't for the taliban, the hijackers would have never had the fitness to run and catch their flights!

[uppityperson]

89. "Abortion doctors"? What. The. Fuck?

You do know that Dr Tiller was an OB/GYN doctor, right? And that abortions were a small part of his practice. You did now that, right?

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

40. Yeah, Republicans. They're a bigger threat to the world anyway.

Have fun in Afghanistan, Rambo.

[MadHound]

50. The true battle against the Taliban is a war of ideas,

Sadly, we brought an army to this war of ideas. And as we continue to kill in Afghanistan and Pakistan, kill innocents and others, we continue to lose this war of ideas. We simply make more recruits for the Taliban and the various terrorist/nationalist groups in the area.

Thus, if we continue to follow this course, we cannot win. The only possible way this way is to make a desolation and call it peace. This is the same situation we faced in Vietnam, and you saw how that turned out.

Our best bet is to pull out the military, and instead fight the battle of ideas with groups like NGO's and various other humanitarian groups and initiatives.

[Mari333]

53. we aint there for anything but to secure an oil pipeline darlin

http://www.alternet.org/world/139983/pipeline-istan:_everything_you_need_to_know_about_oil,_gas,_russia,_china,_iran,_afghanistan_and_obama/

dont believe everything you hear on fox, or from bush and cheney (who thank you for continuing support of their policies)

[scarletwoman]

55. The longer we're there, the more the Taliban get stronger.

Didn't you learn anything from Vietnam? A foreign military can NOT destroy indigenous resistance, it can only make it more extreme.

We need to get the fuck out of there. The Afghanis will take care of their own affairs in their own way in their own time.

sw

[JVS]

56. Well it can, but it has to wipe the indigenous people out.

And there is way too much of a political cost for a modern advanced country to do that.

[scarletwoman]

61. Like, destroy their villages so we can save them? (nt)

[JVS]

65. Well the villages are mere property, you need to get the inhabitants too.

[scarletwoman]

68. Of course. It's really very simple. Kill all the Afghans and that will solve the Taliban problem.

[JVS]

70. I don't endorse that, but it would work. It would also be a very bad move diplomatically.

[scarletwoman]

73. Not to mention, morally. Not that morality counts for anything, of course.

[G_j]

110. yep, genocide is bad diplomacy alright

:think:

[Gabi Hayes]

58. this is so funny....as in everything the BFEE touches, we're screwed, no matter what:

whatever they do on purpose....most of what they've done....is designed to put more and more power into the fewest hands possible; this includes all financial market dealings since 2001, as well as anything involving intel or general flow of digitized information

on top of that, anything they've supposedly done that wasn't specifically designed to further their own ends (possibly the invasion of the Afghan, with the goal of eliminating AlQ/Taliban, other extremists), assuming the pipeline wasn't the ulterior motivation behind all that, has been so miserably handled that, no matter what happens, we're still screwed.

what I'm talking about here is that, if we stay in Afghan, we're screwed, as all other invaders have been: our economy can't stand even one Iraq occupation, much less two. if we don't stay, the most likely outcome is that the most radical Islamic elements in the area will end up with a large enough nuclear stockpile to make its use more or less inevitable

have fun with that

EVERYTHING these monsters has touched over the last eight years has turned to shit, for the vast majority of people on earth. only a tiny handful has benefited....but that's exactly what they intended to happen. I don't think even they could have forseen just how hideously they've changed the face of things in the process. good going!

[Sebastian Doyle]

59. The Insurance companies, Goldman Sachs, the Blueballed cowards and the DLC

Those are the people threatening this country. Not some fucking goat herders in Afghanistan.

[politicat]

60. For what it's worth....

The effort in Afghanistan absolutely has my support. The Taliban is a mess we helped make (along with the Brits -- and if somebody doesn't understand that history, they'll never understand why we have a moral responsibility there) and we have to clean it up. If that means fighting them to the last man, then so be it. No surrender.

(And with that, I need to get my weekly care package to Ghazni City ready to mail tomorrow.)

[Fumesucker]

64. Afghanistan cannot be won militarily..

A really profound cultural and economic aid package might do the job but there is simply no way in hell that the US will ever spend that kind of money on anything other than bombs and bullets, it simply isn't going to happen, Obama would never get "bipartisan" support for "touchy-feely" stuff like food and economic development.

Killing people good, helping them bad.. Basic Republicant psychology, even domestically.

And way too many Dems think like Republicants as well.

[EFerrari]

66. Bombs don't clean up anything. There is no moral responsibility

that can be fulfilled by bombing women and children into oblivion.

[scarletwoman]

67. "If that means fighting them to the last man, then so be it." Fine, you do realize it will OUR

"last man" in this equation, I hope.

They live there, it's their home. Every bomb that drops on a village and kills a bunch of families means more recruits for the Taliban. We can stay there for the next 20 years, and there will always be new generations growing up determined to fight off the foreign invader.

People will resist foreign occupations, always.

[Mari333]

69. +1

[Sebastian Doyle]

75. If that means fighting them to the last man, then so be it. No surrender.

Yeah, that's what the Russians said. Look what happened to them.

[Political Heretic]

80. That assumes that "fighting" is the way to fix things. That's a faulty assumption.

But we will certainly kill enough people while you cheer on the bloodshed.

[Political Heretic]

76. We weren't attacked first by the taliban, and when we were attacked the offered Bin Ladin to us

And we refused. So... your entire premise pretty much fails.

The Taliban sucks. Does that mean we should be in this war? No.

[geek tragedy]

81. You are spreading pro Taliban LIES.

The Taliban were orders by the UN to turn bin Laden over years before 911 and refused. After 911 they made a bunch of silly 'offers' such as allowing bin Laden to face a sharia trial.

They offered up excuse after excuse after excuse. But they never tried to do what they were absolutely obligated to fo , i.e. expel Al Qaida. And their America-hating sympathizers on the Stalinist left still make excuses for them.

[Fumesucker]

83. "Stalinist left"?

:rofl:

Could you get any more trite and hackneyed?

[scarletwoman]

86. "Could you get any more trite and hackneyed?" Shhh. Don't ask.

He can, and will.

[geek tragedy]

91. The same people who sympathized with the USSR are

niw the ones who spread long debunked pro-Taluban talking points, propaganda and lies.

Hilariously, these same pro-Taliban and anti-American folks claim to be the Democratic base and the voice if the progressive movement.

Those who side with Mullah Omar against Barack Obama are pure scum.

[Fumesucker]

94. I never "sympathized" with the USSR..

I fucking hate oppression but I recognize that we can be almost, if not as, oppressive as the USSR at its worst as long as the people on the receiving end of the oppression are dark skinned and/or talk funny.

Keep in mind that "the land of the free" has the highest incarceration rate on the planet, we don't even give a fuck about our own citizens, let alone anyone on the other side of the globe.

Two time Congressional Medal of Honor recipient, General Smedley Butler saw through the bullshit..

http://www.lexrex.com/enlightened/articles/warisaracket.htm

WAR is a racket. It always has been.

It is possibly the oldest, easily the most profitable, surely the most vicious. It is the only one international in scope. It is the only one in which the profits are reckoned in dollars and the losses in lives.

A racket is best described, I believe, as something that is not what it seems to the majority of the people. Only a small "inside" group knows what it is about. It is conducted for the benefit of the very few, at the expense of the very many. Out of war a few people make huge fortunes.

In the World War a mere handful garnered the profits of the conflict. At least 21,000 new millionaires and billionaires were made in the United States during the World War. That many admitted their huge blood gains in their income tax returns. How many other war millionaires falsified their tax returns no one knows.

How many of these war millionaires shouldered a rifle? How many of them dug a trench? How many of them knew what it meant to go hungry in a rat-infested dug-out? How many of them spent sleepless, frightened nights, ducking shells and shrapnel and machine gun bullets? How many of them parried a bayonet thrust of an enemy? How many of them were wounded or killed in battle?

<snip>

More at the link..

[JVS]

102. Why would USSR sympathizers like the Taliban. The USSR was fighting zealots like the Taliban 30...

years ago. It was the US and its running dog lackeys that supported the growth of religious fundamentalists in that region.

[Forkboy]

116. get a grip.

:rofl:

[Political Heretic]

95. mmmmkay....

There are two non-conflicting truths here. The first is that the Taliban are a bunch of vile thugs, who would never do anything for the United States out of the "generosity of their hearts." That they offered Bin Ladin, has certainly been spun by certain (mostly neocon) crowds as nothing but excuse making, true. It was at the very least an attempt to save their own skin.

We don't really know what it was beyond that. Because what is also true is that, just like Iraq, the minds of our government were 100% committed to the invasion of Afghanistan and nothing the Taliban could have said or could have done would have changed that. No one really knows for sure what were "excuses" and what weren't because it was never an option to even talk at all. We were going to attack someone, period - with absolute certainty about that. And we did.

I was going to start this big defense about how I don't hate America but you know what, screw that. There are many things about the political structure of America that I do hate - that anyone of basic moral conscience should hate. I don't hate the ideals of America, or the people who live here. But I most certainly do hate the hegemonic agenda of our government, and the stranglehold corporations have over our country. I hate the way our policy is driven by profit and power seeking, how massive violence is completely acceptable and legitimized by our leaders, how extreme inequality and a decades long assault on the working class is perfectly acceptable to many.

If that's a problem with you, tough fucking shit.

[JVS]

101. Did you miss the Johnbirchunderground site and find yourself here?

[Forkboy]

115. You must be LoZo's sockpuppet.

[Name removed]

79. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Fumesucker]

82. And your group signs up to bomb wedding parties from five miles up..

One side can cast asparagus as good as another.

[geek tragedy]

90. No, we just support our own nation against the

most vicious, murderous, backwards thugs on the planet.

I'n quite sure Pol Pot would find much support amongst the people here who are rooting against the US in Afghanistsn.

[Fumesucker]

92. Are you in Afghanistan?

If not, why not?

And there are vicious, murderous, backwards thugs all over the planet.

It was C.S. Lewis who, in his unforgettable Screwtape Letters, wrote: "The greatest evil is not done now in those sordid ’dens of rime’ that Dickens loved to paint. It is not even done in concentration camps and labor camps. In those we see its final result. But it is conceived and ordered (moved, seconded, carried and minuted) in clean, carpeted, warmed, and well-lighted offices, by quiet men with white collars and cut fingernails and smooth-shaven cheeks who do no need to raise their voice." -Ronald Reagan, Remarks at the Annual Convention of the the National Association of Evangelicals

[Forkboy]

120. I'm sure Pol Pot enjoyed the deaths of others as much as you do.

hey, this is easy!

[spanone]

85. there's always a bogeyman if you're willing to look....

i thought it was al queda? no osama bin laden, no saddam hussein...911 was a crime not an act of war

[laststeamtrain]

93. Let's unite to fight the 700 Club first. n/t.

[armyowalgreens]

98. My family was featured on the 700 club when I was a little kid.

I'm ashamed.

[western mass]

96. Sure, let's start by fighting the American Taliban.

We've got plenty of right-wing religious zealots at home who've done far greater harm to world and america.

I'd be happy to get rid of the ones over in Afghanistan too. Sadly, fighting a ground war in Afghanistan will accomplish very little in the long run other than line the pockets of arms dealers and coffin makers.

[armyowalgreens]

97. We aren't fighting an enemy. We are fighting an ideology.

An ideology that runs rampant through the United States and many other countries. And, might I add, all religions and all cultures.

If you want to stop this mindless violence, you need to attack the ideology. Not a bunch of bearded men with AK-47s living in a cave.

[robcon]

99. The taliban should be annihilated.

n/t

[conscious evolution]

100. hook line sinker

I take it your views of the taliban were shaped by the US media?
Here is a clue-The US media lies.The US media is nothing but a propoganda tool for the goverment and large corporations and as such they will tell any lie in order to decieve and shape your opinion to whatever viewpoint they feel will help their aims.

[Solly Mack]

103. Shocking as it may seem but not everyone has to agree that invading Afghanistan was a good idea.

No one is required to rally 'round the flag of invasion. If your support for the invasion of Afghanistan requires the complete acceptance of others, then perhaps the problem is with you.

If you're in actual need of unit cohesion and mission readiness regarding Afghanistan, I'm sure your needs can be met at the nearest MEPS.

[tekisui]

105. We are bombing a new generation into terrorism.

We shouldn't be there. We knocked the taliban out of power once. They are stronger now. Our war there serves no one except the recruiters of terrorists.

[polmaven]

118. We depleted their power once...

We did not knock them out of power..Our attention was diverted to the invasion and occupation of Iraq. If we had continued to keep the pressure on, and support the new government, maybe they would have been removed, but we didn't. THAT'S why they came back stronger. We did not eliminate them, as we should have.

[Karmadillo]

107. We could unite to fight global warming, global poverty, global illiteracy, global lack of access to

health care. Lots of things where we could unite to fight. The Military Industrial Complex might prefer your choice, but as Dr. Strangelove and a host of other works of art and nonfiction demonstrate, it's not a good idea to let them take the lead on these things. If it's unity in a fight you're looking for, however, there are a range of options where we could come together in no time at all.

[G_j]

108. ==

:applause:

[Kurska]

109. I'm talking military threats, not economic ones, not that those aren't just as important.

[Karmadillo]

113. I think, not that I'm much of an expert on these things, that if we would address the economic

issues first, we'd discover there was much less need to address military threats. Given human nature, those threats wouldn't disappear, but they would greatly diminish. Our strategy in Iraq and Afghanistan and Pakistan seems very counterproductive to our longterm interests (not to mention the interests of the people of those countries). We face challenges this century that could destroy civilization (and I'm aware I sound like the worst kind of late night horror show when I write those words, but the sad thing is we've made those threats a reality) and it really does seem a waste to ignore them and instead take scarce resources and put them into creating an ever more efficient killing machine. If we took our wealth (well, what wealth we have left) and knowledge and focused on alleviating suffering (and I realize that's always easier said than done) and addressing the environmental issues that threaten to turn the world into a nightmare for our children, everybody would be so much better off. We might even discover we've found a way to address our spiritual emptiness.

[NNN0LHI]

112. Clue Phone for Kurska: The Taliban keep having children just like we do

The Taliban who you consider your enemy were for the most part little kids on 9/11/01. Just like our soldiers who are over there now killing them were almost 9 years ago.

Therefore the only way to ever "win" this war you so dearly love would be to completely depopulate Afghanistan and then repopulate the country with the type of people you would find suitable to live there.

Are you prepared to do that?

Don

[leftofthedial]

117. We should start with the Baptists.

They're easier to get at.

[rucky]

119. When do you deploy?

[Djinn]

121. You think the Taliban attacked the US before the US attacked Afghanistan?

Go back to your history books and try again