[Wondergirl]

Nope. Just the ones trying to torture, rape, blow up and murder people in the name of Allah.

And you will find and identify them and the wannabe ones how? Their name is legion. They are like grey hairs -- for every one you pull out, three more pop up.

[speechlesstx]

And you will find and identify them and the wannabe ones how? Their name is legion. They are like grey hairs -- for every one you pull out, three more pop up.

So we do nothing?

[Wondergirl]

So we do nothing?

Answer my question, please.

[speechlesstx]

Answer my question, please.

It's an ongoing process, we do the very best we can in eliminating the terrorists, infiltrate, isolate, search and destroy, whatever it takes. As opposed to that mindset that pines for world peace and everyone living in harmony but thinks we can accomplish that with all those barbarians on the loose.

[tomder55]

So what to you would mean a win?

See #74

[ETWolverine]

And you will find and identify them and the wannabe ones how? Their name is legion. They are like grey hairs -- for every one you pull out, three more pop up.

Easy.

If they are hiding in the inhospitable caves and mountains of Afghanistan with guns, mortars, rockets and bomb-making materials, hiding from society, then they are the enemy. Kill them. Regular civillians don't hide in caves and mountains with bomb-making gear.

It is only once they are among the rest of society that they become difficult to distinguish from the rest of society. That is one of the main reasons to fight the Taliban in the mountains instead of giving them the opportunity to hide among the people. That's the easiest way to identify the enemy from our allies or from neutral parties.

Elliot

[ETWolverine]

They are like grey hairs -- for every one you pull out, three more pop up.

Then the best way to deal with them is to shave the head... get rid of all of the terrorists.

[Wondergirl]

However, what has failed repeatedly is the idea that "we can't win, no matter what we do, so we shouldn't bother."

I didn't say "don't bother." I said trying to kill all the terrorists won't work. Terrorists don't make up a standing army; terrorism is a tactic.

#74 is about female suicide bombers. It doesn't answer my question. And I should have said the majority of (Muslim) women only want peace, peace in which to raise their families.

[Wondergirl]

Then the best way to deal with them is to shave the head... get rid of all of the terrorists.

But you don't shave only once -- you will have to shave until the day you die and even after you die, the grey hairs will "grow" as the skin shrinks. You can't win even with grey hairs, much less with terrorists.

[Wondergirl]

Easy.

If they are hiding in the inhospitable caves and mountains of Afghanistan with guns, mortars, rockets and bomb-making materials, hiding from society, then they are the enemy. Kill them. Regular civillians don't hide in caves and mountains with bomb-making gear.

Good luck finding then in Afghanistan -- but wait! They are also hiding in Pakistan and Iraq and Iran and England and the U.S. and and...

[ETWolverine]

I didn't say "don't bother." I said trying to kill all the terrorists won't work. Terrorists don't make up a standing army; terrorism is a tactic.

Yes, you said it. But the statement was incorrect. As history has proven time and time again.

#74 is about female suicide bombers. It doesn't answer my question. And I should have said the majority of (Muslim) women only want peace, peace in which to raise their families.

Yes, and they are not the targets. Neither are the MAJORITY OF MALE Muslims who only want to live their lives and raise their families.

But the males and (growing number of) females who are NOT interested in peace and who want to kill civillians... should we ignore them because "trying to kill terrorism won't work"?

Do you want to know what the result of that would be?

Think Beirut in the 1980s.

Elliot

[Wondergirl]

Yes, you said it. But the statement was incorrect. As history has proven time and time again.

I did not say "don't bother" -- if you think I did, tell me where.

Yes, and they are not the targets. Neither are the MAJORITY OF MALE Muslims who only want to live their lives and raise their families.

But the males and (growing number of) females who are NOT interested in peace and who want to kill civillians... should we ignore them because "trying to kill terrorism won't work"?

I never said to ignore them. How would you separate out the "good" from the "bad"? Ask them?

[firmbeliever]

The way I see it,
Afghanistan has had to fight, with England, then Russian occupation,then the Taliban,and now add America to the list too and that is just counting the more recent past.

Situated as they are, everyday citizens have had to cope with the government siding with first one country and then another,and in between; add wars, not to mention their tribal fights and fights with their neighboring countries.

I am sure the Afghanis are wary of those who say they are being protected, or being saved, they don't even trust their own people.

I think by killing innocents in the name of eliminating terrorists, the probability of new fresh blood wanting to fight those who killed their families is higher with so many families dying.

Lets say this is a rough estimate of civilian deaths in Afghanistan for whichever reason.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civilian_casualties_of_the_War_in_Afghanistan_%282 001%E2%80%93present%29

And the statistics not including the dying soldiers of all countries involved.

An endless war with many more dying.

Just my two cents.

[excon]

I think by killing innocents in the name of eliminating terrorists, the probability of new fresh blood wanting to fight those who killed their families is higher with so many families dying.

Hello firm:

You hit the nail on the head... This is the point that is totally lost on the right wing... It's very similar to their failed drug war. They think all they have to do is put all the drug dealers in jail... Then after they do that, they're surprised that somebody took their place...

They don't understand that there's lots and lots of people who aren't now terrorists, but who are going to BE terrorists the more we kill their families, the more we occupy their countries, the more we support their tyrannical leaders, and the more we torture and dehumanize them..

It's simple really. We can WIN the war by NOT fighting it...

excon

[paraclete]

An endless war with many more dying.

Just my two cents.

Yes, you are right, a people who have known nothing but war for most of their population and most of their lives, and America and its allies have the arrogance to try and win their hearts and minds with a few paved roads and some vague notion of security. They are better left alone to govern themselves, whatever that might mean, rather than being subject to the despotism they now experience.

If we want to help the Afghan people the way is to stop fighting and allow them to return home and settle. The Vietnamese didn't do a bad job after the US military left, perhaps the Afghans will be the same

[tomder55]

rather than being subject to the despotism they now experience.

Oh yeah ;the reign of the Taliban was much better .:rolleyes:

[paraclete]

oh yeah ;the reign of the Taliban was much better .:rolleyes:

Not necessarily, The Taliban were fighting a war which may have affected their judgement, in any event they are unlikely to be any worse than Iran and I don't see the US invading to impose "democracy" there. True democracy is allowing people to determine for themselves the form of government they will have, even if it is theocratic

[inthebox]

As it stands, the general "on the ground" states that there is not enough manpower to be successful, so Obama has an ultimatum.

Get out - in defeat.

Or

Put more manpower in to be successful - enough to establish security for the Afghan people and a stable government that does not habor terrorists or their training camps. More manpower to eliminate the taliban, which does require a lot of human intelligence.

Like US healthcare, Afghan strategy needs to be reformed.


G&P

[Wondergirl]

As it stands, the general "on the ground" states that there is not enough manpower to be successful, so Obama has an ultimatum.

Get out - in defeat.

It doesn't have to be in defeat.

Put more manpower in to be successful - enough to establish security for the Afghan people and a stable government that does not habor terrorists or their training camps. More manpower to eliminate the taliban, which does require a lot of human intelligence.

Afghanistan's stable government will be a theocracy. And the Taliban isn't going anywhere.

[paraclete]

Get out - in defeat.

More manpower to eliminate the Taliban, which does require a lot of human intelligence.

Afghan strategy needs to be reformed.

G&P

To eliminate the Taliban you have to eliminate the Pustun people, all 22 million of them. As the Pustun live in both Afghanistan and Pakistan this is no simple solution, it requires a regional war of significant proportions, not the hit and run tactics employed at the moment.

I fail to see why the US thinks it can win here, it isn't just a matter of knocking off the leaders, there will always be more leaders and a charismatic leader might arise. The US is an invader in the eyes of these people, they have no concept of an Afghan nation led by a democratic government. You saw the sort of campaign Pakistan had to wage to dislodge the Taliban from a small area and that fight certainly isn't over. It required the whole population to move out so that Pakistan could come to grips with the fighters. If you were to dislodge the Afghan population what would you achieve, just a humanitarian nightmare in Pakistan and perhaps the loss of Pakistan.