Massassi Forums Logo

This is the static archive of the Massassi Forums. The forums are closed indefinitely. Thanks for all the memories!

You can also download Super Old Archived Message Boards from when Massassi first started.

"View" counts are as of the day the forums were archived, and will no longer increase.

ForumsDiscussion Forum → Senate Majority leader to Taliban: COME BACK!
Senate Majority leader to Taliban: COME BACK!
2006-10-03, 8:01 PM #1
http://www.iht.com/articles/ap/2006/10/02/asia/AS_GEN_Afghanistan_Frist.php

What. The. ****.





Originally posted by newsarticle:
U.S. Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist said Monday that the Afghan guerrilla war can never be won militarily and called for efforts to bring the Taliban and their supporters into the Afghan government.

The Tennessee Republican said he had learned from briefings that Taliban fighters were too numerous and had too much popular support to be defeated by military means.

"You need to bring them into a more transparent type of government," Frist said during a brief visit to a U.S. and Romanian military base in the southern Taliban stronghold of Qalat. "And if that's accomplished we'll be successful."

Frist said asking the Taliban to join the government was a decision to be made by Afghan President Hamid Karzai.

Sen. Mel Martinez, a Republican from Florida accompanying Frist, said negotiating with the Taliban was not "out of the question" but that fighters who refused to join the political process would have to be defeated.

"A political solution is how it's all going to be solved," he said.

In violence on Monday, a suicide bomber blew himself up next to a NATO convoy in the capital Kabul, wounding three soldiers and three civilians, while a roadside bomb in the eastern Paktia province killed three Afghan soldiers and wounded three others, officials said.

Afghanistan is being rocked by the worst outbreak of violence since the ouster of the Taliban regime in the U.S.-led invasion in 2001. Militants have increasingly resorted to suicide attacks and roadside bombs.

Frist, who said he would announce whether he would run for the U.S. presidency in about a month, said he had hoped that the United States would be able to withdraw its forces from Afghanistan soon. But the 20,000 U.S. troops are still needed to help the 37-country coalition deal with an intensifying Taliban insurgency.

"We're going to need to stay here a long time," Frist said.

The senator said he had been warned to expect attacks in Afghanistan to increase. There appears to be an "unlimited flow" of Afghans and foreigners, he said, "willing to pick up arms and integrate themselves with the Taliban."

He said the only way to win in places like Qalat is to "assimilate people who call themselves Taliban into a larger, more representative government."

"Approaching counterinsurgency by winning hearts and minds will ultimately be the answer," Frist said. "Military versus insurgency one-to-one doesn't sound like it can be won. It sounds to me ... that the Taliban is everywhere."

Frist and Martinez flew to this dust-blown mountain city 350 kilometers (220 miles) south of Kabul during a one-day stop in Afghanistan on a regional tour that includes stops in Pakistan and Iraq.

The pair had intended to visit a new US$6.5 million (�5.1 million) hospital in Qalat built by the United Arab Emirates, but a group of wounded Taliban fighters were recuperating there, including a midlevel commander, and U.S. commander Lt. Col. Kevin McGlaughlin canceled the visit because of security concerns.

The senators saw firsthand the legendary hostility to outsiders of tribal southern Afghanistan. As Frist's helicopter landed, children just outside the base threw stones. And the senator's first act on Forward Operating Base Lagman was to pin a purple heart on the base's medic, Capt. Jacqueline King of Tinton Falls, New Jersey, who had been badly burned in a June suicide bombing.

"It's rough," King, 42, told reporters and members of Frist's staff. "They're not exactly thrilled to see us here."
...
2006-10-03, 8:04 PM #2
...lol
2006-10-03, 8:08 PM #3
What the hell is with you'r politicians recently?
2006-10-03, 8:17 PM #4
Even though it's Frist, who's a complete jackass, it's not quite as absurd as it sounds. At least one theory of terrorism holds that radical groups adopt terrorist tactics because they've been shut out of the political process. Get them to participate, and they'll start using more appropriate means to acheive their goals. Maybe the process will even push them toward the center.

That's how it's supposed to work, anyway. I'm somewhat ambivalent about how sound the theory is.
If you think the waiters are rude, you should see the manager.
2006-10-03, 8:40 PM #5
[QUOTE=Michael MacFarlane]Even though it's Frist, who's a complete jackass, it's not quite as absurd as it sounds. At least one theory of terrorism holds that radical groups adopt terrorist tactics because they've been shut out of the political process. Get them to participate, and they'll start using more appropriate means to acheive their goals. Maybe the process will even push them toward the center.[/QUOTE]

But our policy is to KEEP them out of the political process

"The united states does not negotiate with terrists!"

Anyway, they were already in control of Afghanistan for some time, which I think qualifies as being a part of the political process, and look how nice they were :P
2006-10-03, 8:42 PM #6
Wait i suddenly have a question.
Who would be worse.
The communists the taliban drove away.
Or the taliban?
2006-10-03, 8:45 PM #7
I have a better question.

How hard did you get dropped on your head for you to be that.. you..
2006-10-03, 8:46 PM #8
whoever we are fighting right now is always the greatest threat to freedom the US has ever faced

so, the talibans
2006-10-03, 9:51 PM #9
Damn you Americans are nuts.
Star Wars: TODOA | DXN - Deus Ex: Nihilum
2006-10-03, 9:57 PM #10
This is why we shouldn't even get involved. :rolleyes:
"it is time to get a credit card to complete my financial independance" — Tibby, Aug. 2009
2006-10-03, 9:58 PM #11
Originally posted by FastGamerr:
Damn you Americans are nuts.


I like to think of myself as balls or testicles rather than nuts. ;)
My blawgh.
2006-10-03, 10:00 PM #12
Isolationism! Yes, that worked so WELL in the past.

And people wonder why I say Tennessee sucks.
D E A T H
2006-10-03, 10:07 PM #13
No one advocated Isolationism. It's quite possible to avoid being an imperialistic **** yet still be actively involved in international matters.
"it is time to get a credit card to complete my financial independance" — Tibby, Aug. 2009
2006-10-03, 10:07 PM #14
This way we can tell them to be good, leave, then come back and bomb the crap out of the country again in 10 years!

RENEWABLE RESOURCES PEOPLE
2006-10-04, 1:25 AM #15
Maybe it's a good idea. Seeing how the Afghan police was shooting at Finnish soldiers just a few days ago. Luckily nobody got killed, but one Finnish soldier was badly wounded. So, when the police employed by the official goverment is like that, the Talibans would fit just nicely into the ranks.
Frozen in the past by ICARUS
2006-10-04, 1:20 PM #16
Really, I don't think that it was the Taliban so much as the al-quedia that was the problem. This should have been made more clear at the beginning. I think the Taliban is just a Confederacy by a bunch of War Lords and the like.
2006-10-04, 1:45 PM #17
Originally posted by Obi_Kwiet:
Really, I don't think that it was the Taliban so much as the al-quedia that was the problem. This should have been made more clear at the beginning. I think the Taliban is just a Confederacy by a bunch of War Lords and the like.


Um....

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taliban#Life_under_Taliban_government

The whole killing and beating people thing is okay as long as they're not terrists innit :P
2006-10-04, 1:45 PM #18
Originally posted by 'Thrawn[numbarz:
']whoever we are fighting right now is always the greatest threat to freedom the US has ever faced

so, the talibans


...How do a group in a country 10000 miles away threaten the freedom of the most powerful nation in the world exactly?
nope.
2006-10-04, 1:48 PM #19
Originally posted by Baconfish:
...How do a group in a country 10000 miles away threaten the freedom of the most powerful nation in the world exactly?


[http://www.dsfanboy.com/media/2006/02/Sarcasm.jpg]
2006-10-04, 3:18 PM #20
Originally posted by Tiberium_Empire:
Wait i suddenly have a question.
Who would be worse.
The communists the taliban drove away.
Or the taliban?


1. The Russian's were never Communist...EVER. They actually trapped themselves in a lower form of Socialism and never fully realized Communism. If you don't believe me, ask any economist.

2. The U.S. funded and provided training for Osama and his followers to drive the Russians out. "Ohz Noz, bad Comunitz must Goez!" It was the U.S. Military's way of fighting Russian during the cold war by proxy.

Even when they "Ran Afghanistan", they were still shut of politically from the rest of the world because they were not "recognized."

The U.S. has been playing various middle eastern factions against each other for well over 30+ years for various economic and political gains. Osama Bin Laden? Once a U.S. Government funded Merc. Now, Americas Most Wanted. Saddam Hussain? Once a U.S. Government Ally. Now, "Terrorist Supporting, Evil Regime Wielding, bad bad man." George W. Bush said it best when giving his reasons to attack Iraq: '...It serves U.S. Interest to remove Saddam Housain from his control in Iraq.'
"The solution is simple."
2006-10-04, 3:32 PM #21
Originally posted by CaptBevvil:
1. The Russian's were never Communist...EVER. They actually trapped themselves in a lower form of Socialism and never fully realized Communism. If you don't believe me, ask any economist.

They were commies, stop trying to make an argument out of nothing. The kid's obviously about as sharp as a sack of wet mice, let him use his terminology because he'll never understand anything you said anyways.
D E A T H
2006-10-04, 3:39 PM #22
Originally posted by 'Thrawn[numbarz:
'][http://www.dsfanboy.com/media/2006/02/Sarcasm.jpg]


I forgot to add a :P. :(

:P makes it all good.
nope.
2006-10-04, 3:55 PM #23
"DAMMIT THERE'S TOO MANY OF THEM!"

"Oh well, screw it. Let's just let them have their government back. We've got that oil pipeline now, so we got what we came for." :v: :v: :v:

Originally posted by 'Thrawn[numbarz:
']whoever we are fighting right now is always the greatest threat to freedom the US has ever faced


Haha, yeah... sadly, the US' biggest enemy is the US itself. The foreign policies, to be precise. Recently American intelligence reported that the war in Afghanistan and Iraq has only multiplied the number of terrorists and the support for them.
ORJ / My Level: ORJ Temple Tournament I
2006-10-04, 3:58 PM #24
[QUOTE=Dj Yoshi]
Originally posted by CaptBevvil:
1. The Russian's were never Communist...EVER. They actually trapped themselves in a lower form of Socialism and never fully realized Communism. If you don't believe me, ask any economist.

They were commies, stop trying to make an argument out of nothing.[/QUOTE]

Aye. If communism has only existed as a theory according to those economists, then it would be a useless topic in casual talk. Thus it's much more practical to call soviets commies. Communism is much too good a word to be reserved only for purely theoretical mumbojumbo idealism.
Frozen in the past by ICARUS
2006-10-04, 5:46 PM #25
Originally posted by 'Thrawn[numbarz:
']Um....

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taliban#Life_under_Taliban_government

The whole killing and beating people thing is okay as long as they're not terrists innit :P



Funny think is, they often become unstable and even explosive, if they don't have some such retarded form of government.
2006-10-04, 5:47 PM #26
Actually, IMO, the Amish have a Communistic economy. The only problem with the Amish economic system is that it places restrictions preventing their economic growth. For instance, if they were to incorporate technology into their economy, then they could have a much higher agriculture yield. Economy has taught us that have a good agriculture foundation is required for a successful economy. So, with that in place, they'd also be freed up to concentrate more on expanding their scientific knowledge.

I think the key, is that the Amish have already had the generation after generation teachings that are necessary for a communist economy to rise successfuly. Religion is the driving force in their economy, not money. Now, if that focus was changed to Personal & Collective Growth (which is altogether similar), then you eliminate the posibility of greed and the need for competition (internally) in one fail-safe swoop. This would result in an efficient high yield profit sharing (in the form of necessary 'comfort' upgrades) with the net yield returning to funding their own scientific Research and Development, funding new (higher yeild) export products (amish t-shirts anyone?), and other external investments...

...In theory. ;)
"The solution is simple."
2006-10-04, 10:45 PM #27
Originally posted by Tiberium_Empire:
Wait i suddenly have a question.
Who would be worse.
The communists the taliban drove away.
Or the taliban?


Believe or not, Soviets had human rights! Of course, when not in the gulags or whatever. And of course a system where women don't stay home is bad, I forgot that. THOSE DAMN INHUMAN COMMUNIST BASTARDS ARGH :(

And then taliban had stupid "Muslim" "rights". I'm actually glad there was an invasion of Afghanistan, I even switched on the TV to see live footage of bombings the day it broke out. I did the same with the war in Iraq, though. Hm.

It's time to quote Ann Coulter:

"When we were fighting communism, OK, they had mass murderers and gulags, but they were white men and they were sane. Now we're up against absolutely insane savages."
Star Wars: TODOA | DXN - Deus Ex: Nihilum
2006-10-04, 11:57 PM #28
No. Do not quote Ann Coulter. Ever.
2006-10-05, 12:24 AM #29
Originally posted by 'Thrawn[numbarz:
']whoever we are fighting right now is always the greatest threat to freedom the US has ever faced

so, the talibans

Double plus good!
Sorry for the lousy German
2006-10-05, 12:34 AM #30
Originally posted by CaptBevvil:
1. The Russian's were never Communist...EVER. They actually trapped themselves in a lower form of Socialism and never fully realized Communism. If you don't believe me, ask any economist.


Pedantry. Yes, it's true that the Soviets were not really proper Marxists, but does it really matter for this discussion? Pretty much any historian will accept "communism" as proper shorthand for the Soviet regime.
If you think the waiters are rude, you should see the manager.
2006-10-05, 9:48 AM #31
It's my attempt to seperate the ideal of Communism (which is good, IMO) from how the Solviets represented it (which was bad, both economically and politically). Can you fault me?
"The solution is simple."
2006-10-05, 10:25 AM #32
Originally posted by FastGamerr:
Believe or not, Soviets had human rights! Of course, when not in the gulags or whatever. And of course a system where women don't stay home is bad, I forgot that. THOSE DAMN INHUMAN COMMUNIST BASTARDS ARGH :(
What are you talking about? Most American women work too you know.

Quote:
And then taliban had stupid "Muslim" "rights". I'm actually glad there was an invasion of Afghanistan, I even switched on the TV to see live footage of bombings the day it broke out. I did the same with the war in Iraq, though. Hm.
Taliban was an atypical government from an atypical Muslim nation. The UAE,

EDIT (because I didn't finish my post): ...The UAE, Egypt, Lebanon and Turkey are all socially-progressive Muslim (or largely Muslim) nations. Turkey especially takes their secular government very seriously. More seriously than the United States does, anyway. (Take that to mean what you will).

The Taliban is to normal Islam as Jesus Camp is to normal Christianity. The sad thing is that the Islamic world is moving away from groups like the Taliban, but Christianity is regressing toward brainwashed idiocy.

Quote:
It's time to quote Ann Coulter:

"When we were fighting communism, OK, they had mass murderers and gulags, but they were white men and they were sane. Now we're up against absolutely insane savages."
You might not understand this, being Finnish and all, so I'll give you a couple of helpful rules-of-thumb you should follow,

Ann Coulter,
  1. Has a poor understanding of history.
  2. Has no code of morals or ethics, personal or otherwise.
  3. Is racist.
  4. Is wrong.
  5. Does not represent the viewpoints of anybody but herself.
  6. Does not deserve our attention.
  7. Should never be quoted.
2006-10-05, 10:30 AM #33
I am the flagship of seriousness, I know.

Damn commies. >=(
Star Wars: TODOA | DXN - Deus Ex: Nihilum
2006-10-05, 12:40 PM #34
And Jon'C is your fleet's Awesome Admiral! :v:
"The solution is simple."
2006-10-05, 12:46 PM #35
Originally posted by Jon`C:
Ann Coulter,
  1. Has a poor understanding of history.
  2. Has no code of morals or ethics, personal or otherwise.
  3. Is racist.
  4. Is wrong.
  5. Does not represent the viewpoints of anybody but herself.
  6. Does not deserve our attention.
  7. Should never be quoted.


Ann Coulter is also a man!
Attachment: 14222/anncoulter1.jpg (14,013 bytes)
Was cheated out of lions by happydud
Was cheated out of marriage by sugarless
2006-10-05, 5:28 PM #36
And even if she's not, that's a totally terrifying picture.

AAHHH
2006-10-05, 8:37 PM #37
Originally posted by CaptBevvil:
It's my attempt to seperate the ideal of Communism (which is good, IMO) from how the Solviets represented it (which was bad, both economically and politically). Can you fault me?


Yes. Just say "Marxism," for Pete's sake.
If you think the waiters are rude, you should see the manager.
2006-10-05, 8:39 PM #38
Originally posted by FastGamerr:
I am the flagship of seriousness, I know.

Damn commies. >=(


lol

↑ Up to the top!