US wants Taliban back in power!

Printable View

03/10/2006, 9:24 AM
Noelys Guitar

US wants Taliban back in power!

http://articles.news.aol.com/news/_a...00010000000001
03/10/2006, 10:45 AM
drinkfeckarse

It makes sense as it's a war they cannot win although it would be a major embarressment for the US if and a major stick for the Taliban to beat the US with if it ever happened.
03/10/2006, 2:52 PM
pete

So why did they invaded that country? :confused:

How do people so stupid get to run the most powerful country in the world?
03/10/2006, 5:34 PM
ken foree

Quote:

Originally Posted by pete

So why did they invaded that country? :confused:

How do people so stupid get to run the most powerful country in the world?

by stealing elections?

having a lazy, disillusioned, and/or ill-informed electorate helps though..
03/10/2006, 7:14 PM
pete

Quote:

Originally Posted by ken foree

by stealing elections?

I don't see this as political side issue as all sides as bad as each other in the US.
04/10/2006, 11:48 AM
Marked Man

Quote:

Originally Posted by pete

I don't see this as political side issue as all sides as bad as each other in the US.

I've no great love for the Democrats, but a blind man could see that Clinton, for all his faults, was clearly a better president than Bush.
04/10/2006, 11:55 AM
BohsPartisan

More competant in doing what he did yeah. No real difference in what they stand for though.
04/10/2006, 11:58 AM
Soper

Sorry for straying off topic, but Clinton did some stupid things while in charge, not including Lewinsky etc.
04/10/2006, 1:21 PM
Lim till i die

Quote:

Originally Posted by Soper

Sorry for straying off topic, but Clinton did some stupid things while in charge, not including Lewinsky etc.

Yep, bombing Yugoslavia back into the stone age would feature pretty highly

Back on topic. Is anyone really surprised by this??

Once the Taliban get back into power they'll eat the rest alive and the Americans will have it a lot handier dealing with a stable, albeit evil, puppet government.

Remember this is the country that consistently pressed the case of the Khmer Rouge at the UN. Morals don't really come into it I'm afraid.
04/10/2006, 3:51 PM
jebus

Clinton for all his charm was as bad a President as Bush. What the Clinton adminstration allowed happen in Yugoslavia and Rwanda amongst others ranks up there with Iraq and Afghanastan as major reasons why the world has lost all respect for American authority.

Allowing the Taliban back into government in Afghanastan however will be a no-go area until they reverse their anti-Western attitudes, whatever Frist off-handedly may remark
04/10/2006, 4:05 PM
BohsPartisan

They were quite happy to work with the US in the past.
04/10/2006, 4:09 PM
jebus

Quote:

Originally Posted by BohsPartisan

They were quite happy to work with the US in the past.

But thats was before the Taliban became as bad a word to be attached to as Nazi in the eyes of the American public. Can you imagine the reaction this would get in the US if it happened, it would spell the very end for whatever ruling party was in power, and I mean the very end. I honestly think that is Bush was to put the Taliban back in power, after all that has been said since 9/11, that it would spell the end for the Republican Party itself as a viable political option in America
04/10/2006, 6:09 PM
ken foree

Quote:

Originally Posted by pete

I don't see this as political side issue as all sides as bad as each other in the US.

well perhaps you should've re-read my 2nd answer to your question?

"having a lazy, disillusioned, and/or ill-informed electorate helps though.."

which is as about as apolitical as you can get
04/10/2006, 8:53 PM
Marked Man

Quote:

Originally Posted by BohsPartisan

More competant in doing what he did yeah. No real difference in what they stand for though.

There's at least this difference in what they stand for: Democrats believe that government can be a force for good. Republicans typically do not. Their goal is to shrink government (except for defence, apparently). Here are some points that illustrate a very real difference both in philosophy and approach:

FEMA: Under Clinton, this was praised by both parties as a well drilled organization, with people in charge who knew what they were doing.
Under Bush... Well, New Orleans used to be a fun city.

Minimum Wage increases: Clinton pushed for (and got) the first minimum wage increase in years. There hasn't been one since.

Torture: Need I say more?

Rule of law: Wiretappings: Having said that no phones were tapped without a warrant, Bush moved to "no u.s. citizens phones were tapped without a warrant" to "Yup, we've been tapping all kinds of calls with no warrants.

The list could be made substantially longer, but the above shows that Bush is substantially worse than Clinton (perhaps even worse than Reagan).
05/10/2006, 8:11 AM
BohsPartisan

Torture by the US secret services is not something new, it has just become so visable because the war has instigated a boom in the sector. Torture was going on under the Clinton regime. Hell torture was going on under Kennedy and before that. Chomsky and Pilger and some others have been writing about this for years. The difference between Bush and the previous presidents is that G.W. let the cat out of the bag.