That makes no logical sense.
And for the record, I said in post #26 that I could have been misremembering.
http://www.debatepolicy.com/showthread.php?5167-The-Nine-Lies-of-Fahrenheit-9-11
This article from the LA Times talks more about his visit:
And from his Wikipedia page:
That’s a lot of information about a visit that:
But of course I’m really just posting this for my health, because you will rationalize it or find some (semantic, perhaps?*) detail to make yourself look right. Can I just preemptively agree that whatever acrobatic argument you cook up is right, so you don’t have to post it, and the original conversation can continue?
*I’m sure I missed a punctuation mark somewhere that technically makes me wrong.
Well, you sure made a nice transition from bad analogy to ad hominem. Well played!
As for your “cite” that “they had just visited Washington” (emphasis added), well it’s like I said. Some guy came here as a tourist. A wikipedia cite on his own page that claims he met with “State Department officials, senators, and the media” is not very convincing*. Who did he meet with and was it in any official capacity? This is your evidence that we were only bluffing when we said we’d invade Afghanistan? It is to laugh, but keep trying!
*Check the cite for that statement on the wiki page. It makes no mention of any meetings. That’s the thing about wikipedia. It’s a great starting point, but you have to check the sources. In this case, the sources do not substantiate the claim.
For those watching at home, here is the cite from the wikipedia article. No mention of any official or non-official meetings with anyone in the US government.
The guy came in as a tourist, and tried to whitewash the Taliban. He didn’t do a very good job, but then he had a Herculean task.
I’m not psychic, guys, I swear-- John Mace really is just that predictable.
You post a bullshit “cite” and predict I won’t accept it? You are Carnak the Magnificent!
Well, why don’t you quote the part of the source material that backs up your claim? I gave you the link. Wikipedia is a great source for stuff like scientific information. Anything having to do with politics… not so much.
If one sentence in a wikipedia article, that is not substantiated by any source material is your cite, then you have no cite.
Sorry.
The way you phrase your query presumes that bin Laden’s murder is, in fact, a game-changer of some sort for the Taliban. I propose that this assumption is erroneous.
For example, why exactly would the Taliban now be inclined to accept US orders to condemn al Quida? Do you really think that this has been their intention all along, but they were afraid of hurting bin Laden’s feelings if done during his lifetime? If not, then why would his death change their intentions? No matter how you spin it, I’m not seeing the connection between bin Laden’s death and Taliban strategy.
Frankly, it seems that the Taliban’s fight was never about bin Laden or his followers. Rather, it is a straightforward partisan uprising against the imperialistic designs of a hated foreign hegemony. As such, the strategy will be the same as it has been for the past decade: keep killing the occupiers until they go home and leave Afghanistan alone.
“We’ll hand him over if you don’t bomb us” sounds like an ok condition, considering the original demand was “Hand him over or we’ll bomb you”.
On another note, if the US didn’t recognize the Taliban as the legitimate government, on what authority were they expected to apprehend and turn over OBL?
[QUOTE=Commissar]
For example, why exactly would the Taliban now be inclined to accept US orders to condemn al Quida?
[/QUOTE]
Because it’s one of the pre-conditions for any sort of peace? Granted, the Taliban might not want peace. If they DO want any sort of terms, however, this is one of the things they would have to do.
I think they derived benefit from their alliance with AQ in terms of money, weapons and advisers or allies. Now that Bin Laden is and EX-PARROT, there might not be any reason to stick with AQ. Or, they might want to reconsider their options in terms of cost to benefit of peace with the US and our allies verse continued war and support from AQ.
See above. You are begging the question though.
If you start your premise from a conclusion, then it probably IS pretty difficult to see anything else. Considering the link I cited earlier, it seems some in the Taliban ARE considering whether or not to use this as a springboard for change, I’d say that your lack of understanding or comprehension of another possibility is a personal blind spot. It might be that the Taliban decide that the cost to benefit to them leans towards just continuing to fight on, but it’s not the only way.
Since that was the sole reason we attacked them, it seems incredible to me that they failed to understand this. Or, more likely, it’s YOU who failed to understand this, and it’s something they got fairly quickly when the bombs started falling, and they have chosen to continue the conflict. Considering that they lost pretty much everything due to ObL and AQ and their support for both, I HOPE they understood and understand the reasons it all happened.
How’s that working out for them so far?
-XT
It seems to me that the biggest error in your argument is that you’re confusing US posturing with reality. Having the Taliban distance themselves from al Queda is not a “pre-condition for any sort of peace.” The US may hold it out as such, but that does not mean that the Taliban is bound to agree; as far as they’re concerned, a much better route to “peace” is to force the invaders out of Afghanistan.
If the Taliban presented its own “pre-conditions” for peace, do you suppose that the US would trip over itself trying to fulfill them? Of course not. Neither will the Taliban choose to bow to US demands.
Moreover, think about what you’re proposing: let’s assume that the Taliban meekly meets US demands, after which it is allowed to participate in talks. Now what? What “terms” can the US offer the Taliban? The latter only wants two things: all US troops out of Afghanistan, and itself firmly in charge of the nation. Which one of these will the US realistically offer to it during “talks?” Remember, the Taliban isn’t looking for a peace deal, or an opportunity to lay down arms, or a chance to participate in Afghani elections. It wants its nation back, and that is not something that the US will give it as a result of negotiations. Hence, the fight must go on.
Extremely well, actually. Every year, they kill more and more invaders. Last month was the most successful April on record in terms of casualties dealt to the occupying forces. The puppet government controls little outside of Kabul, while the Taliban controls large swaths of the nation. Taliban agents have infiltrated all security apparatuses of the puppet government, allowing them to launch magnificently effective attacks against the occupiers and their agents.
Overall, I see no reason why they should not ultimately prevail in this conflict.
You can’t just admit you over-stated your case when you said it didn’t happen? Sheesh. Here’s an article that discusses a meeting between Taliban officials and some US Dept. of State officials from 1997: http://www.gasandoil.com/goc/news/ntn80956.htm. It’s clear this meeting happened, and nothing went anywhere before 9/11 we were pissed about them oppressing women, blowing up cool statues, and harboring Osama bin Laden.
[QUOTE=Commissar]
It seems to me that the biggest error in your argument is that you’re confusing US posturing with reality. Having the Taliban distance themselves from al Queda is not a “pre-condition for any sort of peace.” The US may hold it out as such, but that does not mean that the Taliban is bound to agree; as far as they’re concerned, a much better route to “peace” is to force the invaders out of Afghanistan.
[/QUOTE]
And your biggest error is the way your knee jerks every time the US is mentioned. You automatically dismiss anything the US is doing as posture, and automatically assume that any side opposed to the US is reality. There are a number of things that have been openly stated are pre-cursors for peace between the Taliban and the US and allied forces…this is one of them. If the Taliban concede on this point (a minor point according to you and others in this thread, since according to you and they the Taliban aren’t strongly associated with AQ…right?), then it will go some way towards peace…if that’s what they want.
If their route to peace is to force us from Afghanistan through force of arms then they have been sadly disappointed to this point. They have been singularly unsuccessful at doing so, despite your assurances to the contrary. The only way they could possibly win is if we decide to leave…and even then they aren’t assured any sort of military victory, since there are many factions who equally want power and who have no love for the Taliban. At most, the only thing they will ‘win’ is for the US and the allied forces to withdraw after inflicting horrific damage on them, and the prospect of another round of civil war like what they had after the Soviets withdrew. Not exactly a bright and shinny future.
I think that if they don’t see this as an opportunity they are extremely foolish. That you don’t see it doesn’t exactly surprise me. Apparently, from what I’ve read, some of THEM see it as an opportunity. And yes…I think that right now, the US WOULD trip all over ourselves to be accommodating if the Taliban decided to make some concessions. We don’t particularly want to be there, and I think we are looking for an excuse at this point to withdraw. Since you and others seem to think that the Taliban have no association with AQ, it seems like an easy point for them to concede if they want peace. I think you and the others are (or at least were) wrong, and that there were tighter bonds and other things like funding and support between AQ and the Taliban, but in the wake of ObL’s death those might have loosened.
By continuing to fight they will basically keep us in the country longer and in the end it will simply mean more of their own people (and ours) dead. That seems extremely stupid to me, but then their pushing this to the point of war was extremely stupid in the first place, so perhaps they haven’t learned any lessons from all of this.
What would they gain? Well, we’d potentially stop dropping bombs on their heads or killing their soldiers, for one thing. They might be able to negotiate the ability to rejoin the government, or to at least have some of their factions run for office. Ultimately, they could pull a North Vietnam on us, and sue for peace until we are out of the country, then resume their attacks without us to bother them. It seems a no brainer to me, to be honest. By continuing to fight they will make it impossible (or at least very difficult, politically) for the US at least to withdraw. There is no way (ZERO way) that they can win a military victory in the current situation…all they can do is get more of their people killed along with some of ours, but to no real end. By negotiating, even in bad faith, they will probably have an excellent chance of getting us to pack up and leave, thereby, in theory at least, opening things up to future resumption of hostilities without us or the other allied countries military forces in the way.
Basically, do you REALLY think that, if given half a chance, we wouldn’t bolt from Afghanistan? And if, once we are gone, do you REALLY think there is anything that would ever get us back in there?? Seriously???
Complete horseshit. How do you gauge ‘extremely well’?? Every year they kill a few more Americans and allies…at huge cost in terms of material and men. And they don’t have a super power ponying up billions to keep them going, unlike the Afghan rebels did when the Soviets invaded, or the North Vietnamese did during the Vietnam war. They are getting some help through groups like AQ (how else are they able to sustain the conflict? On opium alone?? :dubious:) and covertly from other nations or wealthy folks in the region sympathetic to their cause (or who just want to keep the conflict going for reasons of their own), but they don’t have unlimited manpower to sustain a conflict such as this indefinitely…not against a nation like the US or the other allies there.
I know you love the idea of anyone fighting the US, but you need to inject a bit of realism into your thought process. What are the actual human costs that your valiant freedom fighters are paying for these victories? How many thousands or hundreds of thousands of them have died to kill a few thousand Americans and allied soldiers? How much suffering have they endured? How much uncertainty and misery has it cost them? And how much pain and suffering have they caused to their fellow countrymen in this hopeless fight? And what have they bought with all of that thus far? Nothing. They have lost control of their country. They have lost power. And they have no realistic hope of regaining it at this time. Even if they ever do, what will it cost in the end??
-XT