Afghanistan Peace Talks

[Gigantus]

Yup, not being 'bourgeois' in statements like this simply raises misleading expectations, but then he won't stop using exaggerated adjectives and nouns when describing something (anything) involving him, right?

As showcased right here, both aspects of it.

-----------

Being the sole reason of the 'collapse' I am still wondering why the US assumed that the Afghan government would release those 5000 prisoners, did they have any assurances? Or were they not clear enough that it wasn't a precondition for talks between Taliban and Afghan government?
I admit to coming to that observation based on generals news, do feel free to set me right with pertinent data.

[Cope]

Yup, not being 'bourgeois' in statements like this simply raises misleading expectations, but then he won't stop using exaggerated adjectives and nouns when describing something (anything) involving him, right?

As showcased right here, both aspects of it.

It is a matter of interest to me that so many people seem prioritize rhetoric over substance (certainly something which Trump has benefited from in the past). I note, for instance, that you have't actually leveled a criticism of the WH's attempts to broker a truce with the Taliban; you instead opted to post a cynical, semantic complaint relating to the president's conversation. It certainly feels as though there's a dedicated group who'd happily see the US fail just to spite Trump.

[Lord Thesaurian]

Trump wants to be able to tell his base he won the war in Afghanistan before they head to the polls. We’ll see how it works out for him.

[Cope]

Trump wants to be able to tell his base he won the war in Afghanistan before they head to the polls. We’ll see how it works out for him.

Whereas you want the peace talks to fail so that Trump won't benefit in the polls. Is that about right?

[Gigantus]

It is a matter of interest to me that so many people seem prioritize rhetoric over substance (certainly something which Trump has benefited from in the past). I note, for instance, that you have't actually leveled a criticism of the WH's attempts to broker a truce with the Taliban; you instead opted to post a cynical, semantic complaint relating to the president's conversation. It certainly feels as though there's a dedicated group who'd happily see the US fail just to spite Trump.

The substance I see is a 'peace treaty' that didn't involve the Afghan government and which became nil and void within an amazingly short time. It directly relates to (is the reason for) my comment regarding 'unrealistic high expectations' raised by the president by his rhetoric. Personally I am of two minds whether or not the US should withdraw from Afghanistan given the Taliban's record (irrelevant now given what happened), but a mess like this certainly isn't going to achieve anything positive.

I have no problem with someone creating the reason of his ridicule on a continuous basis, I do have a major problem with someone misleading others for personal gain. I think I stated quite clearly in another thread that I don't give a what party he represents, so I am really not interested in the political angle other then for the machinations involving it.

Edit: I'd happily see Trump fail (as a president and individual) from that perspective, but considering that it could be at considerable expense to the US it might be bitter sweet.

[Lord Thesaurian]

Whereas you want the peace talks to fail so that Trump won't benefit in the polls. Is that about right?

No.

[Abdülmecid I]

In other news, the Taliban seem to have gained a new, powerful partner... So, the US is again supporting the Mujahideen against the greater evil, have we come full circle?

[Vanoi]

In other news, the Taliban seem to have gained a new, powerful partner... So, the US is again supporting the Mujahideen against the greater evil, have we come full circle?

After almost 20 years i think so. I see the reasoning behind helping them. Not gonna say its a great idea though. Peace is needed but i still have doubts its going to work.

[Heathen Hammer]

Nothing other then altogether leaving will work. As I said in Academy thread, if its population wanted Western-style "democracy" with free market economy, they'd have it by now. It has been almost 20 years. Taliban was there in 2001, it is still there now. If it didn't change by now, it is incredibly stupid to expect a miracle to happen in the future. They still don't like you and hate your way of life. Its not us, its them. Time for NATO to leave and for the taxpayer funds of nations involved to finally stop being dumped in world's armpit.

[Cyclops]

In other news, the Taliban seem to have gained a new, powerful partner... So, the US is again supporting the Mujahideen against the greater evil, have we come full circle?

So in my head its that episode of Community except its Bush's cabinet and Cheney rolls a die to see who gets the pizza. IRL they rolled a 3 and Rumsfeldt was out of the room, not the darkest timeline but pretty bad (a 1 is the Hilary/nuclear winter timestream). If they rolled a 2 and Bush went he'd meet a really nice Afghan delivery guy and decide against the invasion and foster a welfare state in the US to pwn the libs. In that stream he's still president somehow, most of his cabinet were taken out in the Pentagon strike (the only plane that got through) but he formed a national unity government and a young Barak Obama helped him imprison the Trump/Clinton cabal...

[AqD]

It is pointless - because there is no way that support of Taliban can be stopped from within and outside of Afghanistan.

Taliban is not a regime born from within Afghanistan.

In early 2001, Ahmad Shah Massoud with ethnic leaders from all of Afghanistan addressed the European Parliament in Brussels asking the international community to provide humanitarian help to the people of Afghanistan. He stated that the Taliban and Al-Qaeda had introduced "a very wrong perception of Islam" and that without the support of Pakistan and Bin Laden the Taliban would not be able to sustain their military campaign for up to a year.

Of course they might be stopped. What has the west done there? The new government under their management is a mess, commanders raping soldiers, helpers got kidnapped or sent straight to underworld, and they're more concerned about burning money making opium fields than helping people building anything - How come Taliban doesn't have any of those issues? Some of those idiots even wanted to allow Taliban to surrender!?

Plus American stance against fundamentalism is illusionary at best, given how US is allied to world's main terrorist capital of the world - Saudi Arabia, and backed fundamentalist groups against secular governments of Libya and Syria.

The mistakes made elsewhere don't mean US should give up on Afghanistan.

For the first time in history people are negotiating with religious crazies and the influence of western values is shrinking, not expanding. That would not have happened two centuries ago.

[Heathen Hammer]

Taliban is not a regime born from within Afghanistan.

Never said that it was.

Of course they might be stopped. What has the west done there? The new government under their management is a mess, commanders raping soldiers, helpers got kidnapped or sent straight to underworld, and they're more concerned about burning money making opium fields than helping people building anything - How come Taliban doesn't have any of those issues? Some of those idiots even wanted to allow Taliban to surrender!?

Again, if nothing changed in last 20 years, expecting something to change now is simply irrational. They don't want Western-style democracy. Again, its not us, its them. Just leave and let them sort out the mess themselves.

The mistakes made elsewhere don't mean US should give up on Afghanistan.

For the first time in history people are negotiating with religious crazies and the influence of western values is shrinking, not expanding. That would not have happened two centuries ago.

Maybe West should deal with its own problems then, rather then invade and occupy a backwards theocratic state amid other backwards theocratic states? The point is that there is little pragmatic difference between Taliban and governments of Pakistan, Saudi Arabia and many other states in the region that mostly embrace theocracy and crazy religious fundamentalist laws, so fixation on Afghanistan doesn't even make sense other then an excuse to keep funding military-industrial complex and its lobbying wing of chickenhawk pro-war politicians that have corporate ties to the former.

[AqD]

Never said that it was.

Again, if nothing changed in last 20 years, expecting something to change now is simply irrational. They don't want Western-style democracy. Again, its not us, its them. Just leave and let them sort out the mess themselves.

The western style democracy isn't required.

What's important, is to eradicate the theocracy, establish a friendly government and by universal education they could be fully converted to western ideas in a few generations.

Maybe West should deal with its own problems then, rather then invade and occupy a backwards theocratic state amid other backwards theocratic states? The point is that there is little pragmatic difference between Taliban and governments of Pakistan, Saudi Arabia and many other states in the region that mostly embrace theocracy and crazy religious fundamentalist laws, so fixation on Afghanistan doesn't even make sense other then an excuse to keep funding military-industrial complex and its lobbying wing of chickenhawk pro-war politicians that have corporate ties to the former.

How long do you think we can keep the progressive society, while religions are gaining more and more importance everyday, across the entire globe, and by the means of democracy not oppression? How long can we remain stronger and dominant? A century ago people were busy embracing freedom and throwing away their bs traditions - the trend has now reversed, not just in the poorest countries, but also well-to-do ones.

Christianity too started from a poor impoverished and war-torn country. It went to erase all other religions in Europe and all the progresses and thinking developed from ancient Greece. Things like that, whatever the name is, shall never be allowed to happen again.

[Heathen Hammer]

The western style democracy isn't required.

What's important, is to eradicate the theocracy, establish a friendly government and by universal education they could be fully converted to western ideas in a few generations.

Its been two decades and NATO failed each and everyone of those objectives. Let's look at this realistically - such changes come from within. Not from the outside, especially since after 20 years of bombings and "collateral damage" Westerners are hated as much as Taliban is, if not more. There is simply no reason to believe that either of those objectives would be ever accomplished. But this war is very expensive and we should stop throwing away taxpayer money on pointless and unwinnable wars.

How long do you think we can keep the progressive society, while religions are gaining more and more importance everyday, across the entire globe, and by the means of democracy not oppression? How long can we remain stronger and dominant? A century ago people were busy embracing freedom and throwing away their bs traditions - the trend has now reversed, not just in the poorest countries, but also well-to-do ones.

Christianity too started from a poor impoverished and war-torn country. It went to erase all other religions in Europe and all the progresses and thinking developed from ancient Greece. Things like that, whatever the name is, shall never be allowed to happen again.

That's an idealistic perspective that has little bearing in reality.
Religious fundamentalism has been a thing in those countries for centuries. Their population doesn't share your world outlook, to them you sound just as crazy as a Muslim fanatics sound crazy to us. We are different people from different civilizations, we are culturally incompatible.
Not to mention that notion of "progress" became Western version of "jihad", when ideas of Liberalism and egalitarianism in general are centuries-old and kinda formed a cult themselves, with all the crazies running around burning stuff down in the name of "equality".
Voltaire would have had a different outlook, I bet, had he bore witness to vicious inhumanity of the French Revolution and terrible things that "progress" did to our countries and our planet in general.
I think we are long overdue, as civilization, as to bring in a more pragmatic approach, without jumping into ideological fanaticism like ISIS or 1700s French revolutionaries did.

[Cyclops]

Its a **** show. The original invasion was a half baked sideshow, the main game was in Iraq. I'm told that despite that the US nearly snuffed out the Taliban in the first two years by 1. intimidating the Wahhabist sponsors and 2. close cooperation with Iranian assets, apparently both those approaches have been abandoned because muh Big Oil.

Once Kabul the same mix of mission confusion that marred Iraq played out in Afghanistan: we tried to use warlords and drug dealers to impose democracy, and defeating holy warriors by imposing cultural change like they said we would. As an added bonus the tribal leaders we used as footsoldiers have a lot to lose from the cultural changes we wanted to impose.

As a non-muslim non-local force the US had to use a lot of resources to impose rule on only parts of the country. It failed maintain focus or pay the political price for victory and is the opposition is very weak defeat has take over a decade.

If the US leaves local cats paws can be used to defeat the Taliban. They are Sunni so can attract some support, but they are not local so they can be counted on to attract opposition.

I guess its nice the US tried to follow up its punitive attack on the Taliban for hosting Al Qaeda with a "civilising mission" but frankly it was stupid. The original attack was about vengeance, and probably oil assets were added in as a bonus. They should have burned Kabul to the ground and walked back out again.

The worthless lies of Bush II's oil masters locked the US into some sort of WWII paradigm of a New Marshall Plan/regime change/a springtime for democracy or some rubbish. It would have been impossible even if it was sincere, and it was never the real mission. As a phony facade it was bound to fail with nasty results for the locals.

I guess the military contractors did well out of it. If there's a Hell Cheney has a seat reserved.

[AqD]

That's an idealistic perspective that has little bearing in reality.
Religious fundamentalism has been a thing in those countries for centuries. Their population doesn't share your world outlook, to them you sound just as crazy as a Muslim fanatics sound crazy to us. We are different people from different civilizations, we are culturally incompatible.

Fundamentalism was not a thing in the past. Not in 8th century, 12th, or 18th. When crazy Crusaders invaded their home, nobody resisted. The original jihad was no more than a pretty name of invasion and raids for political and economical goals. As recent as last century, Indonesia was ruled by a secular government and Turkey was pro-west, and Afghanistan in 60s was nothing like what it is now.

It's not just a culture, but a new trend, an attempt to revert everything back to even worse than the Caliphate days. Look at those morons in Taliban or ISIS - what renowned scientists have they produced, spent all their days reading the same old things over and over again, being restricted in thinking and half of the population can't even get education? What improvements have they made to themselves? What are they fighting for? The life of monks and nuns for everyone? Everyday a person lives under self-imposed oppression it's one lost opportunity.

If I'm not mistaken, the trend has been rising in US and elsewhere too, and it's not even the same religion but from old Christianity. You can see the anti-abortion terrorism only started from 90s, and Christianity is now gaining popularity in Korea and other asian countries, replacing atheism and weak polytheism. People who used to believe they should move forward are now questioning, wondering if they should halt or even go back.

Not to mention that notion of "progress" became Western version of "jihad", when ideas of Liberalism and egalitarianism in general are centuries-old and kinda formed a cult themselves, with all the crazies running around burning stuff down in the name of "equality".

Voltaire would have had a different outlook, I bet, had he bore witness to vicious inhumanity of the French Revolution and terrible things that "progress" did to our countries and our planet in general.
I think we are long overdue, as civilization, as to bring in a more pragmatic approach, without jumping into ideological fanaticism like ISIS or 1700s French revolutionaries did.

Progress brought wealth and knowledge to common people. It gave them a life worth living, and with it accelerated development for the whole humankind.

It was worth everything.

[Heathen Hammer]

Fundamentalism was not a thing in the past. Not in 8th century, 12th, or 18th. When crazy Crusaders invaded their home, nobody resisted. The original jihad was no more than a pretty name of invasion and raids for political and economical goals. As recent as last century, Indonesia was ruled by a secular government and Turkey was pro-west, and Afghanistan in 60s was nothing like what it is now.

It's not just a culture, but a new trend, an attempt to revert everything back to even worse than the Caliphate days. Look at those morons in Taliban or ISIS - what renowned scientists have they produced, spent all their days reading the same old things over and over again, being restricted in thinking and half of the population can't even get education? What improvements have they made to themselves? What are they fighting for? The life of monks and nuns for everyone? Everyday a person lives under self-imposed oppression it's one lost opportunity.

If I'm not mistaken, the trend has been rising in US and elsewhere too, and it's not even the same religion but from old Christianity. You can see the anti-abortion terrorism only started from 90s, and Christianity is now gaining popularity in Korea and other asian countries, replacing atheism and weak polytheism. People who used to believe they should move forward are now questioning, wondering if they should halt or even go back.

Whole notion of "progress" is false, since history isn't linear, it is cyclical.
Crusaders never invaded Afghanistan, in fact muslims themselves were the ones who invaded it and brought Islam to that Pagan land by force. Hell, even actual Crusades were in reality, a reaction to Islam being spread by fire and sword.
As of now Afghanistan is deeply stuck in Islam and wasting billions on maintaining military presence there is simply pointless. That war was truly lost more then a decade ago. It is simply unfair to taxpayers to maintain military presence there.

Progress brought wealth and knowledge to common people. It gave them a life worth living, and with it accelerated development for the whole humankind.

It was worth everything.

That sounds like something Islamists would say about, well, Islam. Again, history is cyclical. When Russians and Syrians defeated ISIS, it was objectively a good thing. Same applies to French "revolutionary" thugs in 1700s or reds in 1917 Russia - world would be a much better place, had they lost.

[conon394]

Voltaire would have had a different outlook, I bet, had he bore witness to vicious inhumanity of the French Revolution and terrible things that "progress" did to our countries and our planet in general.

You mean the traditional regime the revolution supplanted?

[Heathen Hammer]

You mean the traditional regime the revolution supplanted?

"My ideology is great and its implementation led to bad things only because of Jews/traditionalists/capitalists/fascists/ <insert any other ideological enemy>" is a pretty weak argument, my dude.
Communists are being routinely made fun of for using it for a reason.