Boiling down Afghanistan, the Taliban and a speedier withdrawal:

[Robb]

Given the situation as you understand it, today... would you be satisfied leaving elements of the Taliban in Afghanistan intact and in a governing partnership position if it meant a quicker and earlier withdrawal of NATO troops?





Disclosure: I'm not sure. I lean toward "no."

[Oregone]

1. Sure

Short of mass genocide, I don't think the US will guarentee that the Taliban will not remain intact to some capacity.

So, Im creating a new dichotomy to consider: Would you be satisfied with mass genocide if it mean the US could remove the Taliban from Afghanistan completely and forever?

[Robb]

6. I'm talking about a brokered power-sharing, not just being somewhat intact.

And what, exactly, is a "mass genocide?" Is that an even totally worse kind of genocide than the regular kind? :D

[Oregone]

9. Pretty much

We can't so much as leave a baby behind who may grow up and become Taliban.


"I'm talking about a brokered power-sharing"

Oh, then double-plus good.

[CaliforniaPeggy]

2. I tend towards yes...

Mainly because I see this as another quagmire. It's a tribal nation and we need to get the hell out of their affairs.

The only thing(s) that give me pause are their relations with al Quaeda (sp?) and Pakistan, and like that.

I do want them to have a legitimate government that is theirs. I hate that we're interfering in that.

[NJmaverick]

3. That's a tough one to answer

if the safety of the Afghan people could be reasonably assured and woman's rights don't take a major hit, I would say yes.

[Oregone]

4. Well, neither can be assured by staying

War is the only thing that can be ensured by continuing war

[NJmaverick]

8. Uncertainty exists in pretty much every option

so I don't think it would be wise to knock any of them because of it.

[Oregone]

10. Well, one thing you know...

If you leave, bombs & bullets you directly pay for won't end up lodged in the skulls of innocent people at least. *You* wouldn't be directly contributing to and facilitating whatever happens there.

Sounds fine by me.

[NJmaverick]

12. The US trained and armed the Taliban and the invasion forced people

to take sides. Don't you think our nation has a moral obligation to try and protect these people?

[Oregone]

14. No

I don't really accept the premise that the US is protecting those people in the first place.

As for moral obligation, you must also must look at the cost of fulfilling that obligation in the manner that is being done (or could possibly be done in our capitalistic-controlled political system). It will forever create pain and death to fulfill obligation, only creating more obligation. Its an endless excuse perpetuating more war and death. If only our intervention was guaranteed to impart some level of "goodness" without further harm. There's simply not much money in that.

[NJmaverick]

15. We have reached an impasse then and will have to agree to disagree

[Oregone]

17. Good.

[Forkboy]

5. Is this our new justification?

I don't recall women's rights being an issue in Sept of 2001. I only see it becoming an issue for people who generally support the continuing war in Afghanistan, most of whom have no record of caring about the actual women there before this point in time.

[NJmaverick]

7. I am pretty sure situations change in 9 years

so why would you assume that the pros and cons would stay the same?

[Forkboy]

11. What's bad is good again!

Awesome, dude.

[NJmaverick]

13. What are you trying to say? Your meaning is not clear

[Forkboy]

18. It's a tough one to follow.

I can see why you're stumped.

[HughMoran]

22. bailing out of the argument

cornered.

[HughMoran]

21. bailin' out eh?

:eyes:

[EFerrari]

16. We will never cut a deal that the Taliban will honor while we insult Afghanistan

with our occupation.

[Robb]

19. ...You've been reading Hekmatyar's missives again!

:rofl:

[EFerrari]

20. The world is sick of our self serving paternalism. Who can blame them. n/t

[mdmc]

23. ..