If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(The New York Times)   The U.S. is abandoning hope for a peace deal with the Taliban. Fark: The U.S. had hope for a peace deal with the Taliban   (nytimes.com) divider line 124
    More: Asinine, Taliban, American troops, combat operations, peace, David Petraeus, McChrystal  
•       •       •

2456 clicks; posted to Main » on 02 Oct 2012 at 12:21 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



124 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-10-02 01:01:32 PM

geek_mars: Biness: geek_mars: I can't imagine anyone held any true hope of negotiating peace with the Taliban, but I'm glad it was attempted. I understand the necessities of war, but that doesn't mean peace isn't worth pursuing, even with a group like the Taliban.

[www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk image 165x247]
We shall have peace in our time.

Not disagreeing with your sentiment, but there can be no discussion with the taliban. There can be no peace between freedom and despotism. The trouble is we never fought this war with an eye towards winning it.

GBB:
There is no peace with a group that is told that you MUST die because you do not believe what they do.

I agree, that's what I meant when I said no one had any real hopes of it working. The thing is, though, is that having tried, despite knowing it was pointless, shows how far we're willing to go, what we're willing to try, to gain peace through diplomacy rather than force of arms.
It's far better to try and justify military action to our allies if we didn't simply say, "Fark it, they're not worth talking with," before we started with the drone strikes. And I don't just mean the illusion of some kind of moral high ground. Negotiating, or attempting to, with the Taliban, despite knowing it's a futile attempt, demonstrates that diplomacy is part of our national culture.


html-fu fail
 
2012-10-02 01:03:11 PM

ChipNASA: They are all probably long since dead and it's the more recent generations of Taliban that have gone rogue


So, they are like republicans in that regard.

But still. Kill them all. Burn their corpses, and burn them with pig fat.
then piss on the ashes.
Fark them and their sky wizard all to hell and back.

Ans if you deal with them, you need to be executed for treason.
No farking questions.
 
2012-10-02 01:04:13 PM

Crushinator: Wipe them out.... all of them.


We should just put up or shut up. One nuclear bomb each in the capital of these countries:

Iran
Pakistan
Afghanistan
Iraq
Libya
Saudi Arabia
Syria
ANY country with an Islamic ruling party.
How about ALL countries in the middle east save Israel.

And North Korea just for sh*ts and giggles.

World War III? Hardly. I mean, who the f*ck is going to war with the U.S. because Tehran was nuked?
 
2012-10-02 01:05:41 PM

DaCaptain19: Crushinator: Wipe them out.... all of them.

We should just put up or shut up. One nuclear bomb each in the capital of these countries:

Iran
Pakistan
Afghanistan
Iraq
Libya
Saudi Arabia
Syria
ANY country with an Islamic ruling party.
How about ALL countries in the middle east save Israel.

And North Korea just for sh*ts and giggles.

World War III? Hardly. I mean, who the f*ck is going to war with the U.S. because Tehran was nuked?


Save Jordan. They're cool.
 
2012-10-02 01:07:41 PM
Peace with warring tribes splitting hairs over religious differences? Let me laugh harder.
 
2012-10-02 01:08:25 PM

Jiro Dreams Of McRibs: [www.handgunclub.com image 500x329]

We should air drop millions of these things with 50 rounds each attached. They were excellent for killing Nazi occupiers and sympathizers.

They won't shoot down a helicopter or blow up a tank but they will put a nice hole in the back of a Taliban noggin at a market or mosque. Close up. Just like the Taliban like it.

Make it impossible for the Taliban to mix with the locals.


Why not? A little anarchy will spice up their day!
 
2012-10-02 01:09:19 PM

clyph: Perducci: Maybe once the Republicans win the next election they can approach the Taliban.

"Look, we're all extremists here. You hate gays? WE hate gays? You love shootin' guns? WE love shootin' guns! You think women need to know their place? Hey! So do we! People of a different race frighten and confuse you? Guess what.... Yup! Us too! So, c'mon, even though you believe in some funny Muhammed-y stuff and haven't discovered Our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ Amen Amen Amen, we can all get along, right? We want the same things, you just have some silly beliefs about a big black cube thing. We can overlook that. Hey, by the way, what do you think about Mexicans? We might have a job for you."

So much THIS. The only difference between the GOP and the Taliban is which invisible sky wizard they pray to and what they can get away with doing. The only reason the christaliban aren't stoning loose women and blowing up religious icons of other faiths is that they can't get away with it (yet).


Intelligent - all GOP are religious and all Democrats are non-religious. Hell, I'm a non-religious democrat and I still see the stupidity of your statement.
 
2012-10-02 01:12:26 PM
Dammit, I TOLD Hillary, 2 FIRST round picks, 1 second round, and 2 3-5th rounders.....no one will go for a player to be named later.
 
2012-10-02 01:17:23 PM
Peace with the Taliban means giving up control of the Heroin trade. The MIC is not going to willingly give up such a lucrative business. Therefore we will always be at war with Eastasia.
 
2012-10-02 01:17:51 PM
Your enemies are the only people you can make peace with...
 
2012-10-02 01:18:47 PM

DaCaptain19: Intelligent - all GOP are religious and all Democrats are non-religious. Hell, I'm a non-religious democrat and I still see the stupidity of your statement.


It's called hyperbole. Acquaint yourself with the concept.
 
2012-10-02 01:18:51 PM

DaCaptain19:
World War III? Hardly. I mean, who the f*ck is going to war with the U.S. because Tehran was nuked?


Just nuke them and say, "we did it because they're muzlin"
and don't blink.
 
2012-10-02 01:21:07 PM

DaCaptain19: One nuclear bomb each in the capital of these countries:

Iran
Pakistan
Afghanistan
Iraq
Libya
Saudi Arabia
Syria
ANY country with an Islamic ruling party.
How about ALL countries in the middle east save Israel.

And North Korea just for sh*ts and giggles.



You sound Christian.
 
2012-10-02 01:28:56 PM
The entire Iraq/Afghanistan debacle makes Gallipoli look like a masterpiece of strategic planning. Over-confidence, delusional thinking, hubris, religious nut-baggery. The U.S. military has it all in spades... taking a military designed to fight the Soviets to an insurgency has worked Oh So well the last 50 years.....Let's keep trying and see if we win THIS time.......lol....800 dollar a gallon gas/ billions spent on air-condition...If you think of all the positive actions that could have been taken to help our country, it's enough to make you sick.
 
2012-10-02 01:30:31 PM
Nonsense. Nobody wants to keep fighting, not even the Taliban. While rids a society of young bachelors and leaves more poon for the ruling class, it is expensive and messy business. The Taliban wants what most of the Fundy Muslim world wants: (1) Complete Muslim ownership of their holy places; and (2) no corrupting Western influences in their communities.

The first one's a problem because one of their holy places is currently owned by Israel, which is why they hate The Jew. And the Jew ain't goin' anywhere. There's almost as many here in the US as there are in Israel. That, plus our corporate interests in the ME will ensure the US supports them as an ally. Not really sure what can be "negotiated" about that.

As for the second item, We can have Vegas and Manhattan and Swingin' Berlin and Sexy Paris and Red Light Amsterdam all we want, so long as we don't try to colonize their communities with our lingerie stores and corporate field offices. Those bring our degenerate whore women walking around with skin showing. OK, that's a problem since they DO like our money and want our construction and petroleum companies to come do stuff and since we have the laws permitting women to work and What Not, the women will show up.

The solution is to bite the bullet, say goodbye to their business, and divest from those countries. They want to be left alone? fark 'em, leave 'em alone. I guaran-dam-tee you they won't be coming here to cause trouble. Their nationals who come to Europe and N. America are the progressives of their societies, not the hard-boiled Fundies. And they're just here to buy the shiat they can't get at home, them slink back, sated and guilty. It's like the odd Evangelical who gets caught in the whore-house, not representative of the main body of believers who just want to be left alone to oppress their women and delude their children.

But that's not our problem. No, it isn't.

Ehh, this seemed simpler when I started thinking of this post.
 
2012-10-02 01:35:37 PM

emersonbiggins: Oblig.

[www.legitgov.org image 300x146]


Not Taliban....go find the original photo that appeared in the NY Times and then google the names of those present to find out what happened to them in order to not make yourself look like a moran.


SPOILER ALERT
they were assassinated by the Taliban prior to 9-11 because they were allied with the US and would have been used to hunt down the Taliban. 

which party keeps pushing the lie as some sort of truth
 
2012-10-02 01:36:41 PM
Biness


Finally!! The man with plan shows up? So let's hear it, genius. Lay it out there for us. I mean if the 2 largest armies ever assembled can't figure it out, obviously a Farker is going to come up with a plan in five minutes to win. Ah, yes, "Eye towards winning it!!" That will be our new slogan! When the next Afghan flips his lid and starts offing the trainers,we will tell their families that they died, with their leg blown off, and their "eyes towards winning it". Just like that.

/go explain it in person/.
 
2012-10-02 01:36:43 PM
Im fairly certain that at this point, there is no organized taliban as they once existed. Its just new people picking up the Taliban name and running with it... sort of like Anonymous.

All the original players are gone.
 
2012-10-02 01:37:13 PM
We should pull out of Afghanistan. Then when the Taliban reorganize and try to take over again, go back in and destroy them again. Then pull out again. Repeat every few years as needed. No need to stay there, just have them be fully aware that if they get too freaky the U.S. is bound to come back in and wreck shiat.
 
2012-10-02 01:37:53 PM

Biness: Jiro Dreams Of McRibs: [www.handgunclub.com image 500x329]

We should air drop millions of these things with 50 rounds each attached. They were excellent for killing Nazi occupiers and sympathizers.

They won't shoot down a helicopter or blow up a tank but they will put a nice hole in the back of a Taliban noggin at a market or mosque. Close up. Just like the Taliban like it.

Make it impossible for the Taliban to mix with the locals.

What happened the last time the US govt started handing out guns?


I think that's what put the Taliban in power in the first place.
 
2012-10-02 01:39:06 PM
University of Nebraska, in league with USAID/CIA, spent 50 million on creating `jihadi' text books for use in the madrasas during the Soviet occupation of Afhanistan. Apparently these have been updated by the taliban (and/or originals altered) so the U.S,/NATO troops replaced the commie horde (how many soldiers are stacked like cord wood in the illustration, achmed?) Nice to know we're on both sides of the fence right, taxpayer?

Military, had some hubris, it's true. However, Neocon cabal loosed the jesses without so much as a tip of the hat to either Kipling or the Soviet's, et al.. advice/experience. And Farking Iraq? WTF?
Best counter insurgency option would have been to buy up the entire opium crop at very high prices (half in cash/ half in NATO goods and services and free education for the kiddies in private schools in NATO countries - with caveat that they return home).

After the initial bombing what was really left to fark with, anyway?

/park plenty of missile subs in the Oceans surrounding Mr. Monroe's hemisphere, and use them if provoked.
//Smedley Butler and Samuel Clemens saw this coming
 
2012-10-02 01:40:22 PM

clyph: GBB: There is no peace with a group that is told that you MUST die because you do not believe what they do.

Wait, are we talking about the Taliban or the Tea Party?


Wait, I think that's the Bill Ayers wing of the Democrat party.

People, leave other people alone. If they're not committing violence upon you, not taking your stuff, nor doing that to anyone else, then what they do, what they say, how they believe, who they fark, how they earn their living, is no business of yours.

There are very few that are the boogieman you think they are. Not Democrats, not Republicans, not the Tea Partiers, not the Chinese, not even Iranians. 99.99% of all of them are just folks.

That last 0.01% are the bastards in every group, and they'll tell you they are, right to your face and rely on you to not believe they're that serious. Their common refrain is "We will use the power of the state to make them (you) better." They'll kill, maim, steal and go to bed with a clear conscience because they did good that day, up to their hips in your blood. Not literally, however, as they'll hire someone else to do it for them. This group is the threat to everyone, and they're IN YOUR FACTION and they're probably IN CHARGE. Clean your own houses.
 
2012-10-02 01:43:46 PM
Alonjar

..Do you think the V.C was the same guys during the end of the war as in 65?? You are not fighting against a particular set of men. You are fighting against an idea. We spent 10 years dropping more tonnage on Vietnam than all of WW2 combined, destroying their jungles, and killing lots of civilians. We didn't win. We're not going to win here. They don't want what we have to sell them. It's really that simple. And as bad as the Taliban is, I would rather see that money going to help people over here like my friend with PTSD from Ramadi. Or the old guy that can't get medical care....
 
2012-10-02 01:46:10 PM

FlippityFlap: Biness


Finally!! The man with plan shows up? So let's hear it, genius. Lay it out there for us. I mean if the 2 largest armies ever assembled can't figure it out, obviously a Farker is going to come up with a plan in five minutes to win. Ah, yes, "Eye towards winning it!!" That will be our new slogan! When the next Afghan flips his lid and starts offing the trainers,we will tell their families that they died, with their leg blown off, and their "eyes towards winning it". Just like that.

/go explain it in person/.


divert floodplains. starve major population centers. raze everything. go roman on them.
 
2012-10-02 01:46:45 PM

Jiro Dreams Of McRibs: [www.handgunclub.com image 500x329]

We should air drop millions of these things with 50 rounds each attached. They were excellent for killing Nazi occupiers and sympathizers.

They won't shoot down a helicopter or blow up a tank but they will put a nice hole in the back of a Taliban noggin at a market or mosque. Close up. Just like the Taliban like it.

Make it impossible for the Taliban to mix with the locals.


What makes you think the locals will use them on the Taliban?
 
2012-10-02 01:50:21 PM

DaCaptain19: Crushinator: Wipe them out.... all of them.

We should just put up or shut up. One nuclear bomb each in the capital of these countries:

Iran
Pakistan
Afghanistan
Iraq
Libya
Saudi Arabia
Syria
ANY country with an Islamic ruling party.
How about ALL countries in the middle east save Israel.

And North Korea just for sh*ts and giggles.

World War III? Hardly. I mean, who the f*ck is going to war with the U.S. because Tehran was nuked?


You are forgetting China and Russia. Then again if that happens, I am sure say Cuba would want to get a piece of us once we are all deployed out in the Middle East after WWIII starts. However after a couple of pot shots on U.S soil they would die a horrible death.

We may not get invaded, however Soviets alone can outnumber us on the battlefield because they actually can force their citizens to go to war on a whim. Plus nuking a battlefield (since it will be in the middle east) will simply make it unobtainable due to fallout, and we don't want that do we? So we would have to use our specialized technologies to bomb and shoot them. Which, just by the amount of we will have to take out of our economy just for that would screw the domestic U.S.

Millions of people would die, economies would be lost on both sides. To think, all this will happen over resources that generate money for the rich, in which most who are benefiting aren't even U.S citizens.

The world needs a "Re Roll" button.
 
2012-10-02 01:53:43 PM

FlippityFlap: Alonjar

..Do you think the V.C was the same guys during the end of the war as in 65?? You are not fighting against a particular set of men. You are fighting against an idea. We spent 10 years dropping more tonnage on Vietnam than all of WW2 combined, destroying their jungles, and killing lots of civilians. We didn't win. We're not going to win here. They don't want what we have to sell them. It's really that simple. And as bad as the Taliban is, I would rather see that money going to help people over here like my friend with PTSD from Ramadi. Or the old guy that can't get medical care....


We cannot win in Afghanistan unless we annex the country and move there permanently and make it a US protectorate and even then we won't "win." The only time Afghanistan was ever conquered was by Ghengis Khan, when it was Khwarezm, and HE only defeated it by razing the country literally to the ground from end to end. Alexander the Great couldn't do it, the British Empire couldn't do it, the USSR couldn't do it. Like all small countries, Afghanistan wins by not winning: They know that sooner or later, the occupiers will leave, and they will still be there.

The Taliban is not going to magically become a democratic government, and the people are not magically going to convert to Protestantism; they're not going to suddenly begin treating their women like human beings and allowing free speech. Change like that happens from within, not without. The best thing we can do at this point is withdraw the military presence, and attempt to maintain at least a frigid relationship with whoever winds up being in charge--better still, let China establish diplomatic relations with them, and allow capitalism to come in through the back door via Chinese business. But staying there because the Taliban is going to be so bad is ridiculous. The longer we stay, the worse the Taliban or their successors are going to be.
 
2012-10-02 01:55:10 PM

DaCaptain19: Crushinator: Wipe them out.... all of them.

We should just put up or shut up. One nuclear bomb each in the capital of these countries:

Iran
Pakistan
Afghanistan
Iraq
Libya
Saudi Arabia
Syria
ANY country with an Islamic ruling party.
How about ALL countries in the middle east save Israel.

And North Korea just for sh*ts and giggles.

World War III? Hardly. I mean, who the f*ck is going to war with the U.S. because Tehran was nuked?


Its a good thing we all don't share the same ecosystem .....Oh wait........
 
2012-10-02 01:56:59 PM

xevian: DaCaptain19: Crushinator: Wipe them out.... all of them.

We should just put up or shut up. One nuclear bomb each in the capital of these countries:

Iran
Pakistan
Afghanistan
Iraq
Libya
Saudi Arabia
Syria
ANY country with an Islamic ruling party.
How about ALL countries in the middle east save Israel.

And North Korea just for sh*ts and giggles.

World War III? Hardly. I mean, who the f*ck is going to war with the U.S. because Tehran was nuked?

You are forgetting China and Russia. Then again if that happens, I am sure say Cuba would want to get a piece of us once we are all deployed out in the Middle East after WWIII starts. However after a couple of pot shots on U.S soil they would die a horrible death.

We may not get invaded, however Soviets alone can outnumber us on the battlefield because they actually can force their citizens to go to war on a whim. Plus nuking a battlefield (since it will be in the middle east) will simply make it unobtainable due to fallout, and we don't want that do we? So we would have to use our specialized technologies to bomb and shoot them. Which, just by the amount of we will have to take out of our economy just for that would screw the domestic U.S.

Millions of people would die, economies would be lost on both sides. To think, all this will happen over resources that generate money for the rich, in which most who are benefiting aren't even U.S citizens.

The world needs a "Re Roll" button.


Would 2D20's cover it?
 
2012-10-02 01:59:02 PM

Jiro Dreams Of McRibs: We should air drop millions of these things with 50 rounds each attached. They were excellent for killing Nazi occupiers and sympathizers. ... Make it impossible for the Taliban to mix with the locals.


Your cunning plan might have a little more chance of working if the Taliban weren't locals and if the NATO forces (including the US) weren't the detested occupying invaders.
 
2012-10-02 01:59:21 PM
Drone strike diplomacy really doesn't have any more of a future than preemptive warfare does. Sure let's talk, just ignore those loud explosions, oh your niece is laying in pieces now?

Just remember she was Collateral damage, so don't hold that agaisnt us, we just need your cooperation to win.

Obama you disappoint me, slightly better than bush sometimes is still really shiatty.
 
2012-10-02 02:01:28 PM

vudukungfu: Fark those motherfarking motherfarkers all to hell and piss on the ashes.
ANyone making a deal with them is a traitor, and a treasonous bastard, and should be hanged by the farking neck until dead, dead, dead.

FARK YOU FOR MAKING DEALS WITH THE TALIBAN, mother farkers.!!


Remind me again which country created the Taliban (or "brave Mujihadeen allies", as they were known then) to put one over the Russians.
 
2012-10-02 02:03:48 PM

dudemanbro: We should pull out of Afghanistan. Then when the Taliban reorganize and try to take over again, go back in and destroy them again. Then pull out again. Repeat every few years as needed. No need to stay there, just have them be fully aware that if they get too freaky the U.S. is bound to come back in and wreck shiat.


This makes so much sense that there really must be something wrong with it. It can't really be that simple. Hell, we could consider it a training exercise.

Dennis Miller once said: "I dig these airstrikes. They're like sanctions with attitude."
 
2012-10-02 02:07:27 PM

orbister: vudukungfu: Fark those motherfarking motherfarkers all to hell and piss on the ashes.
ANyone making a deal with them is a traitor, and a treasonous bastard, and should be hanged by the farking neck until dead, dead, dead.

FARK YOU FOR MAKING DEALS WITH THE TALIBAN, mother farkers.!!

Remind me again which country created the Taliban (or "brave Mujihadeen allies", as they were known then) to put one over the Russians.


You can't reason with the "kill them all" crowd, and they are unable to imagine the consequences of the type of action they want taken.
 
2012-10-02 02:09:42 PM
FTFA: "American officials say they hope that the Taliban will find the Afghan Army a more formidable adversary than they expect and be compelled, in the years after NATO withdraws, to come to terms with what they now dismiss as a "puppet" government."

The Taliban have already kicked the USSR's sorry butt all the way to Moscow and are in the process of kicking the USA's sorry butt all the way to Washington. The Afghan army - a rag tag group put together to defend the despotic ruler of a country nobody believes in - are going to be more formidable than either the Russkies or the Yanks? In whose dreams?
 
2012-10-02 02:14:00 PM

DaCaptain19: We should just put up or shut up. One nuclear bomb each in the capital of these countries:

Iran
Pakistan
Afghanistan
Iraq
Libya
Saudi Arabia
Syria


Wonderful idea. Because there is absolutely no record ever of pissed off civilians taking action against military superpowers, is there? Think 9/11, only this time with Pakistan's entire nuclear arsenal in play.
 
2012-10-02 02:19:37 PM

orbister: Remind me again which country created the Taliban (or "brave Mujihadeen allies", as they were known then) to put one over the Russians.


You don't hire an assassin unless you have an assassin already hired to kill the assassin you are hiring.
That's like rule number 15 of cold war killing rules.
 
2012-10-02 02:20:52 PM

Joe Blowme: cant reason with a death cult


The Taliban aren't a rational bunch either.
 
2012-10-02 02:41:28 PM
So, The Taliban = The Tea Party

Because stoning rape victims and not allowing girls an education is the same as asking your
government not to spend money at a rate that requires borrowing $.40 on the dollar?

Keep farking that chicken boys.
 
2012-10-02 02:46:01 PM

FlippityFlap: The entire Iraq/Afghanistan debacle makes Gallipoli look like a masterpiece of strategic planning. Over-confidence, delusional thinking, hubris, religious nut-baggery. The U.S. military has it all in spades... taking a military designed to fight the Soviets to an insurgency has worked Oh So well the last 50 years.....Let's keep trying and see if we win THIS time.......lol....800 dollar a gallon gas/ billions spent on air-condition...If you think of all the positive actions that could have been taken to help our country, it's enough to make you sick.


To be fair, the current model doesn't have to win to be successful. It has to be a moneymaker for certain parties to be successful. And, boy howdy, has it been successful.
 
2012-10-02 02:46:54 PM
Despite the U.S.'s sincere efforts at peace, every time they would drop a payload of good tidings, the locals would mysteriously erupt into lumps of charred flesh... a clear indication that they're not interested in peace talks.

Fret not though, I'm sure the MIC will find another nation worthy to receive the business end of our olive branch.
 
2012-10-02 02:52:32 PM

Zeb Hesselgresser: Because stoning rape victims and not allowing girls an education is the same as asking your
government not to spend money at a rate that requires borrowing $.40 on the dollar?


Do you know what the Taliban policy is on government borrowing?
 
2012-10-02 02:52:32 PM

Zeb Hesselgresser: stoning rape victims and not allowing girls an education


Hey, it's cultural diversity and it should be celebrated.
 
2012-10-02 02:55:45 PM

Zeb Hesselgresser: Because stoning rape victims and not allowing girls an education is the same as asking your government not to spend money at a rate that requires borrowing $.40 on the dollar?


No, but forcing a rape victim to bear the child her rapist "helped" her conceive - against the woman's wishes - is condemning her to a lifetime of being reminded how little power she actually has over her body. Rape being a crime of power, that's a fate worse than death. Hyperbolic? Maybe, but it's true.

"Not allowing girls an education" is a preferable position to "not allowing anyone a decent education", actually. Not that I'd support choosing Muhamad al-Taqib as Secretary of Education, but neither would I support Falwell's kid.

"Asking your government to spend at a rate that requires borrowing" is not, in itself, a bad policy. How long that borrowing window will last, why we need to borrow (is it to buy Maseratis for the Executive branch, or are we rejiggering a healthcare system that represents 15-20% of GDP and fixing to add some 30 million people to that system?), and what we're spending on seem like important issues.

Is it overly reductive reasoning? Yup. Does the nuance of the statement reveal the intent behind it (namely, that both the Taliban and the Tea Party represent social moves backward)? Also yup.

You want people to stop comparing the Tea Party to the Taliban? Stop the Tea Party from favoring laws based on the same reasoning (my holy book/religious culture says so!).
 
2012-10-02 02:57:19 PM

Biness: geek_mars: I can't imagine anyone held any true hope of negotiating peace with the Taliban, but I'm glad it was attempted. I understand the necessities of war, but that doesn't mean peace isn't worth pursuing, even with a group like the Taliban.

[www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk image 165x247]
We shall have peace in our time.

Not disagreeing with your sentiment, but there can be no discussion with the taliban. There can be no peace between freedom and despotism. The trouble is we never fought this war with an eye towards winning it.


You can't win hearts and minds with guns and bombs. If we really want to demonstrate the virtues of freedom and individual liberty, we must lead by example. Ultimately though, we have to be willing to respect the sovereignty of other nations to govern as they wish. Besides, we have plenty of human rights issues to address right here at home.
 
2012-10-02 03:10:11 PM

Dr Dreidel: You want people to stop comparing the Tea Party to the Taliban? Stop the Tea Party from favoring laws based on the same reasoning (my holy book/religious culture says so!).


On the whole I agree that equating the Tea Party with the Taliban is a little unfair, although they do have a fair bit in common The Tea Party's closest equivalents and, you'd think, natural allies, worldwide are probably Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and the Alliance of Builders of Islamic Iran.
 
2012-10-02 03:22:27 PM

Reverend Monkeypants: vudukungfu: Crushinator: Wipe them out.... all of them.

Exactly.
Fark those motherfarking motherfarkers all to hell and piss on the ashes.
ANyone making a deal with them is a traitor, and a treasonous bastard, and should be hanged by the farking neck until dead, dead, dead.

FARK YOU FOR MAKING DEALS WITH THE TALIBAN, mother farkers.!!

Well, we'll have to start with the Reagan republicans then.
[whitenoiseinsanity.com image 750x499]
/as hot as a radioactive sheet of glass 

But yeah, at this point it's too late. They will always want to tear down civilization now so might as well remove them from the equation.


I agree with the idea that we *should* be negotiating with the Taliban but that is not a picture of Reagan meeting with the Taliban. The Taliban did not exist until about 10 years later and was formed as a response to the post Soviet civil war. It would be interesting to know who the Afghinies are that Reagan is meeting with. I believe one is Mohammad Nabi Mohammadi. Also if Gulbuddin Hekmatyar is not in that photo the must be at least one of his representatives there. Neither became part of the Taliban but neither really opposed them either.
 
2012-10-02 03:23:44 PM

Dr Dreidel: You want people to stop comparing the Tea Party to the Taliban? Stop the Tea Party from favoring laws based on the same reasoning (my holy book/religious culture says so!).


THIS.
 
2012-10-02 03:31:49 PM

Dr Dreidel:

You want people to stop comparing the Tea Party to the Taliban? Stop the Tea Party from favoring laws based on the same reasoning (my holy book/religious culture says so!).


Sorry, I believe you've been misled.

http://www.teaparty-platform.com/

100% Economic Policy. No abortion, no Jeebus, No fundies. In fact, nothing in there I wouldn't expect most people to either agree with, or at least grudgingly respect.

Are there some kooks in the Tea Party crowd? No doubt, but from what I've seen and read, your fears of women forced to have their rapists babies and creationism in schools seem founded more in media misrepresentations than actual facts.

Not a member, so, just saying.
 
2012-10-02 03:39:34 PM

Zeb Hesselgresser: You want people to stop comparing the Tea Party to the Taliban? Stop the Tea Party from favoring laws based on the same reasoning (my holy book/religious culture says so!).

Sorry, I believe you've been misled.


Yeah. Clearly.

// on their stated economic platform, I can support some of it
// if instead "you will know us by our deeds", the TP is a hive of no-cum and Jesusery
 
Displayed 50 of 124 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »





Report