• 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

ElChupacabra said:
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.
Click to expand...

It's decentralized because of the Taliban.
 
apdst said:
It's decentralized because of the Taliban.
Click to expand...

No. It's been a tribal country for a long time. The key to keeping rural people in line is dealing with tribal leaders. Only a small percentage of the population live in the cities. If you look at Pakistan, they take a general hands off approach on the northern regions where the fundamentalists are as well.
 
TU Curmudgeon said:
From Reuters

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

KABUL (Reuters) - Pressure is building on the Taliban to respond to President Ashraf Ghani’s offer for peace talks, in the face of growing demands for an end to the 17-year-long war in Afghanistan, a senior U.S. official said.

“Increasingly, I think it’s becoming unacceptable for the Taliban not to negotiate,” Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary for South and Central Asia Alice Wells told reporters during a visit to Kabul.

“Right now it’s the Taliban leaders, and frankly it’s Taliban leaders who aren’t residing in Afghanistan, who are the obstacle to a negotiated political settlement,” said Wells, one of the State Department’s top officials dealing with Afghanistan.

Her remarks were made on Saturday but embargoed for release on Sunday.

COMMENT:-

Generally speaking, the side that thinks that it is winning doesn't call for "negotiations".

On the other hand, exactly how does Mr. Trump's administration think that it is going to "negotiate" a solution which leaves the Taliban with some significant political say in Afghanistan when it is the position of the US government that the Taliban is a terrorist organization that has to be wiped out? And, why would the Taliban believe the US government when it says that it is prepared to allow the Taliban to have some significant political say in Afghanistan after the US government invaded Afghanistan in order to ensure that the Taliban had no significant political say in Afghanistan?
​
Click to expand...
I recall hearing somewhere that they offered peace talks back when this **** first started, but we turned them down.

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

About the most idiotic thing you've said.
 
Mr Person said:
"Unacceptable"?

:lamo




Russia couldn't tame that country with well over a million troops. We couldn't with a whole lot less. Why the **** would they negotiate? They are perfectly well aware that it would take a tremendous effort to actually subdue that large country of ruinous terrain, root everyone out, etc. They aren't a standing army. We do not have the means to do what we would need to do were our threats to mean anything.

Unacceptable. HAH!
Click to expand...

600,000 total Russians served in country through 9 years.

Peaked somewheres at 115,000 - 120,000 in country at one time.

Not arguing, I have a book on the war on the shelf next to my computer desk.
 
The Mark said:
I recall hearing somewhere that they offered peace talks back when this **** first started, but we turned them down.

Possibly they don't trust us.
Click to expand...

Prior to the US invasion and conquest of Afghanistan, the Taliban (which was the government of Afghanistan at the time) offered to turn Osama bin Laden over to the US government PROVIDED that the US government (in essence) "presented an extraditable case" (even though there was no extradition treaty between the US and Afghanistan).

At the time, the US government did NOT have an "extraditable case" to present.

The US government refused the offer and demanded that the Taliban turn Osama bin Laden over to the US regardless of the laws of Afghanistan and international law on the basis of "Because we tell you to do it.".

To say that that "justified" the invasion and conquest of Afghanistan is the same thing as saying that a robber would be "justified" in killing someone if the robber told the victim that they would kill the victim if the victim didn't hand over their money and the victim said that they would only do so in compliance with the law.
 
apdst said:
U.S. forces weren't defeated. So...
Click to expand...

Quite right.

On the other hand, the government of the United States of America either:

  1. was defeated; or
  2. took its toys and went home before the inevitable defeat of the puppet government it had created in the southern half of Vietnam when it became obvious that the puppet government that it had created in the southern half of Vietnam was going to be soundly trashed if the US government insisted that that government comply with the requirement for national elections which the US government had already agreed to (but didn't want held because "its guys" were going to be defeated in any free, fair, open, and honest election).

Once the country's government either is defeated or decides to quit fighting the fact that the country's military is "undefeated" becomes irrelevant.
 
Grand Mal said:
Last Hundred Days.
Canada kicking butts and taking names.
Click to expand...

Oh come on now!!!!!!!!!!

Everyone knows that the United States of America won both WWI and WWII and the Korean War and the Vietnam War and the War of 1812 all by itself even though Germany, China, Japan, France, the UK and Russia were allied against it.
 
TU Curmudgeon said:
From Reuters

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

KABUL (Reuters) - Pressure is building on the Taliban to respond to President Ashraf Ghani’s offer for peace talks, in the face of growing demands for an end to the 17-year-long war in Afghanistan, a senior U.S. official said.

“Increasingly, I think it’s becoming unacceptable for the Taliban not to negotiate,” Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary for South and Central Asia Alice Wells told reporters during a visit to Kabul.

“Right now it’s the Taliban leaders, and frankly it’s Taliban leaders who aren’t residing in Afghanistan, who are the obstacle to a negotiated political settlement,” said Wells, one of the State Department’s top officials dealing with Afghanistan.

Her remarks were made on Saturday but embargoed for release on Sunday.

COMMENT:-

Generally speaking, the side that thinks that it is winning doesn't call for "negotiations".

On the other hand, exactly how does Mr. Trump's administration think that it is going to "negotiate" a solution which leaves the Taliban with some significant political say in Afghanistan when it is the position of the US government that the Taliban is a terrorist organization that has to be wiped out? And, why would the Taliban believe the US government when it says that it is prepared to allow the Taliban to have some significant political say in Afghanistan after the US government invaded Afghanistan in order to ensure that the Taliban had no significant political say in Afghanistan?
​
Click to expand...

ALL this does is (yet again) demonstrate the complete arrogance of the American government.

Our government expects every other government on the ****ing planet to bend at our whim; how completely ****ing arrogant ........
 
apdst said:
Thanks to The United States.
Click to expand...

Quite right.

Everyone knows that WWI started on 06 APR 17.

After that date the United States of America was the only country in the world opposing Germany.
 
apdst said:
Thanks to The United States.
Click to expand...

Yeahright.

The US contribution to WW1-

1- Show up when it's nearly over.
2- Spend 8 or 9 months making the same mistakes everyone else made 4 years before.
3- Join the parade.
 
TU Curmudgeon said:
Prior to the US invasion and conquest of Afghanistan, the Taliban (which was the government of Afghanistan at the time) offered to turn Osama bin Laden over to the US government PROVIDED that the US government (in essence) "presented an extraditable case" (even though there was no extradition treaty between the US and Afghanistan).

At the time, the US government did NOT have an "extraditable case" to present.

The US government refused the offer and demanded that the Taliban turn Osama bin Laden over to the US regardless of the laws of Afghanistan and international law on the basis of "Because we tell you to do it.".

To say that that "justified" the invasion and conquest of Afghanistan is the same thing as saying that a robber would be "justified" in killing someone if the robber told the victim that they would kill the victim if the victim didn't hand over their money and the victim said that they would only do so in compliance with the law.
Click to expand...

No, a better example would be this.

Joe A goes on a rampage, shooting up, say, a mall. Jim B has been friends with Joe A and let Joe and his friends stay his house and plan their attack. The cops show up to hunt Joe A down--- Jim B attempts to give him time to escape by stalling. He knows Joe A was responsible; but Joe killed people Jim hates, so Jim simply doesn't care. The cops eventually get tired and arrest Jim for helping Joe and shooting at the police who show up to look for Joe. As it turns out, Jim has a rap sheet as long as his arm and has been terrorizing his neighborhood for years.

The Taliban are not the victims here. I hate to break it to you.
 
Grand Mal said:
Yeahright.

The US contribution to WW1-

1- Show up when it's nearly over.
2- Spend 8 or 9 months making the same mistakes everyone else made 4 years before.
3- Join the parade.
Click to expand...

You mean when the French were on the verge of shooting their own generals for continually hurling them into the meat grinder and the British weren't much better off.

If nothing else, the prospect of a flood of fresh manpower shored up the Entente and forced the Germans into a last desperate roll of the dice.
 
Tigerace117 said:
No, a better example would be this.

Joe A goes on a rampage, shooting up, say, a mall. Jim B has been friends with Joe A and let Joe and his friends stay his house and plan their attack. The cops show up to hunt Joe A down--- Jim B attempts to give him time to escape by stalling. He knows Joe A was responsible; but Joe killed people Jim hates, so Jim simply doesn't care. The cops eventually get tired and arrest Jim for helping Joe and shooting at the police who show up to look for Joe. As it turns out, Jim has a rap sheet as long as his arm and has been terrorizing his neighborhood for years.

The Taliban are not the victims here. I hate to break it to you.
Click to expand...

If the police kick the door of Jim's house in without a warrant (and even without proof that Joe was responsible for a crime) then the case is going to get kicked out of court pretty damn quickly.

What you appear to forget is that when the US government originally asked the Afghans to turn Osama bin Laden over to the US, the US government DID NOT have actual evidence that Osama bin Laden was actually responsible for the WTC/Pentagon Mass Murders. True, the US government THOUGHT that he was PROBABLY involved but it had no actual evidence that he was actually involved - that evidence emerged AFTER the US invaded Afghanistan.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom