Layton/NDP wants Canada to pull out of Afghanistan

[White Doors]

Yep, he wants us to pull out all of our troops by February at the 'latest'.
He also wants to engage in 'dialogue' with the Taliban.

It would seem that universities are still the best source of 'useful idiots' in the western world.

[Resolute 14]

So the NDP negotiates with terrorists, eh?

[White Doors]

Well they said that they want to, yes.

[Flashpoint]

Originally Posted by White Doors

It would seem that universities are still the best source of 'useful idiots' in the western world.

I guess you haven't been...

[Igottago]

you got a link on this?

[-Archon-]

CTV Link...

[White Doors]

Originally Posted by Flashpoint

I guess you haven't been...

Yes, I 'been'.

[Flash Walken]

So I have to ask, what is wrong with this?

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by Flash Walken

So I have to ask, what is wrong with this?

so your all for negotiating and giving legitamacy to the Taliban, a group that denies basic rights to its people, segragates woman from society and denies them education, and the right to work. Executes people in number in a soccer stadium. Murders people that don't conform to thier twisted version of thier religion, destroys symbols of other religion.

Your all for going back on promises to assist a struggling nation, thats facing a internal enemy that thinks nothing of random bombings, and the use of suicide drivers who think that driving into a crowded market and killing scores of innocents is a path to paridise?

Is there an exit strategy in place? Thats up to the nations involved in this mission to decide, all we know at the moment is that there has been an extention to the Canadian mission in there, and if we can't or won't live up to our obligations, then we might as well withdrawl from all international policy because our word as Canadian's means nothing.

The day and age of peacekeeping by meek methods is over, peacekeeping has to be done by both a position of strength, and by being able to kill those like the Taliban in numbers to reduce thier ability to threaten and murder. The concept of soft diplomacy that Paul Martin talked about dosen't work, it emboldens.

[longsuffering]

Originally Posted by White Doors

Yep, he wants us to pull out all of our troops by February at the 'latest'.
He also wants to engage in 'dialogue' with the Taliban.

It would seem that universities are still the best source of 'useful idiots' in the western world.

You should get a job in the Bush White House.

Let's see what Layton said about the Afghan mission shall we?

It has no clear goals, no exit strategy and no criteria to judge success, he said at a news conference Thursday.
"This is not the right mission for Canada,'' he said. "There is no balance. In particular, it lacks a comprehensive rebuilding plan and commensurate development assistance.''

Sounds fairly accurate to me. Is having clear goals, an exit strategy, a rebuilding plan and a development assistance plan a bad thing?

And I seem to have missed the part where (you claim) he wants to engage in dialogue with the Taliban, unless you're referring to this quote:

He said Canada should be working for a "comprehensive peace process'' involving all parties to the fighting in Afghanistan.

So it would seem White Doors is playing fast and loose with the facts.

What a surprise.

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by longsuffering

You should get a job in the Bush White House.

Let's see what Layton said about the Afghan mission shall we?

It has no clear goals, no exit strategy and no criteria to judge success, he said at a news conference Thursday.
"This is not the right mission for Canada,'' he said. "There is no balance. In particular, it lacks a comprehensive rebuilding plan and commensurate development assistance.''

Sounds fairly accurate to me. Is having clear goals, an exit strategy, a rebuilding plan and a development assistance plan a bad thing?

And I seem to have missed the part where (you claim) he wants to engage in dialogue with the Taliban, unless you're referring to this quote:

He said Canada should be working for a "comprehensive peace process'' involving all parties to the fighting in Afghanistan.

So it would seem White Doors is playing fast and loose with the facts.

What a surprise.

Wouldn't all parties include the Taliban and the insurgence, since theye are a party in this fighting?

Or is there a peace thats going to be imposed in absentia?

[Flash Walken]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

so your all for negotiating and giving legitamacy to the Taliban, a group that denies basic rights to its people, segragates woman from society and denies them education, and the right to work. Executes people in number in a soccer stadium. Murders people that don't conform to thier twisted version of thier religion, destroys symbols of other religion.

Your all for going back on promises to assist a struggling nation, thats facing a internal enemy that thinks nothing of random bombings, and the use of suicide drivers who think that driving into a crowded market and killing scores of innocents is a path to paridise?

Is there an exit strategy in place? Thats up to the nations involved in this mission to decide, all we know at the moment is that there has been an extention to the Canadian mission in there, and if we can't or won't live up to our obligations, then we might as well withdrawl from all international policy because our word as Canadian's means nothing.

The day and age of peacekeeping by meek methods is over, peacekeeping has to be done by both a position of strength, and by being able to kill those like the Taliban in numbers to reduce thier ability to threaten and murder. The concept of soft diplomacy that Paul Martin talked about dosen't work, it emboldens.

Thanks for the military lesson, Dwight.

Why should canada sacrifice the lives of their soldiers to mop up a mess created by another country, while trying to appease a puppet government that has shown a lack of leadership in any democratic avenue. They have RELIGIOUS POLICE there, again. This new 'democracy' in Afghanistan is a joke. I posted an article about this a couple of weeks ago here; meet the new boss, same as the old boss.

Because of the neglect of our armed services, canada doesn't have the strategic ability to project force in that kind of way. Canada as it stands right now needs a large scale infusion of cash if we plan on 'winning' this war. Canada also needs some political leadership and support, which has been sorely lacking amongst all 5 major parties. not to mention, we need American help, but they are busy cleaning up spilled milk somewhere else.

So what we're supposed to do is sacrifice our soldiers to secure foreign resources for contracts that would be better served going to our own country to help our own workforce? Sure makes a lot of sense to me.

Contrary to popular belief, Taliban-styled militia's ('neo-taliban') are still the ruling majority in Afghanistan. Outside of a few urban pockets like Kabul, afghanistan is still a barren wasteland fought over by the Taliban and various poppy growing warlords.

Read about the rosey picture in afghanistan, and how much progress canada's little band of soldiers is a making:

http://www.democracynow.org/article..../04/01/1432231

or here about how much better-off women are:
http://www.azadiradio.org/en/dailyreport/2006/08/15.ASP
http://www.un.org/apps/news/story.as...Cr=afghan&Cr1=

If canada is going to be involved with real, applicable democratic change in Afghanistan, then I'm all for it. If we're going to be the janitor who cleans up after American messes, then I say we should withdraw until such time as we are actually able to implement a real plan for security and democracy.

[White Doors]

Originally Posted by longsuffering

You should get a job in the Bush White House.

Let's see what Layton said about the Afghan mission shall we?

It has no clear goals, no exit strategy and no criteria to judge success, he said at a news conference Thursday.
"This is not the right mission for Canada,'' he said. "There is no balance. In particular, it lacks a comprehensive rebuilding plan and commensurate development assistance.''

Sounds fairly accurate to me. Is having clear goals, an exit strategy, a rebuilding plan and a development assistance plan a bad thing?

And I seem to have missed the part where (you claim) he wants to engage in dialogue with the Taliban, unless you're referring to this quote:

He said Canada should be working for a "comprehensive peace process'' involving all parties to the fighting in Afghanistan.

So it would seem White Doors is playing fast and loose with the facts.

What a surprise.

Your quote proves me correct. thank you.
They have a rebuilding and development plan and are doing so at this time. Just because that doesn't get the headlines that battles do, doesn't mean it isn't happening. You have to have security in a given area in order to develop it.

Thanks for coming out.

[White Doors]

Originally Posted by Flash Walken

Thanks for the military lesson, Dwight.

Why should canada sacrifice the lives of their soldiers to mop up a mess created by another country, while trying to appease a puppet government that has shown a lack of leadership in any democratic avenue. They have RELIGIOUS POLICE there, again. This new 'democracy' in Afghanistan is a joke. I posted an article about this a couple of weeks ago here; meet the new boss, same as the old boss.

Because of the neglect of our armed services, canada doesn't have the strategic ability to project force in that kind of way. Canada as it stands right now needs a large scale infusion of cash if we plan on 'winning' this war. Canada also needs some political leadership and support, which has been sorely lacking amongst all 5 major parties. not to mention, we need American help, but they are busy cleaning up spilled milk somewhere else.

So what we're supposed to do is sacrifice our soldiers to secure foreign resources for contracts that would be better served going to our own country to help our own workforce? Sure makes a lot of sense to me.

Contrary to popular belief, Taliban-styled militia's ('neo-taliban') are still the ruling majority in Afghanistan. Outside of a few urban pockets like Kabul, afghanistan is still a barren wasteland fought over by the Taliban and various poppy growing warlords.

Read about the rosey picture in afghanistan, and how much progress canada's little band of soldiers is a making:

http://www.democracynow.org/article..../04/01/1432231

or here about how much better-off women are:
http://www.azadiradio.org/en/dailyreport/2006/08/15.ASP
http://www.un.org/apps/news/story.as...Cr=afghan&Cr1=

If canada is going to be involved with real, applicable democratic change in Afghanistan, then I'm all for it. If we're going to be the janitor who cleans up after American messes, then I say we should withdraw until such time as we are actually able to implement a real plan for security and democracy.

Umm.. This is a NATO and UN sanctioned war. Why must you obsess with the US constantly? This was UN mandated... You know, the same things all the lefties were screaming for in Iraq. And yet, as soon as the going get's tough in Afghanistan you still want to cut and run. Nice rep Canada would have. By the way, poll after poll has confirmed that the vast majority of the populace in Afghanistan DO NOT want the taliban back in power. How about you ask them why we should stay? Also, the constitution of Afghanistan guarantees equal rights. They are going to need the capacity to enforce it.

Link: http://65.109.167.118/pipa/articles/...t=155&lb=hmpg1

Perhaps most telling, 82% said that overthrowing the Taliban government was a good thing for Afghanistan, with just 11% saying it was a bad thing. In the war zone, 71% endorsed the Taliban’s overthrow while 16% saw it as a bad thing; in the north, 18% saw it as a bad thing.
These views were held by large majorities of all ethnic groups, including the large Pashtun and Tajik groups and the smaller Uzbek and Hazara groups. The Pashtuns were less emphatic in their rejection of the Taliban, with 51% expressing a very unfavorable view of the Taliban as compared to 66-79% for the other groups.
Equally large percentages endorse the US military presence in Afghanistan. Eighty-three percent said they have a favorable view of “the US military forces in our country” (39% very favorable). Just 17% have an unfavorable view.

You are playng the politics of cowards. No other way to put it.
Isolationism is not an option in the globalized world and flowers in the end of the Canadians guns won't stop the taliban.

[Red Mile Style]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

so your all for negotiating and giving legitamacy to the Taliban, a group that denies basic rights to its people, segragates woman from society and denies them education, and the right to work. Executes people in number in a soccer stadium. Murders people that don't conform to thier twisted version of thier religion, destroys symbols of other religion.

Your all for going back on promises to assist a struggling nation, thats facing a internal enemy that thinks nothing of random bombings, and the use of suicide drivers who think that driving into a crowded market and killing scores of innocents is a path to paridise?

Is there an exit strategy in place? Thats up to the nations involved in this mission to decide, all we know at the moment is that there has been an extention to the Canadian mission in there, and if we can't or won't live up to our obligations, then we might as well withdrawl from all international policy because our word as Canadian's means nothing.

The day and age of peacekeeping by meek methods is over, peacekeeping has to be done by both a position of strength, and by being able to kill those like the Taliban in numbers to reduce thier ability to threaten and murder. The concept of soft diplomacy that Paul Martin talked about dosen't work, it emboldens.

Sitting down for talks with the Taliban does not legitimize them, it recognizes them as a key player within the conflict - and if you do not consider them a player in this conflict, you do not have a clue what is going on there. You yourself say it is up to the NATIONS involved in this mission to decide, and without pulling an elitist definition argument to sound like a jerk, you would know that "nation" does not refer to states, but a collective group of people - such as the taliban.

Originally, we were supposed to be pulled out by February 2007, that part is correct, but since Harper stepped up our presence and extended the mission the only recognizable result so far has been the skyrocketing number of Canadian casualties. Yes, theoretically progress has been made in Afghanistan, schools being built, elections, etc. but the insurgents are organizing themselves better and better everyday. Killing teachers who teach females, killing the police officers for the new government (and their families) - this occupation is not stiffling the terrorist cells, it's only adding fuel to the fire and giving the taliban more targets to hit. The insurgents now have targets to hit, the people who align themselves with the new government.

You can't say that diplomacy will not work in this situation because it hasn't been attempted. The only thing that has been attempted in Afghanistan is to occupy an Islamic state, enforce western values, kill anyone who does not fall in line by military means only. Although I can not say that diplomacy will definately work, it could not hurt.

I've always wondering how people could advocate peace by using military force or as you delicately put it "kill those like the Taliban in numbers". Why do you think these countries hate the western world so much? Because we buy their oil? Because we're white? Or maybe it's because we kill them, enforce our culture on them and undermind their religion?

To say that if we pull out would have repercussions within the international community is a little bit of an exaggeration. Canada pulled out of Kyoto after being a key player in ratifying it, during the year when Canada held the position of president for the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change. Funny, that seems to not have any international repercussions at all, right? States change their foreign policy all the time, Harper changed it to extend the mission, therefor losing cred for Canada's word, but you don't see that.

There is no exit strategy in Afghanistan, we are involved in a conflict that has absolutely no agenda, meanwhile Canadians are dying. If you think that all the insurgents can just be executed, you fail to see how volatile the entire region is. It isn't just Afghanistan, just like Palestine isn't just Palestinians, these people aren't just going to disappear and if you want to get rid of all of them, it's going to take a long, long time.

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by Flash Walken

Thanks for the military lesson, Dwight.

You know something, why don't you cut out the sarcasm, and insults, show some respect to fellow posters. It makes it really difficult for me to respect your views when you go out of your way to belittle and unsult people, and act like you have a superior intellect to everyone else.

Originally Posted by Flash Walken

Why should canada sacrifice the lives of their soldiers to mop up a mess created by another country, while trying to appease a puppet government that has shown a lack of leadership in any democratic avenue. They have RELIGIOUS POLICE there, again. This new 'democracy' in Afghanistan is a joke. I posted an article about this a couple of weeks ago here; meet the new boss, same as the old boss..

So your going to reject the fact that a lot of what the Canadian soliders do over ther has just as much to do with securing the civilian population as it does securing an actual government which to some extent was selected by the people instead of enforced on them through terror and death. You can call the democracy a joke, but all democracies go through initial periods of adjustment, and at least there is some say in whose running things. Plus I haven't read about the soccer stadiums over there being used for anything but soccer, and to me that combined with the fact that educational standards are now increasing is a positive benefit for me.

Originally Posted by Flash Walken

Because of the neglect of our armed services, canada doesn't have the strategic ability to project force in that kind of way. Canada as it stands right now needs a large scale infusion of cash if we plan on 'winning' this war. Canada also needs some political leadership and support, which has been sorely lacking amongst all 5 major parties. not to mention, we need American help, but they are busy cleaning up spilled milk somewhere else.

Nobody knows better then me about the neglect of the armed forces, and its inability to project force around the world, and unfortunately the improvements have come along too late as even with the influx of new funding the forces are still facing a critical crisis in equipment and manpower in the next 10 to 15 years. However you can't hide from your obligations by playing poor, especially considering that the Liberals volunteered for this deployment to stay out of Iraq.

I don't disagre that stronger leadership is needed from all 5 major powers, and that it would be nice to have American intervention greater then what they've put into place due to the mess in Iraq, but its not likely to be coming, so we have to do the best with what we've got.

Originally Posted by Flash Walken

So what we're supposed to do is sacrifice our soldiers to secure foreign resources for contracts that would be better served going to our own country to help our own workforce? Sure makes a lot of sense to me.

huh? I don't get what your trying to say unless that there is some military industrial conspiracy for cheaper nike's

Originally Posted by Flash Walken

Contrary to popular belief, Taliban-styled militia's ('neo-taliban') are still the ruling majority in Afghanistan. Outside of a few urban pockets like Kabul, afghanistan is still a barren wasteland fought over by the Taliban and various poppy growing warlords.

Yes, we know this, but you didn't expect them to fade out overnight, and it is going to be a long hard fight to get rid of them. However I would rather not see a return to power by the Taliban, and a lot of the interviews that I've seen with people who have been freed from the Taliban's rule would probably rather see them gone as well.

Originally Posted by Flash Walken

Read about the rosey picture in afghanistan, and how much progress canada's little band of soldiers is a making:

http://www.democracynow.org/article..../04/01/1432231

or here about how much better-off women are:
http://www.azadiradio.org/en/dailyreport/2006/08/15.ASP
http://www.un.org/apps/news/story.as...Cr=afghan&Cr1=

I can't argue that progress has been slowed by this destructive conflict, and the creation of a state of fear by the former regime who continues to hang over the population like a thunder cloud. However there has been some progress, but anyone who thinks that there is going to be instant change overnight is fooling themselves. We're probably looking at 10 years before there's even any kind of democratic system in place that actually will stand on its own two feet, and until the areas outside of Kabul are secured there will be no marked change. But you have to put in the effort.

Originally Posted by Flash Walken

If canada is going to be involved with real, applicable democratic change in Afghanistan, then I'm all for it. If we're going to be the janitor who cleans up after American messes, then I say we should withdraw until such time as we are actually able to implement a real plan for security and democracy.

Why does this have to go back to America? this is a UN and NATO mandated and supported mission.

You can't withdraw and then promise to go back as any security zones and any progress not matter how small will be lost. Plus you will sentence the population of the whole company to a hard regression back to Taliban rule, and personally I would rather not see that.

[White Doors]

Originally Posted by Red Mile Style

Sitting down for talks with the Taliban does not legitimize them, it recognizes them as a key player within the conflict - and if you do not consider them a player in this conflict, you do not have a clue what is going on there. You yourself say it is up to the NATIONS involved in this mission to decide, and without pulling an elitist definition argument to sound like a jerk, you would know that "nation" does not refer to states, but a collective group of people - such as the taliban.

If the Taliban are a 'nation' then so is the liberal party of Canada. See how that works? what an asinine statement.

Originally, we were supposed to be pulled out by February 2007, that part is correct, but since Harper stepped up our presence and extended the mission the only recognizable result so far has been the skyrocketing number of Canadian casualties. Yes, theoretically progress has been made in Afghanistan, schools being built, elections, etc. but the insurgents are organizing themselves better and better everyday. Killing teachers who teach females, killing the police officers for the new government (and their families) - this occupation is not stiffling the terrorist cells, it's only adding fuel to the fire and giving the taliban more targets to hit. The insurgents now have targets to hit, the people who align themselves with the new government.

So stop all development and then the Taliban have nothing to hit? That's sounds like a GREAT strategy!

You can't say that diplomacy will not work in this situation because it hasn't been attempted. The only thing that has been attempted in Afghanistan is to occupy an Islamic state, enforce western values, kill anyone who does not fall in line by military means only. Although I can not say that diplomacy will definately work, it could not hurt.

Diplomacy is practised everyday there. But you wouldn't know that would you? Canadians are sitting down and talking to the people everyday asking what they can do for them. well, 0/2 now keep it up.

I've always wondering how people could advocate peace by using military force or as you delicately put it "kill those like the Taliban in numbers". Why do you think these countries hate the western world so much? Because we buy their oil? Because we're white? Or maybe it's because we kill them, enforce our culture on them and undermind their religion?

Did you even look at the poll I posted above? Doesn't look like 'they' hate us at all. The one's that do hate us, hate us because they see the west as a threat to their islamo-fascist creed - which we are and should be.

To say that if we pull out would have repercussions within the international community is a little bit of an exaggeration. Canada pulled out of Kyoto after being a key player in ratifying it, during the year when Canada held the position of president for the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change. Funny, that seems to not have any international repercussions at all, right? States change their foreign policy all the time, Harper changed it to extend the mission, therefor losing cred for Canada's word, but you don't see that.

Well Canada hasn't pulled out of Kyoto, not yet anyways. try again. If we did pull out we would be abandoning the Afghan people. That would be real nice of us wouldn't it? How very 'progressive' of you.

There is no exit strategy in Afghanistan, we are involved in a conflict that has absolutely no agenda, meanwhile Canadians are dying. If you think that all the insurgents can just be executed, you fail to see how volatile the entire region is. It isn't just Afghanistan, just like Palestine isn't just Palestinians, these people aren't just going to disappear and if you want to get rid of all of them, it's going to take a long, long time.

Yes it's going to take a long time and yes it's going to be hard. What's your point? It's too hard so forget it? Have you moved out of your parents house yet? The exit strategy will be to leave when the government has sufficient resources so as to be able to do what the 37 nations are doing now. Providing security and development for it's own citizens.

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by Red Mile Style

Sitting down for talks with the Taliban does not legitimize them, it recognizes them as a key player within the conflict - and if you do not consider them a player in this conflict, you do not have a clue what is going on there. You yourself say it is up to the NATIONS involved in this mission to decide, and without pulling an elitist definition argument to sound like a jerk, you would know that "nation" does not refer to states, but a collective group of people - such as the taliban.

If the Taliban was trying to return to power through the democratic method thats been put into place, then I could see them having a seat at the table. However rewarding them for car bombings, and terrorist acts by bringing them to a negotiating table does give them and thier acts legitamcy.

Originally Posted by Red Mile Style

Originally, we were supposed to be pulled out by February 2007, that part is correct, but since Harper stepped up our presence and extended the mission the only recognizable result so far has been the skyrocketing number of Canadian casualties. Yes, theoretically progress has been made in Afghanistan, schools being built, elections, etc. but the insurgents are organizing themselves better and better everyday. Killing teachers who teach females, killing the police officers for the new government (and their families) - this occupation is not stiffling the terrorist cells, it's only adding fuel to the fire and giving the taliban more targets to hit. The insurgents now have targets to hit, the people who align themselves with the new government.

And you want to bring them to the table because of these actions. There can be no peace with them, because they don't want a peaceful settlement. They want to go back to the days when they can hang people for not praying at the right time, and beating woman to death for wearing the wrong clothing. Besides no matter what we do, the terrorist groups are going to grow in strength anyways. Before the invasion of Afghanistan it was already a fertile recruiting and training ground for terrorists. Besides people keep telling me that the only way that you can reduce terrorist recruiting is to introduce literacy and education, but you can't do that in an area where groups won't allow this to happen through force.

If I'm getting what your saying, the only solution is to get out and hope things work out.

Originally Posted by Red Mile Style

You can't say that diplomacy will not work in this situation because it hasn't been attempted. The only thing that has been attempted in Afghanistan is to occupy an Islamic state, enforce western values, kill anyone who does not fall in line by military means only. Although I can not say that diplomacy will definately work, it could not hurt.

I don't believe that diplomacy will work in this situation becaus the goals of groups like the Taliban can't be negotiated.

And yes kill anyone who decides to jump into a car full of explosives, or walk around in a bomb vest and whoever orders them to do it. Besides history has show that negotiating with groups like the Taliban is that the resulting agreements are broken within a short period of time.

Originally Posted by Red Mile Style

I've always wondering how people could advocate peace by using military force or as you delicately put it "kill those like the Taliban in numbers". Why do you think these countries hate the western world so much? Because we buy their oil? Because we're white? Or maybe it's because we kill them, enforce our culture on them and undermind their religion?

Because at the end of the day, peace is usually not negotiated, its imposed through military force. And as a rule, democratic nations are usually far more tolerant of religeous and religious rights both at home and abroad then theocratic nation states, or insurgancy groups that are based on religion.

Why do I think these countries hate us. Certainly one issues is that democratic nations has an outward facing foreign affairs policy. And the other is that developed nations make a convienient target of hate, especially if you keep your population ignorant.

Originally Posted by Red Mile Style

To say that if we pull out would have repercussions within the international community is a little bit of an exaggeration. Canada pulled out of Kyoto after being a key player in ratifying it, during the year when Canada held the position of president for the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change. Funny, that seems to not have any international repercussions at all, right? States change their foreign policy all the time, Harper changed it to extend the mission, therefor losing cred for Canada's word, but you don't see that.

Pulling out of an environmental agreement and pulling out of the mission in Afghanistan are completely different things. And allowing the Taliban to take back power due to a pre-mature pull out will harm Canada's international reputation with its allies, or leaving the Afghans to thier own devices because we're not willing to sacrifice to help them would be a joke at the least, and would probably cause those who had come to respect what the Canadians did in Afghanistan to hate us as they reverted back to Taliban rule.

Originally Posted by Red Mile Style

There is no exit strategy in Afghanistan, we are involved in a conflict that has absolutely no agenda, meanwhile Canadians are dying. If you think that all the insurgents can just be executed, you fail to see how volatile the entire region is. It isn't just Afghanistan, just like Palestine isn't just Palestinians, these people aren't just going to disappear and if you want to get rid of all of them, it's going to take a long, long time.

Yes it is going to take a long time, and if you cut and run because of casualties then you have more problems then your military and exit strategies.

Have a great afternoon.

[octothorp]

I don't believe that defeating the Taliban through military tactics is going to happen given the current state of the region: we aren't simply fighting one former regime, here. We're fighting the entire international community of Sunni extremists. New soldiers join the movement almost as quickly as they're killed off. It's too easy for combatants and equipment to be funneled from Saudi Arabia, Egypt and other fundamentalist strongholds through Iraq and into Afghanistan. Which is why it looks as though this fight could go on for a very long time. It's not a war of attrition, because neither side is diminishing in number. A diplomatic solution won't work on its own; the Taliban has to strong a military history and I wouldn't trust them to stick to their promises after international presence leaves. However, diplomacy could be used as a part of a complete approach (the old carrot and stick method). By turning the Taliban from a military organization into a political organization, you weaken them considerably, as their following even among the Pashtuns has greatly decreased. I'm not in favour of withdrawing our troops, but I am extremely concerned about the lack of an overall approach to peace in the region; the current approach is not going to achieve peace or victory. It's time to try a new approach that continues military pressure but at the same time opens doors for diplomatic options.

[Flames in 07]

I wonder how the negotiations with the Taliban would work. Jack agrees with the Taliban that half of the women can vote? Executions will be on day of the month that are prime numbers? Only terrorist groups whose names are 4 syllables or greater will be supported?