Oh, any conquerer would wish they were in Somalia but it's the conquest that is doable.
Oh, any conquerer would wish they were in Somalia but it's the conquest that is doable.
Depends on all the circumstances. But thinking of the war my country today is fighting, and they've also been attacked. I'd say: yes!
But I can't really see how this is a simple question, if The Taliban fought the battle for my country, I'd never support it. The circumstances are more important.
In all honesty, depending on the invader, I'd join them. Don't be oppressive and support my state's independence, and I'd roll out the red carpet.
Weasel answer. I originally asked if you would fight back if your country was occupied by a foreign power. Are you suggesting "maybe" but you would analyse whether you agreed with the politics of their leader? If that is what you are saying, I call BS.Originally Posted by chuck schmidt
If your country was invaded would you fight back? Fairly simple question. A simple yes or no would handle it.
The issue is you calling people ?terrorists? and ?insurgents?. You justify continuing to spend billions making war on a people because you say they are ?terrorists? and ?insurgents? and we must attack them because they are a threat to us, yet you admit that you would do the same thing they do if the shoe was on the other foot. These guys don?t know squat about anything except that you are the infidel and you are there. Go home and they will stay home.
As far as 9-11 is concerned, it has long since ceased to have anything to do with Afghanistan. The Saudi attackers are all dead, America has been unable to catch bin Laden, America has one little middle-man and cannot even decide where to put him on trial nine years later and the whole thing has become a farce. George Bush turned 9-11 into the world?s greatest terrorist victory by over reacting to it, but he ignored the Saudi?s who are the most obvious suspects because he is their business minion. The US got kicked in the nuts and its big-business penis fell down. It is time to move on. No European nation ever went to war based on a terrorist attack before Bush and (for instance) the Britain was attacked by the Irish many times.
That's your opinion, but it's not mine.
Didn't seemed like they wanted to stay at home in 2001.. or in 2004 and in 2005?
And if Bush didn't react at all, what then would've happened? The hatred and terrorist actions would just stop? Never..
If life were that simple, no one would have had to invade anywhere. The US, UK and France, to mention a few had very good reason to believe there had been weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. They were never found, however why they would have had a good idea would have been because they had been the countries responsible for supplying these weapons to Iraq during the pre Kuwait war years.
There were always other avenues to destroying Al Qaeda.
What's the name of that avenue? Dialogue avenue? Let-us-talk-this-over avenue? Al-Qaeda is not a dialogue or a verbal organization, it's a very violent one. They don't care if you try to speak with them, as long as you represent The West and the values western civilization represents, they'll kill you, no matter how you approach them.
World... War... 1...
The terrorist act that sparked WW1 was a trigger, not a cause. WW1 was the result of European power politics, military treaties between empires and Russian mobilization. You are comparing apples and cattle.
The difference between Al-Qaeda and Taliban considering moral and the values of life are very small.
Al Qaeda is a decentralized terror organization seeking to unite the world under radical Islamic rule. The Taliban are a gov't made up of religious students dedicated to the establishment/maintenance of Islamic rule on the Indian Sub-Continent. Most are moderate, hence the high turnover to NATO by Talib fighters, with only the higher ups, who are in alliance with Al Qaeda, being radical. This is an issue as the higher ups are the ones calling the shots but at an organizational level, the 2 are totally and even ideologically different.
And how can you show the clear differences between Al-Qaeda and the Taliban today? I'd personally find that very difficult. Look at the system the Taliban introduced in Afghanistan. This is exactly the same as the moral standards of Al-Qaeda, and it's the exact same.
Consider this. NATO neutralizes the leader of a Talib Cell and their lieutenants. This necessitates the rising to power of an underling. Suddenly said Talib cell sues for peace and joins the fight on NATO's side.
The easy answer is that this is cowardice on their part but consider Talib cells who's leader's lieutenants aren't neutralized along with them. Not only are they still in the war against NATO but they become even more bloodthirsty due to a revenge motive. If they were scared, they would surrender/switch sides.
Why the discrepancy? In the 1st example the Al Qaeda influenced leadership is removed and the new Talib that comes to power, not being corrupted by such views in most cases, rules with the original idealism of the Taliban. As the Taliban leadership is neutralized, we see more and more cells joining our side and submitting to the authority of Kabul. If this keeps up, at some point the Taliban leadership will be entirely switched out and the Taliban will start looking quite a bit better to the West then that scum bag Karzi.
We only need to keep up the fight and not be distracted like we were with Iraq and in a few years the war will be won and the Taliban will no longer be led by extremists. It'll be a win-win-win for the West, Afghanistan and the average Talib.
There's one thing you forgot to mention in your post David: the increasing recruitment of Afghan civilians, especially young teenagers, into the Taliban. I believe this is still a challenge. You gave an impression in your post of this happening fast and easy, it's not going to be like that. The Taliban will not eradicate their own world view without a fight.
And here is where I agree with you. And the answer is to run a tough hard line towards the Taliban, that's the only thing they'll understand.
Similar threads
