# Poll:  Negotiations With the Taliban



## Marauder06 (Oct 14, 2010)

There has been a lot of press lately about ISAF allowing Taliban leadership back into Afghanistan to negotiate with the Karzai government.  Is negotiating with the Taliban a good idea?  Vote for one of the three choices in the poll, and then explain your position.


----------



## Chopstick (Oct 14, 2010)

No, because we dont negotiate with terrorists and some people just need killing.  The Taliban are those kind of people.:2c:


----------



## Ranger Psych (Oct 14, 2010)

the only negotiations we need are between a FIST'er and a platform delivering high explosives.


----------



## RackMaster (Oct 14, 2010)

Stating that we will negotiate with the Taliban is not as straight forward as some may think.  For one the Taliban hierarchy spans across borders, there are "moderates" and "extremists" among them but as a whole they encompass pretty much all of Afghan and Pakistan society.  If any sort of negotiations are to be done, it has to be done with all Taliban leaders from both sides of the border and then carve up both countries into the obvious tribal regions.  But this will never happen, it's just going to turn into another West Bank/Gaza.

Although if another couple of major natural disasters hits the region, it'll just solve our problem and then we can turn it into a wasteland.


----------



## Diamondback 2/2 (Oct 14, 2010)

Hell NO! We should be killing each and every one of them and AQ.............


----------



## AWP (Oct 14, 2010)

In general, no.

However, it isn't straightforward because "Taliban" has taken on a life of it's own. "Taliban" almost refers to anyone who isn't aligned with the US/ GIRoA and more than a few "Taliban" are caught between a rock and a hard place, "joining" the TB because out in the middle of nowhere they don't have any options.

So, are we negotiating with those who joined out of necessity or those hardcore, Mullah Omar types out there?

I'd like to think that we're talking to the less extreme elements out there, but I fear out of desperation the GIRoA will talk to anyone and that's a bucket of fail. 

But we need to vett who's eating at our table and kill everything else.


----------



## HOLLiS (Oct 14, 2010)

Freefalling said:


> In general, no.
> 
> However, it isn't straightforward because "Taliban" has taken on a life of it's own. "Taliban" almost refers to anyone who isn't aligned with the US/ GIRoA and more than a few "Taliban" are caught between a rock and a hard place, "joining" the TB because out in the middle of nowhere they don't have any options.
> 
> ...


 
2x...............


----------



## RustyShackleford (Oct 14, 2010)

We should give two shits about Afghanistan.  All we should care about is bringing Bin Laden's head back to the U.S. on a Pike pole.


----------



## buffalo61 (Oct 15, 2010)

Hell no!!  As it has already been stated, we need to be killing as many of those savages as we can.  Maybe, once the Afghan government has weeded out all of the corruption, then they can "negotiate" with the Taliban.  But until then, we should remain in hot pursuit of each and every one of those filthy savages that threatens the lives of the people that came here to give them a better life.


----------



## Boondocksaint375 (Oct 15, 2010)

In this instance, negotiations are a sign of submission, IMO.


----------



## DA SWO (Oct 15, 2010)

I voted other talk to them-but keep to your demands that they lay down their arms.
Afghanistan seems to have turned into a Civil War a-la Viet Nam/El Sal.
The Gov of Afghanistan can negotiate, but insist on a cease-fire and make Mullah Omar agree to a multi-party Afghanistan; otherwise no-deal.
We gave up the Tactical/Military advantage to invade Iraq, we now have to look at this as a protracted civil war/insurgency.  Today's political reality fores us to at least pretend to negotiate.


----------



## pardus (Oct 15, 2010)

I had a slew of thoughts on this but it boils down to this...

We aren't going to win this campaign because we aren't being allowed to, so what choice do we have but negotiate the best deal we can?


----------



## Crusader74 (Oct 15, 2010)

Most definitely NO! Not only is it a submission but they will see it as a victory.(Look at the British pullout of Basra) They will spread/increase the campaign to look for more concessions and in the end ISAF will be right back where they started 9 years ago. IMO


----------



## HOLLiS (Oct 15, 2010)

pardus said:


> I had a slew of thoughts on this but it boils down to this...
> 
> We aren't going to win this campaign because we aren't being allowed to, so what choice do we have but negotiate the best deal we can?


 
I agree, it is a complex issue.   IMHO the biggest problems is not in A-Stan but petty partisan politics here at home.   I think our enemy knows better the politics at home more than our own civilians do.  Leave it to our politics to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory that was hard won by out military.


----------



## ///M3 (Oct 15, 2010)

No.  Find a way to make a peace deal with India and Pakistan and then Pakistan will have no incentive to keep the Taliban.


----------



## pardus (Oct 15, 2010)

HOLLiS said:


> I agree, it is a complex issue.   IMHO the biggest problems is not in A-Stan but petty partisan politics here at home.   I think our enemy knows better the politics at home more than our own civilians do.  Leave it to our politics to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory that was hard won by out military.


 
Yep, just look at Vietnam for a classic example of that (a conflict you may know a little about ;) ).

A war must be fought or left alone, you do it 100% or stay at home, it turns my stomach to accept a view like this but like I said what choice to we have.

To all saying no to this, I'm with you in principal, my views of total victory with a campaign akin to what the Romans, the Crusader and Genghis waged are well known on the board I'd say but like I said our politicians and populace back home (regardless of what western country we are talking about) will not allow that to happen.

Think about this, at the end of the Vietnam war, the North was told it was going to get USD 3.3 Billion of reconstruction aid to normalize relations between them and the USA (The US was offered oil exploration rights by the North Vietnamese as well), the US reneged on that deal and any hope of getting any live POWs back was gone...

Was it worth it? 

Basically its a shit sandwich that we have to take a bite from, we are just deciding now which side looks less disgusting.

We could win this if we had the will...

What's that saying "people get the government they deserve"...


----------



## Scotth (Oct 15, 2010)

SOWT said:


> We gave up the Tactical/Military advantage to invade Iraq, we now have to look at this as a protracted civil war/insurgency. Today's political reality fores us to at least pretend to negotiate.


 
I agree with what you said SOWT. 

My heart says NO piss on the Taliban. But looking at the reality on the ground and the politics in our country I think that time is running out for the mission in Afghanistan. The first and most glaring problem we have to deal with is the partner we have in the Karzai government. A stolen election, by most accounts, makes the Karzai administration an illegitimate government not to mention a hugely corrupt government. How do you build a successful mission in Afghanistan if your partner is illegitimate? I view the Karzai government as a bigger problem then the Taliban. How do the Afghan people get behind the country if there two choices are between the Taliban or the corrupt Karzai government?

Public support at home is slipping after 9 years and as time goes by it's not going to get better. While like everyone else I agree that is bullshit and the American people should be smarter then that but that is the way it is and has been for a very long time. If it was a matter of peace keeping it would be one thing but the American public isn't going to support combat operation indefinitely. I also fear after the elections you will see anti-war Democrats and Republican combining force like they did about Somalia in the 90's and try to block funding for the war.

It wouldn't surprise me to see some of the Taliban being put on the US payroll in exchange for stopping the fighting.  It's kind of what they did in Iraq paying some of the Sunni's insurgents to stop the violence.


----------



## AMRUSMCR (Oct 15, 2010)

Putting the US politics and the question of the duration of sustainable warfare aside, here are the reasons I think the US Government should not consider any form of "negotiations" with the Taliban on their re-introduction into the Afghanistan government: 

Google Query of Women's rights under the Taliban

http://www.shadowspear.com/vb/showthread.php?2860-Know-Your-Enemy&p=404391#post404391

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acid_throwing

Acid thrown in girls face because they went to school.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taliban_treatment_of_women

http://www.state.gov/g/drl/rls/6185.htm

Our politicians seem to forget that we're supposed to be the good guys and just maybe it's ok to forcibly say "NO" the bad guys. 

We like to tell other countries when they're violating human rights but we'll turn around and accept the idea that we have to give ground in negotiations to an organization with the mentality like the Taliban?

It's not even a women's rights issue. It's a basic issue of humanity where people should be able to walk down the street without fear of mutilation or execution.  When, we as a public, have devolved into the mass though that we are "ok" with the long term human rights violations under the Taliban....just to end a long term campaign.... maybe it's time to hang our cape up as the world's 911.


----------



## Marauder06 (Oct 15, 2010)

lol, looks like I'm the only one to vote yes.  Here's my reasoning:

The main goal in any war is to compel the enemy to do your will.  You don't necessarily have to annihilate his fighting forces to do that- although many times that's what ends up happening.

Our country has the ability to destroy the Taliban, but lacks the will.  The Taliban has the will to thwart our goals in Afghanistan, but lacks the capability.  Because of the two aforementioned conditions, it is unlikely either side will achieve victory for the forseeable future.  If we can work a negotiation that will allow us to meet our objectives in the area but still allows some people who had been with the Taliban to live, I'm OK with that.  

The Taliban existed in Afghanistan long before we invaded, and if they hadn't allowed AQ to use their country as a base to attack us, the TB would probably be in power there today.  If the TB will completely break with AQ, and will adopt a political position that is acceptable to our values, then I'm OK with some of them coming back into the government.  The two conditions that must be met first are that a) we must negotiate from a position of relative strength, and b) we must kill the insurgent leaders who will not reconcile.

This applies to the Taliban and associated organizations only (HIG, HQN, etc.) not AQ.  AQ is completely incompatible with our value system and is an existential threat to our country- much like Nazism was.  AQ must be destroyed, not just merely defeated.


----------



## Brooklynben (Oct 15, 2010)

pardus said:


> I had a slew of thoughts on this but it boils down to this...
> We aren't going to win this campaign because we aren't being allowed to, so what choice do we have but negotiate the best deal we can?



This was my first thought as well, but when one further considers what the Taliban believe and the history of their scruples, a huge question arises;  when could any type of agreement with the "Great Satan" be expected to be honored by them?  The bottom line end result - A bit of Freedom will be negotiated away for a cheap and hollow promise.

The charade of peace talks with the Taliban serve only the Taliban and the public relations programs of politicians.


----------



## AWP (Oct 15, 2010)

Marauder06 said:


> The main goal in any war is to compel the enemy to do your will.  You don't necessarily have to annihilate his fighting forces to do that- although many times that's what ends up happening.
> 
> The Taliban existed in Afghanistan long before we invaded, and if they hadn't allowed AQ to use their country as a base to attack us, the TB would probably be in power there today.  If the TB will completely break with AQ, and will adopt a political position that is acceptable to our values, then I'm OK with some of them coming back into the government.  The two conditions that must be met first are that a) we must negotiate from a position of relative strength, and b) we must kill the insurgent leaders who will not reconcile.



But would the TB "sell out" their extremist brothers for peace? You're talking about people who think to die for Allah is glorious, so how do we leverage them to break with AQ? 

I don't think we can trust many TB to do that. Remember this is a culture who accept duplicity in dealing with each other, to think nothing of us kaffirs.

I think there are some TB we can work with, but the majority could use a JDAM or two in their lives. Or AGM-114's. Or 5.56. Or 7.62. Or.....


----------



## Brooklynben (Oct 15, 2010)

Marauder06 said:


> This applies to the Taliban and associated organizations only (HIG, HQN, etc.) not AQ.  AQ is completely incompatible with our value system and is an existential threat to our country- much like Nazism was.  AQ must be destroyed, not just merely defeated.


 I absolutely agree.  When do we begin bombing the Saudis who are spending billions per year to spread Islamic extremism throughout the madrases in the world?


----------



## Headshot (Oct 15, 2010)

No, they will only use negotiations to better posture themselves to take more heads.


----------



## fox1371 (Oct 15, 2010)

I say no, because I don't feel that the Afghani government is in any position to negotiate.  In my gut I would hate to even consider the possibility of negotiations with the Taliban.  As previously stated the current government is too corrupt.  Once there is an established and stable government in Afghanistan, they can decide whether or not they would like to negotiate with the Taliban.  They need to strongly consider whether or not negotiations would benefit their country, or just put a short hold on the turmoil that they are currently in.  Just my opinion.


----------



## QC (Oct 16, 2010)

I say yes, as the question is to negotiate with the Taliban and not AQ. Our beliefs and AQ are incompatible and no progress is to be made there. If there is, in IMHO to be any hint of success, the GOA, local tribal leaders and the local religious reps should all be included. If the cross border area is viewed as 'Pashunistan' instead of two seperate countries, this changes the perspective for the better. Finally, there must be a bottom up growth and not a top down imposition by power brokers. It can work, but men better than I understand the complex issues, but I wonder if there's the time to do it.


----------



## x SF med (Oct 16, 2010)

I voted other on this...  the historical and political machinations that are incumbent in the current situation are about as clear as mud.  Alignments between enemy clans/tribes/villages/political parties and even religions occur on a regualr basis as a recourse to self preservation depending on the warlord controlling an area at the time.  

Negotiations are fickle in the face of tribal warfare and theocratic control of a tribal economy...  they may work if guarantee of safety for the tribal leader's followers is assured, AND his status as Jefe is maintained, And you show you are more powerful, And there is economic, political, social, and esteem gain for the existing leader - or you kill him and take his place through intimidation and fear.

Throw into these basic issues the fact that the Taliban is a group that is decentralized, international, theocratic, and based on suppression of thought and action by the subjugted unless it advances the cause (they adopted some of the Soviet tenets)...  and you may negotiate with one cell while being shot at by another....

Negotiation will lose, and force will lose....  the best we did was an extended UW/FID action.....  too bad those guys we trained are now the enemy because we cut off funding/support after the Soviets left....


----------



## JJ sloan (Oct 17, 2010)

Negotiations with a government that is doomed to fail?  This will prove to be another disasterous failure for our nation's worst POTUS do date.  Establish a viable government first.  Work on the Pakistan problem and continue to work on the security issue for the Afghan people.


----------



## JJ sloan (Oct 17, 2010)

///M3 said:


> No.  Find a way to make a peace deal with India and Pakistan and then Pakistan will have no incentive to keep the Taliban.


 
Brilliant. That is the most intelligent post I have seen on this site in a long while. We teach others to conduct unconventional warfare and then ask them to destroy their only surrogate force option.  So much can be said with so little words.

reps.


----------



## SpitfireV (Oct 17, 2010)

India and Pakistan will NEVER have "peace," it's just not a viable option for either of them. 

It's about as likely as OBL popping up in his next video saying "OK guys, I'm bored. I'm taking my bat and ball and going home. Game's over."


----------



## ///M3 (Oct 17, 2010)

SpitfireV said:


> India and Pakistan will NEVER have "peace," it's just not a viable option for either of them.
> 
> It's about as likely as OBL popping up in his next video saying "OK guys, I'm bored. I'm taking my bat and ball and going home. Game's over."


 
Yes it can be as long as we make it an issue.  

the contention with what to do with Germany after WWII between the Allies and the Soviets is emblematic with what is being transpired in the province of Kashmir.  You have two sides fighting over a province that controls the river flows of both nations, thus controlling the province eventually means controlling a major water supply of the other.  

Being stuck in Kashmir allows Pakistan to have a reason for having the majority of their forces on their eastern border facing India.  A peace deal with India can relinquish any need of such a deployment and could lead to a redeployment to the west.

Moreover, Pakistan is known to have used the same militants fighting and operating in Afghanistan to keep the Indian Army trenched up in Kashmir.  

The problem?  Pakistan is clearly imploding upon itself.  25 civilians just recently were killed by those same militants responsible for attacks in Afghanistan.  The question:  Who the hell is in control of Pakistan?  

Forcing a diplomatic move on India and Pakistan for breaking a peace deal would greatly alleviate Pakistan's support for the elements of the Taliban it has control over (if any).


----------



## JJ sloan (Oct 17, 2010)

SpitfireV said:


> India and Pakistan will NEVER have "peace," it's just not a viable option for either of them.
> 
> It's about as likely as OBL popping up in his next video saying "OK guys, I'm bored. I'm taking my bat and ball and going home. Game's over."


 
Ever been to either country?  Regardless of whether it is a viable option or not, the problem still remains.  We have provided the blueprint for success through surrogate forces, and in many cases we have taught other nations to use this tactic.  What makes our poicymakers believe that Pakistan will allienate their pawn against India in Jammu and Kashmir?  Larger politics are at stake than simply winning the war in Afghanistan.  We have a fledgling partnership with an emerging superpower in India.  We should not allow any talks with their most hated enemy in the hopes of saving a few dollars and saving a failing administration.  We need to foster a stronger relationship with future world powers.  It seems that we, as a nation, are not seeing the bigger picture in the "Global War on Terror".  The Indians continue to close with and destroy our enemy, and we decide to facilitate talks in Kabul?  Pick sides and stay true to that decision.  Peace was not the point to //M3's post... Not how I took it anyway.  The point is the failing diplomacy resulting from a lack of understanding in reference to conflict between Pakistan and India.  Where is the Secretary of State on this subject?  I would love to hear her point of view.


----------



## AWP (Oct 18, 2010)

JJ sloan said:


> Ever been to either country?  Regardless of whether it is a viable option or not, the problem still remains.  We have provided the blueprint for success through surrogate forces, and in many cases we have taught other nations to use this tactic.  What makes our poicymakers believe that Pakistan will allienate their pawn against India in Jammu and Kashmir?  Larger politics are at stake than simply winning the war in Afghanistan.  We have a fledgling partnership with an emerging superpower in India.  We should not allow any talks with their most hated enemy in the hopes of saving a few dollars and saving a failing administration.  We need to foster a stronger relationship with future world powers.  It seems that we, as a nation, are not seeing the bigger picture in the "Global War on Terror".  The Indians continue to close with and destroy our enemy, and we decide to facilitate talks in Kabul?  Pick sides and stay true to that decision.  Peace was not the point to //M3's post... Not how I took it anyway.  The point is the failing diplomacy resulting from a lack of understanding in reference to conflict between Pakistan and India.  Where is the Secretary of State on this subject?  I would love to hear her point of view.



I agree with you but Kashmir is as much emotional as political/ environmental for the Pakistanis. So how would we go about forcing them to find a compromise?

I just don't see us working with Pakistan on this, nor do I see how we can.


----------



## ///M3 (Oct 18, 2010)

Freefalling said:


> I agree with you but Kashmir is as much emotional as political/ environmental for the Pakistanis. So how would we go about forcing them to find a compromise?
> 
> I just don't see us working with Pakistan on this, nor do I see how we can.


 
India has been growing ties with Israel militarily speaking.  Provide options for defense contracts to India instead as an incentive to them to come to the table if a peace deal can be found.

with respect to Pakistan:  you have to bring Karzai to the table as well.  an overall economic treaty between India, Pakistan, and Afghanistan can provide the stimulus needed to curb such hard line military stances between the countries.

one thing that needs to be addressed:  Pakistan is not a civilian controlled country.  That's a fantasy that'll take lots of time getting over.  When addressing Pakistan it's Army should be addressed directly.  Getting the civilian leadership on board is secondary in my honest opinion.  at least, at this moment in time.


----------



## SpitfireV (Oct 18, 2010)

///M3 said:


> Yes it can be as long as we make it an issue.
> 
> the contention with what to do with Germany after WWII between the Allies and the Soviets is emblematic with what is being transpired in the province of Kashmir.  You have two sides fighting over a province that controls the river flows of both nations, thus controlling the province eventually means controlling a major water supply of the other.
> 
> ...


 
You've missed my point. Neither party wants peace so there will never be peace. Tell me how this magical diplomatic solution to stop India and Pakistan going at each other's throats is going to work. 

Simply, it never will. I've met enough PK and IN nationals- and discussed this with them- to know that neither side will budge. As FF said, it's emotional. More importantly, it's religious and we all know how religion fucks things up.   

A redeployment won't mean shit until the ISI stop running the jihadis.


----------



## Mac_NZ (Oct 18, 2010)

There is a solution to this problem, it isn't *the* solution but it is *a* solution.

Go to this, type "Kabul" into the top section, scroll down to the drop down menu and select "Mk 28" 1.4mt and then press Nuke it!

Its quite satisfying, therapeutic maybe.  Insert Karachi etc to mix things up.

I would have reccomended the asteroid but it would have smashed up most of Europe and some of those countries produce good porn.  Ahhh and Ravage would have sort of been fucked, literally.

As to a serious answer I'm fucked if I know what will actually work.  Maybe unite the smaller tribes against the Pashtuns?  One thing is for sure the minute the world leaves they will all go back to killing each other.

I don't know how getting to friendly with India would go down, having an enemy on one side and the ally of that enemy on the other might drive the Pakis bat shit crazy and result in a mushroom cloud.  Of course then my first option becomes a much more palatable reality.

The West used to be just as messed up as these buggers, the difference is we evolved.  Do we have a spare 2000 years for Islam to drag itself out of the cesspool because only by changing themselves will the problems be dealt with finally.

There is also the Crusades option but I think we have all become to "decent" for that kind of carry on anymore.  Putting every muslim we see to the sword is just not good form nowadays.

Any negotiation that results in a withdrawal from Afghanistan is going to be seen as a victory for the Islamics against the West.  Look at Vietnam, the USA and allies withdrew but as far as everyone is concerned we lost that war.  As far as my Uncle is concerned we beat seven shades of shit out of the Vietnamese.  I sure as hell don't want a bunch of cunts who fuck goats thinking they beat me.


----------



## ///M3 (Oct 18, 2010)

SpitfireV said:


> You've missed my point. Neither party wants peace so there will never be peace. Tell me how this magical diplomatic solution to stop India and Pakistan going at each other's throats is going to work.
> 
> Simply, it never will. I've met enough PK and IN nationals- and discussed this with them- to know that neither side will budge. As FF said, it's emotional. More importantly, it's religious and we all know how religion fucks things up.
> 
> A redeployment won't mean shit until the ISI stop running the jihadis.


 
Trust me I know all about the emotional aspect about it, I was born in Pakistan before moving to the US.  

Religious divisions are a cause of concern only with the govts involved and during some flares here and there.  but, in my opinion, by and large the two countries have very similar societies and cultures (eat the same food, watch the same movies, even speak the same major language).  

but yes ISI needs to be stopped which is why I brought up dealing with Pakistan's Army since it controls almost every aspect of that nation, including the ISI.  India's more worried (or should be more worried) about a growing China which has far more resources than Pakistan and exponentially larger military force.  peace with Pakistan is clearly in their best interest.  Now i'm not saying that won't take time to understand but it can be done (ie our own civil war, and north and south reconciled eventually took forever but it happened).


----------



## pardus (Oct 18, 2010)

2 points, 1, I dont know how old you are or how old you were when you left Pakistan but dude saying the religious divisions are govt and not populace based ???
Guess you missed the whole slaughter thing of how many hundred thousand during partition. Or the continued religious clashes that again slaughter many people. 
You are correct they have similar cultures, they both like chopping each other up with garden tools! 

Point 2, you say peace is possible given time, yes I'm sure that that is true, but the time you are advocating will be somewhere in the 20-200 year range, and *we* my friend don't have that time, we have months to maybe 2 years to get a solution here.

---------------------------------------------
Now for Pardus's words of wisdom for the day...

We should have had a Marshall plan to give to the Brits after WWII, to keep the British Empire stable, strong and intact. 
The world would be a MUCH MUCH better place!





///M3 said:


> Trust me I know all about the emotional aspect about it, I was born in Pakistan before moving to the US.
> 
> Religious divisions are a cause of concern only with the govts involved and during some flares here and there.  but, in my opinion, by and large the two countries have very similar societies and cultures (eat the same food, watch the same movies, even speak the same major language).
> 
> but yes ISI needs to be stopped which is why I brought up dealing with Pakistan's Army since it controls almost every aspect of that nation, including the ISI.  India's more worried (or should be more worried) about a growing China which has far more resources than Pakistan and exponentially larger military force.  peace with Pakistan is clearly in their best interest.  Now i'm not saying that won't take time to understand but it can be done (ie our own civil war, and north and south reconciled eventually took forever but it happened).


----------



## ///M3 (Oct 18, 2010)

pardus said:


> 2 points, 1, I dont know how old you are or how old you were when you left Pakistan but dude saying the religious divisions are govt and not populace based ???
> Guess you missed the whole slaughter thing of how many hundred thousand during partition. Or the continued religious clashes that again slaughter many people.
> You are correct they have similar cultures, they both like chopping each other up with garden tools!
> 
> ...



26, moved to the states when I was 4. have relatives there still (though I don't talk to them much anymore), been back visiting of course.  

but what does any population want?  booze, sex, and money.  give that to any people and their worries will be solved (more or less).

some folks will feel uneasy talking hindus or muslims but those are religiously minded.  the ones causing all this hogwash in Pakistan come from the countryside and have little to no education (hey I've heard this tune before...).  I've grown up with hindu friends and still are in contact with them.  

but you're right...there isn't too much time.  If i had the decision making capabilities I would have used the flood in Pakistan as a scapegoat to invade SWAT and provide aid, along with redeploying some airborne units and let them have their way.


----------



## Manolito (Oct 18, 2010)

I look at this conflict like the Coboys and Indians. Two distinct cultures forced to reside in the same area. If there were enough Indians with weapons the outcome would have been different. As wrong as it is might is right. I am becoming an isolationst I think. We are out there telling the world our way is right while we borrow money from China and produce all our products in the Asia rim. Hell we are going to pass a ban on incadescent light bulbs and require CFC bulbs. Know how many manufacturers in the US build CFC bulbs? NONE. What makes us think we can fix India? 
Respectfully,
Bill


----------



## ///M3 (Oct 18, 2010)

Manolito said:


> I look at this conflict like the Coboys and Indians. Two distinct cultures forced to reside in the same area. If there were enough Indians with weapons the outcome would have been different. As wrong as it is might is right. I am becoming an isolationst I think. We are out there telling the world our way is right while we borrow money from China and produce all our products in the Asia rim. Hell we are going to pass a ban on incadescent light bulbs and require CFC bulbs. Know how many manufacturers in the US build CFC bulbs? NONE. What makes us think we can fix India?
> Respectfully,
> Bill



I understand but in my opinion leaving India/Pakistan to solve their own problems will only result in further catastrophe for the region especially given how Afghanistan turned out after we left it be when the Soviets left.


----------



## pardus (Oct 18, 2010)

///M3 said:


> I understand but in my opinion leaving India/Pakistan to solve their own problems will only result in further catastrophe for the region especially given how Afghanistan turned out after we left it be when the Soviets left.


 
Yeah we can't turn our back on this issue, the world is a small and intimately connected place.
Isolationism simply cannot work for better or worse.
Leaving A'stan to it's own devices was a cluster fuck by us, we fucked up and we are paying the price now, suck it up and move on.


----------



## Marauder06 (Oct 19, 2010)

Another article on the reconciliation effort.  I was surprised and pleased to see the Haqqanis mentioned as a group considering reconciliation.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/39750778/ns/world_news-the_new_york_times

And yet another article: 

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/10/19/opinion/19barrett.html


----------

