Page 12 of 17 FirstFirst ... 21011121314 ... LastLast
Results 111 to 120 of 163

Thread: Taliban Says It Won't Meddle in West if Troops Are Withdrawn

  1. #111
    Sage
    EnigmaO01's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Indiana
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 11:32 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    7,027

    Re: Taliban Says It Won't Meddle in West if Troops Are Withdrawn

    Quote Originally Posted by Reverend_Hellh0und View Post
    There are several pending queries you have failed to answer, so the failure is utterly and completley yours.
    You can keep saying that but it doesn't make it so. I responded to all your queries.

    At least you didn't name call this time.

    Night night. I have a living to make in the morning.

  2. #112
    ANTI**ANTIFA
    ReverendHellh0und's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Temple of Solomon
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 06:22 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    75,740

    Re: Taliban Says It Won't Meddle in West if Troops Are Withdrawn

    Quote Originally Posted by EnigmaO01 View Post
    You can keep saying that but it doesn't make it so. I responded to all your queries.
    lie #1


    At least you didn't name call this time.
    lie #2


    Night night. I have a living to make in the morning.

    suspecting lie #3
    Let evil swiftly befall those who have wrongly condemned us

  3. #113
    Banned
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Chicago
    Last Seen
    04-02-15 @ 06:08 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    8,211

    Re: Taliban Says It Won't Meddle in West if Troops Are Withdrawn

    Quote Originally Posted by EnigmaO01 View Post
    When you make the following two statements you are endorsing nation building and you endorsed the invasion of Iraq. You can deny it all you want but it's right there for all to see. No need to a be a mind reader.







    BTW why the abusive language? Why so easily provoked? Do I make you feel inadequate?
    I do deny it, because it's totally untrue.

    I never supported the invasion and I do not support nation-building as a basis for foreign policy, BUT I am not so rigid ideologically that I cannot make pragmatic exceptions when the circumstances merit.

    I believe our foreign policy should endeavor to be non-interventionist, but ultimately that it should situational and flexible.

    If we leave Iraq prematurely it will threaten global stability along with American security.

    If we leave Afghanistan prematurely it will threaten American security very severely. AQ is just waiting for us to quit; they need a victory so that they can reorganize and concentrate on the American homeland. It seems some Americans are already starting to forget 9/11, like they won't try to attack us again and again; this is a zero-sum game and AQ has no intention of losing.

  4. #114
    Sage

    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Last Seen
    05-16-15 @ 02:32 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    12,537

    Re: Taliban Says It Won't Meddle in West if Troops Are Withdrawn

    Quote Originally Posted by Arch Enemy View Post
    I won't go into great detail, but obviously the biggest unnerving uncertainty is that Usama bin Laden acquires any form of nuclear material. al Qa'ida al-Jihad with any form of HEU or HEP (Uranium or Plutonium) will make the Cold War look like we were playing patty-cake with the Soviet Union; no doubt that martial law would take effect almost immediately in almost every major US city, probably every major city in the world.

    The Pakistani nuclear stockpile is heavily guarded by 30,000 of Pakistan's most elite troops (the Pakistani's aren't just worried about al Qa'ida taking from it, but also sabotage from India).

    Unless there are entire battalions of rogue Pakistani military personnel, then we shouldn't worry about Jihadists acquiring a nuclear bomb or missile. However, there are other scenarios that could make the situation difficult. The Jihadists don't necessarily need to even have possession of the materials, they just need to get it to reach critical mass.

    The biggest threat wouldn't be nuclear, wouldn't chemical, it would be biological weapons. However, I do not think the organization is well enough to be worrying about anything other than getting blown to miniature Jihadis
    thanks, thanks

    i think worries in pakistan are 2

    that is, it's not just the potential for bad guys to get their hands on weapons

    no, an equal concern is possible alterations to pakistan's domestic political landscape

    i really don't know enough about internal pakistani politics, but i do get the impression they're not real stable

    and i wonder how real is the possibility of some really dangerous movement making political advances in that nuked up country thru LEGITIMATE or constitutional means

    and i think obama's afghan plan puts some real pressures on pakistan's makeup

    do you think zardari is gonna take on with whole heart some of the more frightening tribal elements within his country?

    and even if he were wont, is he able?

    obama's escalation in afghanistan is gonna increase the emigration of terror types into pakistan?

    obama's afghan plan is too dependent on zardari to do his share?

    i ask you, my friend

  5. #115
    Familiaist


    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    North Carolina
    Last Seen
    11-16-16 @ 09:36 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Slightly Conservative
    Posts
    7,470

    Re: Taliban Says It Won't Meddle in West if Troops Are Withdrawn

    Quote Originally Posted by The Prof View Post
    do you think zardari is gonna take on with whole heart some of the more frightening tribal elements within his country?

    and even if he were wont, is he able?

    obama's escalation in afghanistan is gonna increase the emigration of terror types into pakistan?

    obama's afghan plan is too dependent on zardari to do his share?

    i ask you, my friend
    The extent of Zardari's power is highly questionable. I believe tribal/Talibani elements on beginning to collapse on the Paskistani military
    A platoon of Taliban fighters attacked a Pakistani Army checkpoint in South Waziristan in a region where a peace agreement with the Taliban is in effect.

    Upwards of 40 Taliban fighters opened fire on checkpoint at a bridge in Wana, the main town in South Waziristan, killing one soldier and suffering six of their own in a counterattack.
    Wana is under the control of Mullah Nazir, the leader of the Taliban forces in the western Wazir tribal areas of the agency. Pakistan's military and intelligence services consider Nazir and his followers "good Taliban" as they do not openly seek the overthrow of the Pakistani state. However, Nazir openly supports Mullah Omar and Osama bin Laden, and wages jihad in Afghanistan; more senior al Qaeda leaders have been killed in Nazir's tribal areas during the US air campaign than in those of any other Taliban leader in Pakistan.
    The walls are beginning to fall on Pakistan, and the deals it has made with the devils in F.A.T.A are going to come back and haunt them. We are also seeing Indian elements in Khyber.

    A Pakistani military commander said the current operation in the Khyber tribal agency has succeeded in clearing the Taliban from a vital area
    ------------
    In the operation, 61 Lashkar-e-Islam fighters were killed and 87 other fighters including Uzbeks and Afghans, have been detained, Fayyaz told the media. Enemy bases, bunkers, and vehicles have been destroyed in the six-day-long operation. Fayyaz also claimed that the military found evidence that India was providing weapons to the Lashkar-e-Islam.
    I think the Military is the power in Pakistan. The civilian government is fragile, and can barely keep itself legitimate. There are fears that there's a proxy war going on between India and Pakistan for power in Afghanistan.

    In Pakistan there is increasing suspicion that India will use its influence in Afghanistan to further destabilise its troubled border region.
    ------------------------------
    Robert Wirsing, a professor at Georgetown University in Doha, told Al Jazeera: "There is no question that Pakistanis are inclined to exaggerate a lot of things and no doubt the allegations made about India are from time to time exaggerated - it plays into their overall strategy.
    "Nevertheless, both Pakistan and India are not above a variety of covert or clandestine activities. They do what they feel they must in order to protect their national interests and strategic interests in this region.
    "Afghanistan is certainly an important strategic arena in which they engage in these kinds of activities ... its tit-for-tat," he said.
    We'll see.
    "I do not underestimate the ability of fanatical groups of terrorists to kill and destroy, but they do not threaten the life of the nation. Whether we would survive Hitler hung in the balance, but there is no doubt that we shall survive al-Qa'ida." -- Lord Hoffmann

  6. #116
    Sage
    Dittohead not!'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    The Golden State
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 10:39 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    41,561

    Re: Taliban Says It Won't Meddle in West if Troops Are Withdrawn

    Quote Originally Posted by Arch Enemy View Post
    I won't go into great detail, but obviously the biggest unnerving uncertainty is that Usama bin Laden acquires any form of nuclear material. al Qa'ida al-Jihad with any form of HEU or HEP (Uranium or Plutonium) will make the Cold War look like we were playing patty-cake with the Soviet Union; no doubt that martial law would take effect almost immediately in almost every major US city, probably every major city in the world.

    The Pakistani nuclear stockpile is heavily guarded by 30,000 of Pakistan's most elite troops (the Pakistani's aren't just worried about al Qa'ida taking from it, but also sabotage from India).

    Unless there are entire battalions of rogue Pakistani military personnel, then we shouldn't worry about Jihadists acquiring a nuclear bomb or missile. However, there are other scenarios that could make the situation difficult. The Jihadists don't necessarily need to even have possession of the materials, they just need to get it to reach critical mass.

    The biggest threat wouldn't be nuclear, wouldn't chemical, it would be biological weapons. However, I do not think the organization is well enough to be worrying about anything other than getting blown to miniature Jihadis

    Good observation about the cold war and the Soviet Union. The soviets may have been despots, but they were at least sane. The same can't be said for the Taliban.

    Now if only you're right about the Taliban not being able to get hold of Pakistani nuclear weapons. Just how stable do you think Pakistan is just now?
    "Donald Trump is a phony, a fraud... [he's] playing the American public for suckers." Mitt Romney

  7. #117
    Familiaist


    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    North Carolina
    Last Seen
    11-16-16 @ 09:36 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Slightly Conservative
    Posts
    7,470

    Re: Taliban Says It Won't Meddle in West if Troops Are Withdrawn

    Quote Originally Posted by Dittohead not! View Post
    Good observation about the cold war and the Soviet Union. The soviets may have been despots, but they were at least sane. The same can't be said for the Taliban.

    Now if only you're right about the Taliban not being able to get hold of Pakistani nuclear weapons. Just how stable do you think Pakistan is just now?
    I am not an expert on Pakistani Politics, but all indicators do lead to a near failed-state.

    The central authority in Pakistan seems to be distant to the majority of the people in Pakistan-- it seems the authority is just not there.

    Now this does not necessarily mean that Pakistan is going rogue. The majority of the Pakistani population do not sympathize with the Taliban and Jamaat-i-Islami extremists, but this also means that the money we funnel to the Government or intelligence services may not be used for building the infrastructure of those who need it.

    I am not too certain that there is much of an increase in the stability of the country whenever the military incharge, this would be an interesting topic to further explore.
    "I do not underestimate the ability of fanatical groups of terrorists to kill and destroy, but they do not threaten the life of the nation. Whether we would survive Hitler hung in the balance, but there is no doubt that we shall survive al-Qa'ida." -- Lord Hoffmann

  8. #118
    Sage
    Dittohead not!'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    The Golden State
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 10:39 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    41,561

    Re: Taliban Says It Won't Meddle in West if Troops Are Withdrawn

    Quote Originally Posted by Arch Enemy View Post
    I am not an expert on Pakistani Politics, but all indicators do lead to a near failed-state.

    The central authority in Pakistan seems to be distant to the majority of the people in Pakistan-- it seems the authority is just not there.

    Now this does not necessarily mean that Pakistan is going rogue. The majority of the Pakistani population do not sympathize with the Taliban and Jamaat-i-Islami extremists, but this also means that the money we funnel to the Government or intelligence services may not be used for building the infrastructure of those who need it.

    I am not too certain that there is much of an increase in the stability of the country whenever the military incharge, this would be an interesting topic to further explore.
    Yes, it would, particularly if there is a possibility that the Taliban could take over that failed state. I don't think the majority of the population of Afganistan sympathizes with the Taliban, either, but it seems a not so remote possibility that they could take over that nation without the US presence.
    "Donald Trump is a phony, a fraud... [he's] playing the American public for suckers." Mitt Romney

  9. #119
    Familiaist


    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    North Carolina
    Last Seen
    11-16-16 @ 09:36 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Slightly Conservative
    Posts
    7,470

    Re: Taliban Says It Won't Meddle in West if Troops Are Withdrawn

    Quote Originally Posted by Dittohead not! View Post
    Yes, it would, particularly if there is a possibility that the Taliban could take over that failed state. I don't think the majority of the population of Afganistan sympathizes with the Taliban, either, but it seems a not so remote possibility that they could take over that nation without the US presence.
    I don't think the problem has ever been with the Afghan sympathy with the Taliban ,as many of those we refer to as "Afghans" are the other minorities

    Ethnic groups: Pashtun 42%, Tajik 27%, Hazara 9%, Uzbek 9%, Aimak 4%, Turkmen 3%, Baloch 2%, other 4%

    Definition: This entry provides an ordered listing of ethnic groups starting with the largest and normally includes the percent of total population.

    Source: CIA World Factbook - Unless otherwise noted, information in this page is accurate as of September 17, 2009
    We see the Pashtun's being the nearest to majority (the Taliban is Pashtun, but holds some from across the line).

    Because the "Afghans" and not "Taliban" or "Taliban sympathizers" are not a majority Pashtun, they've always been treated harshly by the Taliban rule. They're the ones (especially in the North) who will not, under any circumstance, be sympathetic to the plight of the Taliban (which is currently getting it's cranium smashed in by the good ol U.S.of.A)
    "I do not underestimate the ability of fanatical groups of terrorists to kill and destroy, but they do not threaten the life of the nation. Whether we would survive Hitler hung in the balance, but there is no doubt that we shall survive al-Qa'ida." -- Lord Hoffmann

  10. #120
    Sage
    EnigmaO01's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Indiana
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 11:32 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    7,027

    Re: Taliban Says It Won't Meddle in West if Troops Are Withdrawn

    Quote Originally Posted by Ethereal View Post
    I do deny it, because it's totally untrue.

    I never supported the invasion and I do not support nation-building as a basis for foreign policy, BUT I am not so rigid ideologically that I cannot make pragmatic exceptions when the circumstances merit.

    I believe our foreign policy should endeavor to be non-interventionist, but ultimately that it should situational and flexible.

    If we leave Iraq prematurely it will threaten global stability along with American security.

    If we leave Afghanistan prematurely it will threaten American security very severely. AQ is just waiting for us to quit; they need a victory so that they can reorganize and concentrate on the American homeland. It seems some Americans are already starting to forget 9/11, like they won't try to attack us again and again; this is a zero-sum game and AQ has no intention of losing.
    O.K. fair enough. I stand corrected.

Page 12 of 17 FirstFirst ... 21011121314 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •