US to ask Taliban for peace

[RedRalph]

Well, its important we display total dominance over them in the field or why would scared locals trust us to protect them? I agree, though, the kinectic war is just one part of a much larger conflict. Alot of the "fighting" isn't done with guns.

You already have displayed that and it hasn't worked.

Like I said, we don't have to exterminate them. What makes you think we do or that its even an objective at all?

I don't, it was in response to MB's "sometimes all the cockroaches can be killed..." anecdote.

If we do it right, they won't need us to stay.

No one is seriously considering that possibility at this stage, hence why peace negotiaitons are on the horizon.

I do.

Well McChrystal, Petreaus and Obama don't.

 

[MobBoss]

I don't, it was in response to MB's "sometimes all the cockroaches can be killed..." anecdote.

Pay attention, thats not what I said....

 

[Flying Pig]

No one is seriously considering that possibility at this stage, hence why peace negotiaitons are on the horizon.

Ahem; they're on the horizon so that what we leave the lead umbrellas with is vaguely stable. We could just keep shooting them for as long as we want, but what would the point of that be? We've won, there's no point in keeping fighting for another objective.

 

[Ecofarm]

We've won, there's no point in keeping fighting for another objective.

Iran.

 

[RedRalph]

Ahem; they're on the horizon so that what we leave the lead umbrellas with is vaguely stable. We could just keep shooting them for as long as we want, but what would the point of that be? We've won, there's no point in keeping fighting for another objective.

In what sense have ye won? Ye drove them out of government, fought on for 8 more years to absolutely no advantage to anyone in Afghanistan, and now ye are letting them back into government. how the hell is that a win?

 

[Flying Pig]

As much as I would like to see world war 3, defence spending at 10% of GDP and a million tommies marching into Iran, I don't think it's going to happen. If there is a war with Iran, and I think there will be (just so that son-of-a-gun general Richards can be proven wrong - no more real wars my r's), we'll do it properly with a few more tanks and planes than we're using at the moment.

In what sense have ye won? Ye drove them out of government, fought on for 8 more years to absolutely no advantage to anyone in Afghanistan, and now ye are letting them back into government. how the hell is that a win?

Now this sounds awfully familiar - which stable, modern, peaceful country does that sound like to you? The objective was to get the Taliban out and establish a viable state. That's done. All that we're trying to do now is make life easier for the poor sods who have to keep the place running. People confuse 'totally and utterly wiping out the enemy' with 'getting to a state when the people who are meant to be doing the job can do it'

 

[Ecofarm]

As much as I would like to see world war 3, defence spending at 10% of GDP and a million tommies marching into Iran, I don't think it's going to happen.

Bout time we had another hawk. Death from above.


But Iran is not WW3. It's a pissant theocratic dictatorship with a rebellious population; it has no significant ally. e've spet 20 years isolating it and it is time for change.

 

[RedRalph]

Bout time we had another hawk.

Death from above.

He's not serious. He's quite a sensible guy.

 

[RedRalph]

Now this sounds awfully familiar - which stable, modern, peaceful country does that sound like to you? The objective was to get the Taliban out and establish a viable state. That's done. All that we're trying to do now is make life easier for the poor sods who have to keep the place running. People confuse 'totally and utterly wiping out the enemy' with 'getting to a state when the people who are meant to be doing the job can do it'

What viable state? Are you serious? And when you say people who are meant to do the job, do you include the Taliban in that? Because evidently your and the american government do.

 

[say1988]

and establish a viable state. That's done

That is at least questionable. It is viable when there are thousands of foreign troops there to fight insurgents, but if our forces pull out, will it stay viable? That is the big question and to be reasonable sure that the answer is yes, the insurgents must be removed as a significant force (and I am not talking about numbers) and it sure seems that military force isn't doing the trick.
The only realistic chance to do that is to bring them to terms with the new government, hence negotiating with the Taliban (just as the Israelis negotiated with Arafat and the British with the IRA, with differing amounts of success).

The idea of "we never negotiate with terrorists" is garbage. On the small scale, in singular events, it is often quite reasonable, but not in the big picture.

 

[Flying Pig]

He's not serious. He's quite a sensible guy.

Unfortunatly, you're right. Unless they have such a big war that they bring back dad's army, I'm all for not getting blown up.

But Iran is not WW3. It's a pissant theocratic dictatorship with a rebellious population; it has no significant ally

And it has nukes. And attacking it would cause a crusade from just about every other muslim country there is against us bacon-grill-munching infidels.

What viable state? Are you serious? And when you say people who are meant to do the job, do you include the Taliban in that? Because evidently your and the american government do.

As much as I hate to admit it, there's nothing wrong with a terrorist peice of scum who spent half his life shooting Tommies being elected by fair process into government. Just look at your country!

What the allies are trying to do is make something out of Afghanistan. They'll never make another Japan - they've got the Afghans, for chrissakes - but they might just avoid making a Somalia. That's the hope; so the role of NATO soldiers at present is to do the work that the ANA (which are known in British military parlance as the Lead Umbrellas in a reference to what they use to shelter from enemy fire) are supposed to be doing and training them up so that at some point they can take over. It's a pretty good plan, but doesn't look great since it involves a great deal of getting blown up without a great deal of glorious victories.

The idea of "we never negotiate with terrorists" is garbage. On the small scale, in singular events, it is often quite reasonable, but not in the big picture.

It means that we never pay ransoms. As I said before, democracy means rule by Hitler if people want Hitler - otherwise what can we call it?

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

Bout time we had another hawk. Death from above.

Oh great, someone called you a Hawk, so now we're going to get this act?

 

[say1988]

It means that we never pay ransoms.

I agree with that much, but the problem is when people try to insist on bringing it to a larger scale. Saying that negotiating with the Taliban is bad because they are terrorists.

As I said before, democracy means rule by Hitler if people want Hitler - otherwise what can we call it?

I agree entirely, that is why I thought it was a disgrace when we cut aid going to the Palestinians because they elected, fairly, Hamas. Devastating out what economy there was and inciting plenty of violence.

 

[Yeekim]

But Iran is not WW3. It's a pissant theocratic dictatorship with a rebellious population.

Just watch out that this rebellious population does not forget their gripe against ayatollahs and unite against western infidels who started to shoot rockets at their country.

 

[Yeekim]

I agree entirely, that is why I thought it was a disgrace when we cut aid going to the Palestinians because they elected, fairly, Hamas. Devastating out what economy there was and inciting plenty of violence.

And democracy also means cutting support to Hamas if people want to cut support to Hamas. Hell, democracy means nuking them people want to nuke them.

 

[Flying Pig]

That's an extreme. Representative democracy, which is what pretty much all democratic countries since Athens have had, means that we elect politicains to follow their own moral compasses, so they can control public emotion and prevent rash action