• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Democrats Reverse U.S. Policy, Negotiate With Terrorists-Even the Taliban

Read the intro and vote accordingly


  • Total voters
    14
so long as the terrorists have renounced AND stopped using terrorist tactics I have no problem with it
but not til than

now that i put in my two cents, i will read thread, sorry if i am rehashing
 
:shock::shock: I almost fed the troll :shock::shock:


I know that Bush and Cheney are out of office. I know that Bush loved war and death. It did not matter whether they were men women or children.
Seems to me that Bush had two goals. One was to have wars and kill, the other was to get his cronies who are very rich, much richer.

Bush succeeded in practically destroying the United States. We have do many enemies now. It may take 30 years to repair the disaster caused by Bush and his cronies.

Maybe by negoiating we can find out why they are terrorists and solve problems.

---------------------------------------------------------------------
Gosh,,, Solve Problems? ----- Us Right Wingers don't want to solve problems, we want create problems and start wars for no reason with everyone.

We Right Wing Republican GOP people want war. We want to kill, we want to rule the world. Let's drop Nuclear weapons on Iran, France, North Korea, Venezuala, Chile, Canada, Israel, Palestine, Ireland, Cuba, Alaska, Russia and Mexico.

Then we could get on the evening news and be happy republicans. Heck if we just release Green House gases, and raise the water level by a couple hundred feet with melting ice, then the earth would do our killin for us.

God Bless the USA.

What kind of a terrible message is this. We will overcome, and we will have war and death.

All US Good GOP-ers agree, to heck with the American people, we want war. WAR WAR WAR, STARVATION AND DEATH, and profits for the very rich.
 
Any word on if he's pushing for reform in the government? Failure to fix the government could undue everything we work for militarily.



Why did that change? Rummy?

Two good questions for which I have no answers.
 
It's hard to even get to the crux of your point considering that you don't offer anything hard and factual to discuss...As for your point, I think it's unwise of anyone to think that they can negotiate with extremists regardless of their political affiliation.

If you don't consider it "hard" or "factual" to post a Yahoo article confirming that Democrats are gearing up for negotiations with the terror-sponsoring regime that facilitated 9/11...then what would be "hard" or "factual?"
 
Like I've said a hundred times, there are three liberal responses to intellectual confrontation:

1) You're mean.

2) You're stupid.

3) You're a homo.

Congratulations. You've chosen number 3. :applaud:

Brought to you by the aquapub auto response system.
 
Liberals & Democrats are evil. Mkay?
 
I'd maintain that Aquapub refuses to take in new information which would threaten his viewpoint.

Yeah, we're pretty much on the same page there. In fact, it's quite the understatement but I agree with you fully.
 
What are you talking about? How did Reagan do anything similar in that conflict?

Are you making stuff up again?

I realize you're a liberal, but there are these things called history books. If you pick one up sometime and read it (top to bottom, left to right), you'll discover that conservatives really aren't just dreaming up elaborate stories every time they talk about things that happened more than five minutes ago.

In 1982, Ronald Reagan said that we "could not afford to allow Iraq to lose the war to Iran", and that the United States "would do whatever was necessary to prevent Iraq from losing the war with Iran."

Ever since, liberals have been morally equating us with Saddam, acting as if our early support for him invalidated our removal of him more than 20 years later, after a decade of failed diplomacy, genocide, and terror-sponsoring.

Yet now that Democrats are in office, it's not only okay to get our hands dirty, but its even okay to work with a regime that facilitated 9/11 and still hides bin Laden.

Are you failing to comprehend basic facts and evidence again?

Oh the uber-partisanism is coming out. If you bothered to actually read anything we've said, you would have noticed we are for talking to the members of the Taliban who can be separated from the rest.

Oh the illiteracy is coming out. If you bothered to actually read anything I've said, you would have noticed my question...are both the "moderates" and the hard core jihadists not hiding bin Laden?

As I highlighted the first time this smokescreen was tossed up, you're splitting hairs to act as if there is this world of difference between the hard core Taliban extremists who merely sympathize with bin Laden on every level, stone women to death for being raped, and hate our guts...and the "radicals."

Both Bhkad and I, who normally never see eye to eye agree 100% that you are dead wrong.

:bs

Ad populum fallacy. Try again.


Bhkad is being an Obama-Apologist?

I'm not sure you can top that in terms of insanity.

Um...no. The people contradicting eight years of their own hysterical anti-Bush, "what about Saudi Arabia" rhetoric are who I'm correctly identifying as Obama apologists. Not rocket science.

What the hell are you talking about?

Democrats relentlessly undermining the war in Iraq for five years straight by preaching about "the real war"-the one they trashed and undermined until it could be used to undermine Iraq-turning around and "reconciling our differences" with the Taliban...after claiming that defeating the Taliban would be the central focus of all our resources if elected.

This is like the third time I've spelled all this out. Either learn how to read or get used to being in the dark on this, because I'm not repeating it again.

You really have no understanding of COIN do you?

You can smear me opposing the "reconciling of our differences" with the terrorist regime that facilitated 9/11 as me not understanding the nature of counterinsurgency all you want. That won't change the fact that the most ridiculous absolutist ideologues on the planet (Democrats), who insisted blindly for eight years straight that it's never okay to get your hands dirty; who constantly claimed that working with, for instance, the Saudis or Pakistan nullified any claims that we were at war with terrorists; who repeatedly argued that siding with Saddam over the lunatic regime Democrats installed in Iran was "why they hate us"...are now doing a total 180 not to work with some questionable enemy of our enemy, but to work with our enemy.

The Taliban needs to be destroyed, not negotiated with. Leaving it in power on the comically naive hope that the "moderates" will keep Afghanistan from reverting to a savage Islamist slaughterhouse once we're gone is gullible in the extreme.
 
Garbage in, garbage out. Stop responding to intellectual confrontation by hurling mindless smears and I'll stop pointing it out. :2wave:

Brought to you by the aquapub autoresponse system.

I made several points that, as usual, you glossed over in your hypocritical way by pointing to the specific presentation that you didn't like. Which, by the way, is almost the exact presentation you use in every one of your vitriolic, trashy rants worthy of of worldnet daily.
 
Brought to you by the aquapub autoresponse system.

I made several points that, as usual, you glossed over in your hypocritical way by pointing to the specific presentation that you didn't like. Which, by the way, is almost the exact presentation you use in every one of your vitriolic, trashy rants worthy of of worldnet daily.

Translation: You made points so illogical and hurled smears so ignorant (http://www.debatepolitics.com/polls...e-terrorists-even-taliban.html#post1057953080) that I stopped reading...so you called me a homo and started hurling impotent grade school taunts at every turn.

You're officially a liberal. :roll:

There's a reason so many people ignore your posts. ;)
 
Last edited:
Translation: You made points so illogical-to the point of absurdity-that I stopped reading...so you called me a homo and started hurling impotent grade school taunts at every turn.

You're officially a liberal. :roll:

There's a reason so many people ignore your posts. ;)

Liar. I never called you a homo. When did I call you a homo?

You can't even get your facts straight on one thread.
 
Moderator's Warning:
Did you all not read me? Debate the topic without personal attacks. The next person to insult a poster rather than debate a poster is thread banned.
 
Liar. I never called you a homo. When did I call you a homo?

You can't even get your facts straight on one thread.

Oh, right. It was the other brainiac who called me a homo...you just called me everything else. Got it. :lol:

Sorry I don't keep better track of your brain dead personal attacks. Seriously, take the Midol before you try debating.

Good night all. :2wave:

*Sorry, I just noticed the mod post.
 
Actually, what I was getting at is that they are confirming that five years of anti-war rhetoric was complete BS. Thanks for the weak smear though. :roll:

What SMEAR? I actually agree with you you silly little man. Democrats and Liberals are evil and you're completely in the right. I mean seriously. They want to cause another 9/11. They want Americans to die. You are 100% correct in your politically unbiased and rational assessment of the situation.
 
Translation: You made points so illogical and hurled smears so ignorant (http://www.debatepolitics.com/polls...e-terrorists-even-taliban.html#post1057953080) that I stopped reading...so you called me a homo and started hurling impotent grade school taunts at every turn.

You're officially a liberal. :roll:

There's a reason so many people ignore your posts. ;)

I'm hoping you will take this opportunity to become so knowledgeable about Afghanistan that no one will be able to dispute your POV.

I know you can do it.
 
What SMEAR? I actually agree with you you silly little man. Democrats and Liberals are evil and you're completely in the right. I mean seriously. They want to cause another 9/11. They want Americans to die. You are 100% correct in your politically unbiased and rational assessment of the situation.

Again, you resort to misrepresenting my claim as being that Democrats are Disney Villains, rather than that they are visionless absolutists and cowards. As usual, I'll take this as further confirmation that you have no counterpoint.

:shrug:
 
Last edited:
I realize you're a liberal, but there are these things called history books. If you pick one up sometime and read it (top to bottom, left to right), you'll discover that conservatives really aren't just dreaming up elaborate stories every time they talk about things that happened more than five minutes ago.

I'm laughing considering your following post. My irony meter just broke. Thanks for proving me 100% correct. And nice to see you don't understand what liberalism is. Care to look at how Navy fared when he called me a liberal?

In 1982, Ronald Reagan said that we "could not afford to allow Iraq to lose the war to Iran", and that the United States "would do whatever was necessary to prevent Iraq from losing the war with Iran."

And how exactly is that the same thing? How did Reagan apply the same tactics used in Malaya, Northern Ireland and Iraq? Us forces weren't even fighting in the Iraq-Iran war, nor did was the conflict a COIN operation.

Hint: it's not.

History books you say? How was hot interstate conflict that did not use asymmetrical warfare the same as the British engagement in Malaya? :rofl

Me thinks your argument is scrambling for words.

Ever since, liberals have been morally equating us with Saddam, acting as if our early support for him invalidated our removal of him more than 20 years later, after a decade of failed diplomacy, genocide, and terror-sponsoring.

...and that's related to this discussion how?

Yet now that Democrats are in office, it's not only okay to get our hands dirty, but its even okay to work with a regime that facilitated 9/11 and still hides bin Laden.

A regime? The Taliban of 2009 is a loose mix of Bin Laden's organization, local fighters and everything in between.

Are you failing to comprehend basic facts and evidence again?

Interesting how you level that accusation against me, yet refuse to address my posts as well as how you also refuse to level that accusation against Bkhad who's saying the same stuff.

Jallman is again, correct on his assertions.

Oh the illiteracy is coming out. If you bothered to actually read anything I've said, you would have noticed my question...are both the "moderates" and the hard core jihadists not hiding bin Laden?

Wait. Your's? You chastise Obama for doing what Bush did. You know, making up things to suit your arguments isn't a good way of debating.
 
Some of the Taliban did accept our offers. In fact, that is why we had such success in the fall of '01, because we had engagement with a wide variety of Taliban commanders and local tribal leaders -- because our enemy, it was not necessarily the Taliban, and certainly not Afghanistan. Our enemy was Al Qaeda. They are the ones that attacked us on 9/11, and I think that's an important distinction.

And [Afghan] President [Hamid] Karzai, [has had] ongoing efforts to talk to the Taliban, to have them lay down their arms and come into a legitimate form of government. I think that's reasonable and that should be continued, especially if they give up other Al Qaeda allies, if we can get to bin Laden and other leaders.

FRONTLINE: the war briefing: interviews: henry crumpton | PBS
 
Back
Top Bottom