• 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
aquapub said:
Um...we have the military might to back up our demands...regardless of where various units are currently stationed. And our enemies know this. Having military units nearby as we negotiate with terrorists in no way transforms what we are doing into something less objectionable than...negotiating with terrorists.

Weak attempt at a counterpoint. :thumbdown
Click to expand...

Such a pitty that the people in charge disagree with your little fairy tale. You've done nothing here except toss around some charged rhetoric and exhibited a startling lack of understanding of the situation you are flapping your gums about.

:applaud Congratulations are in order for your flawless performance of someone who actually knows what they are talking about.

Bush would've ever, under any circumstances, negotiated with the people protecting bin Laden?
Click to expand...

I never made the claim that we were negotiating with a faction that is protecting the bin Laden. The Taliban is fractured. I thought you were up to date on all this. :confused:

Meanwhile, on planet Earth, those of us who watched Democrats tear him to shreds for eight years straight for refusing at every turn to negotiate with the lunatic fundamentalist regime they installed in Iran, the North Korean regime they helped go nuclear, or the Syrian regime they protected from diplomatic pressure can't help but notice that all the facts and evidence directly contradict this claim.
Click to expand...

So this isn't even really about what is happening now. It's about an ax you have to grind against the treatment of Bush. I understand completely now.

And even if your first hilariously mind-numbing point here weren't unmistakably false on its face, Bush couldn't station a brigaide nearby while negotiating with those protecting bin Laden...because the tiny fraction of our overall troops that were deployed at the time also included some in Iraq?
Click to expand...

I see reading comprehension fails you yet again. But then it's rather hard to read when your blinders are pulled so low over your face you can't see what is presented.

Um...sure. :sarcasticclap

Moving along. :roll:
Click to expand...

yeah you do that, sparky. your blog misses you.
 
jallman said:
This is anything but reasonable. In fact, your entire spin is nothing but unadulterated dishonesty.

No one has suggested we don't fight back and not retaliating attacks made against us has never been a serious part of the national dialogue.

But again, let's not let reality get in the way of your hyperpartisan ranting.
Click to expand...

If Democrats hadn't opposed virtually every single thing we've done since 9/11 to fight back, including the war in Afghanistan (until it could be used to undermine the next war they voted for in Iraq), then this statement might actually make sense. But as it is, this is nothing but mindless ad hominem smearing.
 
bhkad said:
I urge those opposed to the current Afghanistan philosophy to read this interview and go beyond a one dimensional view of the challenges and opportunities we face there.



FRONTLINE: the war briefing: interviews: henry crumpton | PBS
Click to expand...

If I wanted to see the most rabidly left-wing version of the issue, I'd go straight to the head of the Democratic Party: MoveOn.

Frontline, or anything connected to such a blatant DNC propagandist like Bill Moyers is a total waste of time for anyone interested in the facts.

If you can find any source that hasn't spent the last decade utterly destroying its own credibility, I'll be glad to give it a look.
 
Last edited:
aquapub said:
If I wanted to see the most rabidly left-wing version of the issue, I'd go straight to the head of the Democratic Party: MoveOn.

Frontline, or anything connected to such a blatant DNC propagandist like Bill Moyers is a total waste of time for anyone interested in the facts.
Click to expand...

The only news that is worth printing is the news from Rush,right?
 
aquapub said:
If Democrats hadn't opposed virtually every single thing we've done since 9/11 to fight back, including the war in Afghanistan (until it could be used to undermine the next war they voted for in Iraq), then this statement might actually make sense. But as it is, this is nothing but mindless ad hominem smearing.
Click to expand...


Show me someone who has opposed the Afghan war.
 
americanwoman said:
Show me someone who has opposed the Afghan war.
Click to expand...

I'm sure he'll pull some obscure little representative out of his ass as a name to drop but it will pack no punch when it comes to proving anything close to a point.

He's like Anne Coulter except not as masculine.
 
aquapub said:
If I wanted to see the most rabidly left-wing version of the issue, I'd go straight to the head of the Democratic Party: MoveOn.

Frontline, or anything connected to such a blatant DNC propagandist like Bill Moyers is a total waste of time for anyone interested in the facts.

If you can find any source that hasn't spent the last decade utterly destroying its own credibility, I'll be glad to give it a look.
Click to expand...

Henry Crumpton is as knowledgeable a source as there is. It pains me to say that to deny yourself the benefit of his view speaks volumes, pubby.
 
winston53660 said:
Welllll



........
Click to expand...

Codepink opposing a war is as big of news as a fat kid liking chocolate cake.

It's what they do...oppose wars.

Does Code Pink speak for teh eeeebul eeeebul democrats and libruhls?
 
jallman said:
Codepink opposing a war is as big of news as a fat kid liking chocolate cake.

It's what they do...oppose wars.

Does Code Pink speak for teh eeeebul eeeebul democrats and libruhls?
Click to expand...

According to aquapub well duh.
 
winston53660 said:
The only news that is worth printing is the news from Rush,right?
Click to expand...

Ah, I see.

Never mind the Moyers being so obscenely biased as to openly smear the mission in Iraq as Bush trying to do “to the people of Baghdad what bin Laden did to us,” or to smear Bush as trying to “force pregnant women to give up control over their own lives” for picking judges who actually follow the Constitution, or to fall over himself with socialist outrage over a “transfer wealth from working people to the rich.”

PBS' own ombudsman called Moyers out for being “soft” on Reverend Wright, admitting that his “inflammatory” and “inaccurate” statements went “largely unchallenged” Meanwhile, a study conducted by PBS, under the direction of Clinton appointee Kenneth Tomlinson, found that around 70% of Moyers' "documentaries" were openly slanted against Bush.

Yeah, you're right. The only way anyone could possibly object to an outright DNC propagandist like Moyers being hilariously mislabeled as a "journalist" is if the only thing they would support is right-wing Rush Limbaugh rhetoric.

:bs

What's next? Only right-wing extremists object to Keith Olbermann being misrepresented as a journalist too? :lol:

Incidentally, Moyers is a perfect example of what's wrong with putting government in charge of which political opinions can be expressed (only) on talk radio. Moyers is what they think is fair and balanced.

Laughably stupid smear, as always. :2wave:
 
americanwoman said:
Show me someone who has opposed the Afghan war.
Click to expand...

As I spelled out in Scam:

"Within weeks of us sending troops into Afghanistan, liberal journalists from Peter Jennings to Maureen Dowd joined Democrats in office from Bill Richardson to Joe Biden in branding the removal of the Taliban a “quagmire” and comparing to Vietnam.44 It was only once we invaded Iraq that liberals reversed course and began treating Afghanistan as the one thing they had always supported. This is why Democrats cannot be judged entirely by their voting records. They routinely have to lie about what they stand for to get elected."

jallman said:
I'm sure he'll pull some obscure little representative out of his ass as a name to drop but it will pack no punch when it comes to proving anything close to a point.

He's like Anne Coulter except not as masculine.
Click to expand...

You were saying? :2wave:

Joe Biden is an obscure congressman? :lol:
 
aquapub said:
You were saying? :2wave:

Joe Biden is an obscure congressman? :lol:
Click to expand...


I'm not really inclined to accept you referencing your own little penny novel in this debate. :2wave:
 
aquapub said:
This is why we laugh when liberals take a break from non-stop off-topic smearing snivel about "mean-spirited" Republicans. :lol:
Click to expand...

This is why we take hyperpartisan hacks with a grain of salt in the real world. You can't even get party affiliation correct because you are so blinded by the foam that has built up around your mouth and gotten in your eyes.
 
jallman said:
I'm not really inclined to accept you referencing your own little penny novel in this debate. :2wave:
Click to expand...

This isn't a debate at all. It's one thinking individual holding liberal after liberal by the head as they swing at him wildly with irrelevant smears and hilariously stupid contradictions.

I could provide you video proof of Joe Biden ranting about what "high tech bullies" we are for removing the Taliban and what a disaster the war has already become (in three whole weeks), and you would respond by smearing me as a radical right-winger who probably doctored the tape.

It's just how hysterics like you respond to facts and evidence. :shrug:

We'll play more tomorrow. Keep looking for new grade school taunts to hurl, and I'll make sure to keep laughing at you. ;)
 
Last edited:
aquapub said:
This isn't a debate at all. It's one thinking individual holding liberal after liberal by the head as they swing at him wildly with irrelevant smears and hilariously stupid contradictions.

I could provide you video proof of Joe Biden ranting about what "high tech bullies" we are for removing the Taliban and what a disaster the war has already become (in three whole weeks), and you would respond by smearing me as a radical right-winger who probably doctored the tape.

It's just how hysterics like you respond to facts and evidence. :shrug:

We'll play more tomorrow. Keep looking for new grade school taunts to hurl, and I'll make sure to keep laughing at you.
Click to expand...

It's hard to even get to the crux of your point considering that you don't offer anything hard and factual to discuss. You only offer your own take on it complete with hyper-partisan views and frankly we already know what that is. Why do you insist on using your blog as a source in these polls? It seems that you are more interested in arrogantly foisting your personal views on people rather than having an intellectual discussion about it. Frankly I think that you are in the wrong place if that's what you are interested in.

As for your point, I think it's unwise of anyone to think that they can negotiate with extremists regardless of their political affiliation.
 
aquapub said:
This isn't a debate at all. It's one thinking individual holding liberal after liberal by the head as they swing at him wildly with irrelevant smears and hilariously stupid contradictions.
Click to expand...

Whatever you say, pubby. If you had half a clue as to how ridiculous you sound every time you post you wouldn't have such an inflated view of yourself.

But whatever gets you through it. How are those book sales coming along, by the way? :lol:
 
dclxvinoise said:
It's hard to even get to the crux of your point considering that you don't offer anything hard and factual to discuss. You only offer your own take on it complete with hyper-partisan views and frankly we already know what that is. Why do you insist on using your blog as a source in these polls? It seems that you are more interested in arrogantly foisting your personal views on people rather than having an intellectual discussion about it. Frankly I think that you are in the wrong place if that's what you are interested in.

As for your point, I think it's unwise of anyone to think that they can negotiate with extremists regardless of their political affiliation.
Click to expand...

Psst...he wants Anne Coulter to notice him and declare her undying affection for him. It's all for her. :lol:
 
jallman said:
Psst...he wants Anne Coulter to notice him and declare her undying affection for him. It's all for her. :lol:
Click to expand...

Aquapub is gay.

Have seen coulters adams apple LOL
 
winston53660 said:
Aquapub is gay.

Have seen coulters adams apple LOL
Click to expand...

"See...liberals when confronted with flawless conservative arguments and massive cranial ability like mine always have to resort to calling me gay."

Aquapub Autoreply Generator
 
aquapub said:
Yet when Ronald Reagan used it in the Iran-Iraq war, liberals spent two decades tirelessly smearing him as what's wrong with our arrogant foreign policy approach.
Click to expand...

What are you talking about? How did Reagan do anything similar in that conflict?

Are you making stuff up again?

Aren't liberals the ones who told us finding bin Laden was "the real mission" and fell all over each other to hysterically denounce Bush for working with the Saudis and Pakistan (governments that were against al Qaida)? Yet now it's just a common sense strategy to ally ourselves with an actual terrorist sponsor that cause 9/11?
Click to expand...

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

Did you people seriously think no one would notice the gaping holes in your blatant Obama-apologist spin?

:donkeyfla Hilarious.
Click to expand...

Bhkad is being an Obama-Apologist?

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

If a Democrat...contradicts everything they have claimed to stand for...to negotiate with those shielding al Qaida...after spending five years using "the real war" in Afghanistan to undermine the other war Democrats voted for in Iraq...that is surrender...on a monumentally hypocritical scale.
Click to expand...

What the hell are you talking about?

Apparently oblivious child is to busy derailing to sneer at people to realize that the difference is working with terrorists vs. working with those who oppose terrorists.
Click to expand...

You really have no understanding of COIN do you?
 
aquapub said:
Fine, let's have a show of hands. How many here think there's a difference between working with the terror-sponsoring regime that facilitated 9/11 and continues to aid and shelter bin Laden to this day and using the fact that al Qaida had turned the Sunnis in Iraq against them to bring an alienated religious sect of the country to the table for unity governance and anti-al Qaida efforts?
Click to expand...

Lol. Way to completely ignore what I wrote. What I actually said, instead of your obvious fabrication is that the Taliban of 2001 is very different from the Taliban of 2009. One major instance is that many of the fighters are not religious fanatics, but are fighting against what they perceive is a corrupt government and an occupying foreign power. Where did we see this before? Malaya and Vietnam. Which tactic succeeded in suppressing the insurgency? The British COIN operations which took insurgents and turned them against the insurgency. You clearly have absolutely no clue about what you are talking about. Another instance is that the formerly anti-drug Taliban openly cultivates and profits from opium sales. That's a 180 degree change from its former position.

The notion that individual fighters from Afghanistan are harboring Bin Laden is nuts. Not to mention if we WANT to get him, the British experience in Malaya suggests that we should slowly turn soldiers up the ranks until we get someone who knows where Bin Laden is and can be turned against him. Your argument completely and absolutely ignores all successful tactics of COIN operations in human history. Well, there is one that does deviate, but it involves genocide. Maybe you'd support that. It's Roman.

Furthermore, the Sunni Councils were working with and sheltering Islamic radical fighters in Iraq. Their switching sides is what allowed us to effectively decimate the ranks of al Qaida in Iraq. Fundamentally, it is little different then the principles use in Malaya.

Again, both Bhkad and I agree your argument is completely wrong.

You call me an Obama apologist, yet I'm saying the same thing he is. Why don't you call him one too?
 
obvious Child said:
Both Bhkad and I, who normally never see eye to eye agree 100% that you are dead wrong.
Click to expand...

Don't put words in my mouth, please. I'd maintain that Aquapub refuses to take in new information which would threaten his viewpoint.

This new strategy is the strategy that Petraeus has adopted because it gives us the best chance of achieving our aims.

By the way, it is the same strategy that we used in the first several months after 9/11 when everyone agrees we were "winning" in Afghanistan.

It's too bad Aquapub refuses to read the Crumpton interview. He'd find common ground with this respected real life, modern day spy.
 
bhkad said:
Don't put words in my mouth, please. I'd maintain that Aquapub refuses to take in new information which would threaten his viewpoint.
Click to expand...

We all maintain that Aquapub refuses to take in new information which would threaten his viewpoint. That doesn't change the fact that both you and I agree that his rant against the strategy is wrong.

This new strategy is the strategy that Petraeus has adopted because it gives us the best chance of achieving our aims.
Click to expand...

Agreed. However, one flaw is that the strategy doesn't seem to deal with the perceived corruptness within the Afghan government. That was one of the major downfalls in Vietnam. General Petraeus has seemed to have studied that conflict, Malaya and other COIN operations not to mention his think tank which included Lt Col. Nagl. Any word on if he's pushing for reform in the government? Failure to fix the government could undue everything we work for militarily.

By the way, it is the same strategy that we used in the first several months after 9/11 when everyone agrees we were "winning" in Afghanistan.
Click to expand...

Why did that change? Rummy?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom