Arrest Bush? ok, sure...

[joshh]

All of the major players from the Soviet war stayed in Afghanistan and fought between themselves for control of the government, with people like Ahmad Shah Massoud being the popular leaders because of what they did during the war. The Taliban came later from people that were educated by Saudi interests in the refugee camps in Pakistan. Many Afghan warlords threw in with the Taliban when they saw the writing on the wall, but that was later once they had become a power player in Afghanistan. Hence how the forces that were the government after the fall of the communists, like Massoud's forces, later became the Northern Alliance.

Now it is just semantics though, the point is, the Taliban are a fringe group that hasn't existed nearly as long as most people think and has little to do with the defeat of the Soviets.

My point was they're pretty much the same people with a different name. Yes the principals and ideas came from three other countries but they didn't ship in Taliban fighters from these countries as much as they used people of the region, Afghanistan. You said it yourself with the Warlords. Same shit (people) different name (ideas) as I see it.

[mrsleeve]

^

Well thank you for the history lesson. Most of everything I remember reading just make the point once the Rooskies pulled out that the Mujahideen, kinda took on the role of leadership and morphed into what we now know as the Taliban.

Your right its just semantics now and few people know the term Mujahideen, so I was using Taliban as a blanket term. I admit I dont know much in depth about the region just a basic over view, and very basic last 70 years or so of its history.

[E30Kaiser]

I don't think there's any way you're going to be able to make a point of people that ended up joining the Taliban avoiding the Soviet War.
But the groups may not have been called the "Taliban" but they had many groups that were organized. Like the Mujahideen (resistance fighters in Afghan). And some of them simply reformed in other groups like the Taliban and Al-Qaeda. And in some cases the groups never disbanded. Like Maktab al-Khidamat.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maktab_al-Khidamat

These groups are very well organized.

Just saying that I believe there is quite the mix of the same people in these organizations that had connections to being fighters against the Soviets.

All of the major players from the Soviet war stayed in Afghanistan and fought between themselves for control of the government, with people like Ahmad Shah Massoud being the popular leaders because of what they did during the war. The Taliban came later from people that were educated by Saudi interests in the refugee camps in Pakistan. Many Afghan warlords threw in with the Taliban when they saw the writing on the wall, but that was later once they had become a power player in Afghanistan. Hence how the forces that were the government after the fall of the communists, like Massoud's forces, later became the Northern Alliance.

Now it is just semantics though, the point is, the Taliban are a fringe group that hasn't existed nearly as long as most people think and has little to do with the defeat of the Soviets.

[joshh]

I would ask if you think that we should invade every country that doesn't like us, but it occurs to me that the answer is probably yes. The problem with committing ourselves to manpower and money intensive "nation building" exercises is that they expose the weaknesses in our military and maximize the effectiveness of the yahoos.

We have an incredibly strong and incredibly capable military. One that is capable of winning pretty much any conceivable war on the planet. The problem is that we've been using our troops as police instead of warriors. In a conflict in which we have rules and they don't, it's a losing combination.

Because they don't like us? Where do I even imply that? If they don't like us they can go fuck themselves. This nation gives more than any other nation in the world to other countries. Yes we as a country have done some fucked up things and we regret those things but when it comes down to it you want peace, you befriend the strongest peaceful nation on the planet. The US.
Those who attack us get the sword a la mode.

The nation building is something the US throws in because we realize we can't just leave the population there after we dismantle their fucked up government....what other country does that quite like we do! We could walk in and take out those we want to but instead we actually have some of our soldiers die in the effort to help reorganize and structure the places we leave. If you consider that evil, that's on you.

I am not splitting hairs, the group didn't exist until well after the Soviets left, and most of the people that were members of the early Taliban were people that steered clear of the conflict and lived in refugee camps in Pakistan. To say they are all the same group basically makes it a war of us vs Afghanistan.

I don't mean to be condescending, just nothing pisses me off more than the same stupid bullshit being spouted over and over again about Afghanistan by people like Rick Santorum.

I don't think there's any way you're going to be able to make a point of people that ended up joining the Taliban avoiding the Soviet War.
But the groups may not have been called the "Taliban" but they had many groups that were organized. Like the Mujahideen (resistance fighters in Afghan). And some of them simply reformed in other groups like the Taliban and Al-Qaeda. And in some cases the groups never disbanded. Like Maktab al-Khidamat.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maktab_al-Khidamat

These groups are very well organized.

Just saying that I believe there is quite the mix of the same people in these organizations that had connections to being fighters against the Soviets.

[E30Kaiser]

A rose by any other name is still a fucking rose.

Splitting hairs are we. Fuck sakes Rag tag tribal indigenous peoples in A-stan then.

I am not splitting hairs, the group didn't exist until well after the Soviets left, and most of the people that were members of the early Taliban were people that steered clear of the conflict and lived in refugee camps in Pakistan. To say they are all the same group basically makes it a war of us vs Afghanistan.

I don't mean to be condescending, just nothing pisses me off more than the same stupid bullshit being spouted over and over again about Afghanistan by people like Rick Santorum.

[mrsleeve]

This is not accurate. The Taliban didn't exist until the 90's.

A rose by any other name is still a fucking rose.

Splitting hairs are we. Fuck sakes Rag tag tribal indigenous peoples in A-stan then.

[nrubenstein]

Split hairs all you want. Thank god the US is still a military might and willing to go where we need to to send a message. I could give a fuck if it wasn't a Sovereign Nation that did it. Afghan and Iraq were both terrorist sympathizers and strongholds. Just like how Palestine voted in Hamas...FUCK EM!



"I fear all we have done is to awaken a sleeping giant and fill him with a terrible resolve." -Isoroku Yamamoto

I would ask if you think that we should invade every country that doesn't like us, but it occurs to me that the answer is probably yes. The problem with committing ourselves to manpower and money intensive "nation building" exercises is that they expose the weaknesses in our military and maximize the effectiveness of the yahoos.

We have an incredibly strong and incredibly capable military. One that is capable of winning pretty much any conceivable war on the planet. The problem is that we've been using our troops as police instead of warriors. In a conflict in which we have rules and they don't, it's a losing combination.

[Dozyproductions]

This is not accurate. The Taliban didn't exist until the 90's.

As for Bush, I wouldn't be surprised if he is taken for questioning, the Canadians friggin interrogated Cro Cop last year for war crimes. The only war crime Cro Cop has ever committed is murdering people with left kicks to the dome.

sure they did, just under a different name.

[E30Kaiser]

^

Yup the thing you have to remember is the taliban knocked the shit out of the Russians for 10 years till they gave up and went home. WE trained them how to fight like this............................ And we know the Rooskies are not big on pulling punches. All that aside, if we were to reinstate the carpet bombing indiscriminately I think we would have seen much more positive results about 8 years ago

This is not accurate. The Taliban didn't exist until the 90's.

As for Bush, I wouldn't be surprised if he is taken for questioning, the Canadians friggin interrogated Cro Cop last year for war crimes. The only war crime Cro Cop has ever committed is murdering people with left kicks to the dome.

[joshh]

Split hairs all you want. Thank god the US is still a military might and willing to go where we need to to send a message. I could give a fuck if it wasn't a Sovereign Nation that did it. Afghan and Iraq were both terrorist sympathizers and strongholds. Just like how Palestine voted in Hamas...FUCK EM!



"I fear all we have done is to awaken a sleeping giant and fill him with a terrible resolve." -Isoroku Yamamoto

[nrubenstein]

uh, i dunno, maybe cause IT WAS AN ACT OF WAR AGAINST THE USA

Committed by whom, again? Last I checked, OBL was not a head of state. And if we wanted to get to his sponsors, why didn't we go to war with Saudi Arabia and/or Pakistan? It's not an act of war. Terrorism is a crime. Terrorism committed BY A SOVEREIGN ENTITY is an act of war, but OBL never did qualify as a sovereign entity or a head of state last I checked.

You can make a reasonable argument for going into Afghanistan to clean out the terrorists. I have not yet seen anyone make any kind of coherent argument for what the hell we were doing in Iraq.

[redhatpat]

uh, i dunno, maybe cause IT WAS AN ACT OF WAR AGAINST THE USA

Was it? Most of the terrorists were Saudi Arabian nationals. Update your maps, because that country you attacked (justifiably I'd say) wasn't Saudi Arabia.

It was a terrorist action. Which was why there was never a declaration of war against any country.

[gwb72tii]

But why did we respond with a war?

uh, i dunno, maybe cause IT WAS AN ACT OF WAR AGAINST THE USA

[e30e]

Why not pursue the terrorists as the criminals they are? Why should we assume responsibility for governing Afghanistan or Iraq? If we have a specific objective, blow the shit out of it. Hell, level a few cities. It sets the right tone. Nation building, on the other hand, is both distracting, expensive, and a pretty dubious affair. Worse, it creates an environment in which these people win by losing.

My problem with the war on terrorism is that we never had a meaningful plan worked out. We went in and took over Afghanistan (kind of). So now, what? We've been there how long? Then we went and took over Iraq. Except that we've removed the (crazy asshole) dictator and replaced him with a coalition composed in large part of religious fruitcakes. And that's our "victory." Woohoo.

Effective use of the military means figuring out a defined, achievable objective and setting expectations accordingly. Instead, we went in with expectations set at completely, utterly absurd levels. Unsurprisingly, we utterly failed to achieve them. In the process, we've weakened our economy, weakened our stature, and done little to actually improve improve our security (and by that I mean we've weakened it).

Because money was made, of course on a corporate level. Not putting on my tin foil hat, but everything after 9/11 that went into place and happened already had been planned.

[nrubenstein]

So are you saying the better solution would have been to do nothing?
Im not saying i agree with the wars, just curious.

Why not pursue the terrorists as the criminals they are? Why should we assume responsibility for governing Afghanistan or Iraq? If we have a specific objective, blow the shit out of it. Hell, level a few cities. It sets the right tone. Nation building, on the other hand, is both distracting, expensive, and a pretty dubious affair. Worse, it creates an environment in which these people win by losing.

My problem with the war on terrorism is that we never had a meaningful plan worked out. We went in and took over Afghanistan (kind of). So now, what? We've been there how long? Then we went and took over Iraq. Except that we've removed the (crazy asshole) dictator and replaced him with a coalition composed in large part of religious fruitcakes. And that's our "victory." Woohoo.

Effective use of the military means figuring out a defined, achievable objective and setting expectations accordingly. Instead, we went in with expectations set at completely, utterly absurd levels. Unsurprisingly, we utterly failed to achieve them. In the process, we've weakened our economy, weakened our stature, and done little to actually improve improve our security (and by that I mean we've weakened it).