• 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!

'Unacceptable' for Taliban to refuse peace talks, U.S. official says

RabidAlpaca said:
So the north didn't win and Vietnam isn't ruled by the Communist party of Vietnam? The only way you can declare victory is if you're a vietcong sympathizer.
Click to expand...

When did The United States surrender to the North Vietnamese?
 
apdst said:
When did The United States surrender to the North Vietnamese?
Click to expand...

Never.

Mr. Nixon "declared victory and went home".

The Vietnamese that weren't robbing Vietnam (and the US) blind didn't care about the first half and were heartily in agreement with the second half.

The Vietnamese what WERE robbing Vietnam (and the US) blind were rather upset all the way to their Swiss bank accounts.
 
TU Curmudgeon said:
Never.

Mr. Nixon "declared victory and went home".

The Vietnamese that weren't robbing Vietnam (and the US) blind didn't care about the first half and were heartily in agreement with the second half.

The Vietnamese what WERE robbing Vietnam (and the US) blind were rather upset all the way to their Swiss bank accounts.
Click to expand...

Actually, that isn't true.

There were millions of Vietnamese that didn't want to live in a Communist Vietnam.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vietnamese_boat_people
 
apdst said:
It isn't because The United States was defeated on the battlefield.
Click to expand...

Quite right.

The US won the war that it wanted (and was prepared) to fight.

Unfortunately the Vietnamese won the war that they wanted (and were prepared) to fight.

Generally speaking the side that quits fighting first isn't considered to have won a war.

The US quit fighting first in Vietnam.
 
TU Curmudgeon said:
Quite right.

The US won the war that it wanted (and was prepared) to fight.

Unfortunately the Vietnamese won the war that they wanted (and were prepared) to fight.

Generally speaking the side that quits fighting first isn't considered to have won a war.

The US quit fighting first in Vietnam.
Click to expand...

The communists didn't agree to the Paris Accord because they were winning.
 
Grand Mal said:
There's no winning in Afghanistan, not for foreigners. Those people have been hiding beside a road waiting for their enemy to come for umpteen generations.
This is what a Brit wrote about the first Anglo-Afghan War in 1843...
Click to expand...

The "British Method" of dealing with the Afghans can be summarized as:

  1. Gather up a large number of well armed and supplied troops;
  2. March through Afghanistan destroying everything you find;
  3. Post large signs that say (in essence) "We did this because you ticked us off.";
  4. Reach your planned destination point;
  5. Turn around and march back while destroying anything that you missed the first time;
  6. Post more large sighs that say (in essence) "And we'll do it again the next time you tick us off.";
  7. Settle down for roughly a generation of acceptably low levels of Afghan banditry and horse stealing;
  8. Repeat as necessary.

That's the "traditional" way of dealing with Afghanistan.
 
Pedestrian said:
The Taliban I feel though, can't be trusted not to continue to take power by force.
Click to expand...

You are probably correct.

But, then again, the British didn't trust the American colonists not to take power by force either.
 
apdst said:
The communists didn't agree to the Paris Accord because they were winning.
Click to expand...

Oh sure.

When the results were the removal of the US forces, why wouldn't the Vietnamese agree to the Paris Peace Accords.

When the results of the Paris Peace Accords was the almost certain downfall of the US sponsored government of the southern part of Vietnam, why would the US government agree to them if it was winning?
 
TU Curmudgeon said:
Oh sure.

When the results were the removal of the US forces, why wouldn't the Vietnamese agree to the Paris Peace Accords.

When the results of the Paris Peace Accords was the almost certain downfall of the US sponsored government of the southern part of Vietnam, why would the US government agree to them if it was winning?
Click to expand...

Exactly, because the communists had lost their ability to resist.

The RVN fell because The United States cut off her fuel, ammo and air support. That's what guaranteed South Vietnam's fall.
 
fishnthec said:
Well, its not just the expense of American dollars, it's also an expense measured in American Blood!

But, as you already know, part of our commitment to fight terrorism on foreign soil- before it comes to America again in the form of a 9/11 attack, we do make such sacrifices of Blood and Money! Never Again! Right?
Click to expand...

Yes, that was the reference to human resources. The problem is there's blowback from taking the invasion route and the new terrorists that pop up in reaction to that tactic.
 
apdst said:
We should suspend any and all negotiations and carpet bomb Taliban strong holds.
Click to expand...

Exactly, if they are indeed the enemy and won't talk, you kill them.
 
lefty louie said:
Exactly, if they are indeed the enemy and won't talk, you kill them.
Click to expand...

There it is. The Libbos don't want that because they think the Tals are the good guys.
 
apdst said:
There it is. The Libbos don't want that because they think the Tals are the good guys.
Click to expand...

Are we talking about just combatants, supporters and their relatives, those just in Afghanistan, or those in Pakistan?
 
ElChupacabra said:
Are we talking about just combatants, supporters and their relatives, those just in Afghanistan, or those in Pakistan?
Click to expand...

I'm talking the enemy and his support infrastructure. If the Tals use their families as human shields, then it sucks to be them.
 
apdst said:
I'm talking the enemy and his support infrastructure. If the Tals use their families as human shields, then it sucks to be them.
Click to expand...

That's been the problem everyone who's waged war in Afghanistan has faced. We're talking about farmers and herders in remote mountainous regions and not some large scale war machine whose energy supply you can cut off. Previous US generals have mentioned it would take tens of thousands of troops to be able to hold key areas of the country, but even if you accomplish that there's no guarantee that's the win either. A country has to want to be one in order for you to build a nation.
 
ElChupacabra said:
That's been the problem everyone who's waged war in Afghanistan has faced. We're talking about farmers and herders in remote mountainous regions and not some large scale war machine whose energy supply you can cut off. Previous US generals have mentioned it would take tens of thousands of troops to be able to hold key areas of the country, but even if you accomplish that there's no guarantee that's the win either. A country has to want to be one in order for you to build a nation.
Click to expand...

The Tals aren't super men. They will crumble under pressure just like anyone else. The Soviets were winning in Afghanistan, until we gave the Mujahadeen the weapons and more importantly, the training, to defeat them. You people should really stop believing in the fabled Afghan boogey men.
 
apdst said:
The Tals aren't super men. They will crumble under pressure just like anyone else. The Soviets were winning in Afghanistan, until we gave the Mujahadeen the weapons and more importantly, the training, to defeat them. You people should really stop believing in the fabled Afghan boogey men.
Click to expand...

They are not, but it doesn't change the fact that Afghanistan has been a decentralized country for a very long time, so it's not as if we're talking about conventional governance; especially once you're out of Kabul. The Soviets would have been close to winning the war, but the question is how long would have they been able to keep it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom