afghan president hamid kazai is looking to place taliban officials in positions in his government. one: weren't we supposed to be wiping the taliban off the face of the earth, and two: why would bush allow this to happen?

afghan president hamid kazai is looking to place taliban officials in positions in his government. one: weren't we supposed to be wiping the taliban off the face of the earth, and two: why would bush allow this to happen?

We never really cared all that much about the Taliban until they thumbed their noses at us when we demanded OBL's head. We did not go to Afgahnistan to free the people from a wickedly oppressive theocracy. We went there to get at Al Qaeda. Toppling the Taliban was a nice benefit. They were theocratic pigs who were allied with Al Qeada. Toppling the Taliban government denied Al Qaeda a place to train and organize openly.

But we didn't do a great job at tracking down Al Qeada. We did OK, but not great. We had/have too few troops there to do a serious job because we had the Iraq wank in the works.

We're seriously working on losing the peace in Afgahnistan to militant Taliban, drug lords, and a weak central government because we don't have the troops or money to help stabilize the place... thanks to Iraq. So we face the prospect of a couple failed narco-terror states... On the bright side, we might be able to stabilize Iraq if we can leave 150,000 troops there for the next 4-5 years. Then we'd just have one narco-terror state and a military with an exhausted ground force.

Karzai is a big boy. Co-opting a few Taliban might help diffuse some of the Taliban militancy. It might work, or it might cost Karzai his life. But if Baathists in Iraq are OK with W, I'd think a few Taliban would be fine in Afgahnistan.

We never really cared all that much about the Taliban until they thumbed their noses at us when we demanded OBL's head. We did not go to Afgahnistan to free the people from a wickedly oppressive theocracy. We went there to get at Al Qaeda. Toppling the Taliban was a nice benefit. They were theocratic pigs who were allied with Al Qeada. Toppling the Taliban government denied Al Qaeda a place to train and organize openly.

But we didn't do a great job at tracking down Al Qeada. We did OK, but not great. We had/have too few troops there to do a serious job because we had the Iraq wank in the works.

We're seriously working on losing the peace in Afgahnistan to militant Taliban, drug lords, and a weak central government because we don't have the troops or money to help stabilize the place... thanks to Iraq. So we face the prospect of a couple failed narco-terror states... On the bright side, we might be able to stabilize Iraq if we can leave 150,000 troops there for the next 4-5 years. Then we'd just have one narco-terror state and a military with an exhausted ground force.

Karzai is a big boy. Co-opting a few Taliban might help diffuse some of the Taliban militancy. It might work, or it might cost Karzai his life. But if Baathists in Iraq are OK with W, I'd think a few Taliban would be fine in Afgahnistan.


fence sitting "taliban" officials may be more loyal to their own people and own @sses than to the taliban party as a whole. knowing your enemy by hiring loosley affiliated "taliban" may actually help in both the long and short run.

fence sitting "taliban" officials may be more loyal to their own people and own @sses than to the taliban party as a whole. knowing your enemy by hiring loosley affiliated "taliban" may actually help in both the long and short run.

Can you define for me what your definition of a "fence sitting" religious zealot fundamentalist muslim is?

I'm not surprised. The security situation over there is probably so daunting that Karzai needs help anywhere he can get it, which is a sad commentary on the fact the UN or the US isn't there to help. We have moved onto other things and yet again left a job unfinished. I wouldn't be the least bit surprised if Molla Omar (former Taliban leader) is eventually appointed to some position. We've seen Arafat, a long time terrorist and enemy of the state, invited to Camp David and treated like a legitimate statesman, although as of late he is stone walled, but that too could change.

afghan president hamid kazai is looking to place taliban officials in positions in his government. one: weren't we supposed to be wiping the taliban off the face of the earth, and two: why would bush allow this to happen?

For the same reasons the Allies let Nazis run things after WWII: not all members of the Nazi party were truly Nazis, and who else is capable?

If I have a good job running the Khandahar Sanitation Department, and the Taliban get into power and show up one day saying only members of the Taliban can run the KSD, I'm going to ask them where do I sign up. Otherwise, I lose my job, and there aren't a lot of other jobs around for non-Taliban members. Then the Taliban get kicked out of power and the new guys come in and say, you were Taliban, get out. They get some flunky to run the KDS who has no idea what he is doing, so everything goes to hell, and they call me up and ask me to come back. Although I was tagged as Taliban, I'm not really Taliban, but more important, I know how to run the KDS.

From Time:

"U.S. forces on the trail of Osama bin Laden and the leaders of the Taliban in late 2001 didn't worry much about elderly, pious-looking men like Haji Juma Khan. A towering tribesman from the Baluchistan desert near Pakistan, Khan was picked up that December near Kandahar and taken into U.S. custody. Though known to U.S. and Afghan officials as a drug trafficker, he seemed an insignificant catch. "At the time, the Americans were only interested in catching bin Laden and [Taliban leader] Mullah Omar," says a European counterterrorism expert in Kabul. "Juma Khan walked."

That decision has come back to haunt the U.S. and its allies in Afghanistan. Western intelligence agencies believe Khan has become the kingpin of a heroin-trafficking enterprise that is a principal source of funding for the Taliban and al-Qaeda terrorists. "

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1101040809-674777,00.html

So the "not so bad" people turn out to be pretty bad sometimes. And if anyone thinks the ties between the taliban and AQ are gone, you better think again.

Afghanistan is a mess, and it will just get worse, and I don't think there is much that can be done about that at this point. The WAR was a great success, but the aftermath turned that potential victory into a net loss for the USA.

the taliban were responsible for some of the most gruesome human rights violations in the region. what happened to "those who harbor terrorists", "you're either with us or against us", or "brutal dictators who abused their own people"? talk about the ultimate flip-flop, now bush doesn't care if these people come back in power.

how long before afghanistan becomes a taliban ruled state again? and starts murdering people and chopping off women's hands simply because they go outside without their face covered?

bush was just on tv this morning crowing about how we've planted the seeds of democracy in afghanistan. congratulations on a job(not) well done. if he's not gonna follow through with any of his grand goals that his militaristic agenda establishes, then why even bother to set off on them in the first place? a lot of american boys, and thousands of iraqis would be alive if that were the case.

while we're at it, why don't we let saddam back into power in iraq?

the taliban were responsible for some of the most gruesome human rights violations in the region. what happened to "those who harbor terrorists", "you're either with us or against us", or "brutal dictators who abused their own people"? talk about the ultimate flip-flop, now bush doesn't care if these people come back in power.

how long before afghanistan becomes a taliban ruled state again? and starts murdering people and chopping off women's hands simply because they go outside without their face covered?

bush was just on tv this morning crowing about how we've planted the seeds of democracy in afghanistan. congratulations on a job(not) well done. if he's not gonna follow through with any of his grand goals that his militaristic agenda establishes, then why even bother to set off on them in the first place? a lot of american boys, and thousands of iraqis would be alive if that were the case.

while we're at it, why don't we let saddam back into power in iraq?

Bush should be more concerned about the human rights violations happening now in Sudan.

From Time:

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1101040809-674777,00.html



I just read that Time article. The thing that struck me the most was that US commanders were reluctant to commit any of the 20,000 troops in Afghanistan to poppy irradication. Clearly, curtailing the drug trade will take money right out of Al Queda's pocket but we can't manage it because we have 120,000 troops committed next door in a boondoggle.

I just read that Time article. The thing that struck me the most was that US commanders were reluctant to commit any of the 20,000 troops in Afghanistan to poppy irradication. Clearly, curtailing the drug trade will take money right out of Al Queda's pocket but we can't manage it because we have 120,000 troops committed next door in a boondoggle.

the tax increase that kerry want's to put on people who succeed, if the libby's would shut they're pie holes we would take care of afganistan and iraq soon enough and then take care of iran and we will anyway after the election.

as another poster said, we had to "employ" nazi's to operate Germany after the war. Not belittling the atrocities that were committed, but many members of the Nazi party at the very lower level did just see it as we see our Democrat and Republican parties...