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  
•       •       •

2460 clicks; posted to Main » on 02 Oct 2012 at 12:21 PM (2 years 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 03:47:21 PM  
Peace is that brief glorious moment in history when everybody stands around reloading -Thomas Jefferson.
 
2012-10-02 03:48:18 PM  

Dr Dreidel: 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


Indeed.

They may have STARTED as merely an economic party.

But they are now a pure theocratically-based organization, and anyone who thinks otherwise need only look at their support of gender equality laws, faith-based initiatives, religion in education, rabid attacks on Muslims, and other completely non-economic-based political motivations.

Anyone who thinks they are ONLY interested in economic policy is relying on misrepresentations.
 
2012-10-02 03:51:14 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.


That's that Mujahideen. The Taliban didn't exist for anotehr 10 years.
 
2012-10-02 03:58:55 PM  

Danger Mouse: That's that Mujahideen. The Taliban didn't exist for anotehr 10 years.


www.monitorcreative.co.uk
 
2012-10-02 04:03:59 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) anymore.


FTFY
 
2012-10-02 04:17:54 PM  

Giltric: 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


To a lot of Americans, all brown people are the same. Anytime I see some moran post that image, I am reminded of that.

Especially since the Taliban didn't form until 1995.
 
2012-10-02 04:25:36 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 do know how the Taliban formed, right? It had nothing to do with the US support.

tl;dr version of the history:
- Soviets invade Afghanistan and install puppet government
- Afghani (and other neighboring country residents) Mujihadeen start to fight back
- US, disliking the commies, helped the Mujihadeen out
- Soviets proceed to leave after the guerrilla warfare.
- US decides to stop the support and hightail it out of there
- Afghanistan turns into a lawless region, ruled by local warlords
- One asshole warlord proceeded to kidnap some local young boys and keep them as sex slaves
- Mullah Omar heard about it and recruited some locals, and proceeded to free the boys and kill the warlord
- They proceeded to gain power and you know the rest.

So if the US hadn't helped the Mujihadeen at all, the Taliban still would've likely formed. Even if the US had stayed in and helped rebuild, the Taliban would've likely formed (since they would view the US as invaders rather than the Soviets).
 
2012-10-02 04:35:31 PM  
i.imgur.com

Still waiting for the next RAMBO movie where he goes back to rejoin and wage war against America.
 
2012-10-02 04:43:19 PM  

machoprogrammer: 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 do know how the Taliban formed, right? It had nothing to do with the US support.

tl;dr version of the history:
- Soviets invade Afghanistan and install puppet government
- Afghani (and other neighboring country residents) Mujihadeen start to fight back
- US, disliking the commies, helped the Mujihadeen out
- Soviets proceed to leave after the guerrilla warfare.
- US decides to stop the support and hightail it out of there
- Afghanistan turns into a lawless region, ruled by local warlords
- One asshole warlord proceeded to kidnap some local young boys and keep them as sex slaves
- Mullah Omar heard about it and recruited some locals, and proceeded to free the boys and kill the warlord
- They proceeded to gain power and you know the rest.

So if the US hadn't helped the Mujihadeen at all, the Taliban still would've likely formed. Even if the US had stayed in and helped rebuild, the Taliban would've likely formed (since they would view the US as invaders rather than the Soviets).


If you ever saw the movie Charlie Wilson's War there is a very good special feature on the DVD explaining a lot of what happened in Afghanistan after the Soviets left. A lot of people in the intelligence community believe that Al Qaeda would have never gotten involved in Afghanistan if the U.S would have armed both sides in the Afghan civil war that broke out after the Soviets left. At the time this was something that was heavily suggested. They didn't and as a result the Tailban, which was out gunned and getting spanked, accepted Bin Laden's help in the war in return for providing him and Al Qaeda with refuge as they had just been expelled from the Sudan.  And as a result Al Qaeda got the Taliban involved in stuff that they had no intention of ever getting involved in as their only goal was to govern Afghanistan the way they wanted.
 
2012-10-02 04:44:01 PM  

machoprogrammer:
So if the US hadn't helped the Mujihadeen at all, the Taliban still would've likely formed. Even if the US had stayed in and helped rebuild, the Taliban would've likely formed (since they would view the US as invaders rather than the Soviets).


If you store grain, you have to deal wtih the rats.

Exterminate them or sleep with them.
Your choice.
 
2012-10-02 04:55:11 PM  
We can't afford to keep this war going forever. Get them to agree not to blow up our skyscrapers or planes and I'll give them Kabul for all I care. It's not like Karzai was all that better.
 
2012-10-02 04:56:11 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....


My entire point was that the Taliban is not an organized group, therefore negotiating with them would be futile. If its just a group of random dudes who pick up the Taliban name when it suits them, you're never going to get any kind of agreement in place. Nor will you ever fully wipe them out. We were making the same point.
 
2012-10-02 05:17:53 PM  

machoprogrammer: You do know how the Taliban formed, right? It had nothing to do with the US support.

tl;dr version of the history:
- Soviets invade Afghanistan and install puppet government
- Afghani (and other neighboring country residents) Mujihadeen start to fight back
- US, disliking the commies, helped the Mujihadeen out
- Soviets proceed to leave after the guerrilla warfare.
- US decides to stop the support and hightail it out of there
- Afghanistan turns into a lawless region, ruled by local warlords
- One asshole warlord proceeded to kidnap some local young boys and keep them as sex slaves
- Mullah Omar heard about it and recruited some locals, and proceeded to free the boys and kill the warlord
- They proceeded to gain power and you know the rest.


tl;dr of your tl;dr

- US armed fundamentalists in successful attempt to overthrow Afghan government
- Armed fundamentalists formed new Afghan government
 
2012-10-02 06:08:11 PM  

orbister: machoprogrammer: You do know how the Taliban formed, right? It had nothing to do with the US support.

tl;dr version of the history:
- Soviets invade Afghanistan and install puppet government
- Afghani (and other neighboring country residents) Mujihadeen start to fight back
- US, disliking the commies, helped the Mujihadeen out
- Soviets proceed to leave after the guerrilla warfare.
- US decides to stop the support and hightail it out of there
- Afghanistan turns into a lawless region, ruled by local warlords
- One asshole warlord proceeded to kidnap some local young boys and keep them as sex slaves
- Mullah Omar heard about it and recruited some locals, and proceeded to free the boys and kill the warlord
- They proceeded to gain power and you know the rest.

tl;dr of your tl;dr

- US armed fundamentalists in successful attempt to overthrow Afghan government
- Armed fundamentalists formed new Afghan government

1) US is always right.
2) If the US is wrong, see #1.


FTFY
 
2012-10-02 06:21:53 PM  

ZAZ: What I got from Joelogon's link is we should destroy Pakistan and Afghanistan will calm down.


That's a better plan than most I've seen here.
 
2012-10-02 06:35:18 PM  

Mighty_Joe: Reverend Monkeypants:

Well, we'll have to start with the Reagan republicans then.


Didn't study much history, did ya?
[2.bp.blogspot.com image 578x483]


Those guys knew the guys named "Taleban" ?
 
2012-10-02 06:38:53 PM  

weltallica: [i.imgur.com image 640x478]

Still waiting for the next RAMBO movie where he goes back to rejoin and wage war against America.


Truly, we messed with this wacko. Played games with them and falsified our intentions. We reneged on agreements, we gave the cold shoulder. Made and broke shady under-the-table business deals. Etc. Reap what you sow.
 
2012-10-02 09:25:10 PM  
US Fatalities due to Hostile Action in Afghanistan under George W. Bush, October 2001 - January 2009 (88 months): 424

US Fatalities due to Hostile Action in Afghanistan under Barack Obama, February 2009 - September 2012 (44 months): 1,269

So, Obama had us surge into Afghanistan, got three times as many Americans killed by the Taliban in half as much time . . . and utterly failed to achieve anything.

Kinda reminds me of his economic stimulus package, only this time he wasted lives instead of just money.
 
2012-10-03 12:00:53 AM  

Verzio: US Fatalities due to Hostile Action in Afghanistan under George W. Bush, October 2001 - January 2009 (88 months): 424

US Fatalities due to Hostile Action in Afghanistan under Barack Obama, February 2009 - September 2012 (44 months): 1,269

So, Obama had us surge into Afghanistan, got three times as many Americans killed by the Taliban in half as much time . . . and utterly failed to achieve anything.

Kinda reminds me of his economic stimulus package, only this time he wasted lives instead of just money.


And what is the body count for Iraq under each?
 
2012-10-03 12:00:54 AM  

Verzio: US Fatalities due to Hostile Action in Afghanistan under George W. Bush, October 2001 - January 2009 (88 months): 424

US Fatalities due to Hostile Action in Afghanistan under Barack Obama, February 2009 - September 2012 (44 months): 1,269

So, Obama had us surge into Afghanistan, got three times as many Americans killed by the Taliban in half as much time . . . and utterly failed to achieve anything.

Kinda reminds me of his economic stimulus package, only this time he wasted lives instead of just money.


Number of wars started in the Middle east:

Bush: 2

Obama: 0

The blood is still on Bush's hands.
 
2012-10-03 12:25:28 AM  

Zeb Hesselgresser: 100% Economic Policy. No abortion, no Jeebus, No fundies.


Uh huh.

We judge you by what you actually say and do, not your carefully-written press releases.

Let's look at the actual voting records and public statements of elected tea party candidates and see how that lines up with the "official position", shall we? Because when tea partiers get into office they're leading the charge for every fundie jeebus birther social conservative policy ever hatched.
 
2012-10-03 01:17:46 AM  
I learned everything I needed to know about the Taliban on 3-21-2001:

upload.wikimedia.org
 
2012-10-03 09:56:56 AM  

Ika7734: Number of wars started in the Middle east:

Bush: 2

Obama: 0


First, maybe you didn't notice, but Obama did start a war in the Middle East. Which had, among other things, the following consequences:

1. The northern part of Mali was taken over by Islamic terrorists that have been busy killing people and destroying centuries-old cultural artifacts
2. The democratic government of southern Mali was overthrown in a military coup by generals pissed off at #2.
3. A US ambassador was murdered.

But, hey, at least we killed off someone who Bush (of all people) had convinced, through diplomacy (of all things), to give up his WMD programs and his sponsorship of terrorism. I'm sure the fate of Qadaffi won't give Iranian leaders any pause as Obama tries to convince them, through diplomacy, to give up their WMD programs and sponsorship of terrorism.

When it comes to foreign policy, Obama makes Bush look competent. Which is, I admit, is pretty farking goddamn amazing, but, you know, not the sort of achievement that actually recommends a guy for a second term.

Second, Bush started the war in Afghanistan like FDR bombed Pearl Harbor. I seem to recall some farkers hijacking some planes and ramming them into buildings, and the entire world counting that as an act of war against the US.

So, you know, actual count Bush 1, Obama 1 on the wars started in the Middle East. Thanks for playing, though.

The blood is still on Bush's hands.

That's farking amazing. Obama changes policy such that Americans die in Afghanistan at six times the rate they did under Bush-gets more Americans killed in four years than would have died in twenty under Bush's approach-and you blame Bush. I guess Bush gave you the syphilis that's rotting your brain, too?

Here's a quarter. Hold it down on the train tracks with your belly button; when the train runs over it, it'll make the quarter super-flat.
 
2012-10-03 07:36:30 PM  

Verzio: Ika7734: Number of wars started in the Middle east:

Bush: 2

Obama: 0

First, maybe you didn't notice, but Obama did start a war in the Middle East. Which had, among other things, the following consequences:

1. The northern part of Mali was taken over by Islamic terrorists that have been busy killing people and destroying centuries-old cultural artifacts
2. The democratic government of southern Mali was overthrown in a military coup by generals pissed off at #2.
3. A US ambassador was murdered.

But, hey, at least we killed off someone who Bush (of all people) had convinced, through diplomacy (of all things), to give up his WMD programs and his sponsorship of terrorism. I'm sure the fate of Qadaffi won't give Iranian leaders any pause as Obama tries to convince them, through diplomacy, to give up their WMD programs and sponsorship of terrorism.

When it comes to foreign policy, Obama makes Bush look competent. Which is, I admit, is pretty farking goddamn amazing, but, you know, not the sort of achievement that actually recommends a guy for a second term.

Second, Bush started the war in Afghanistan like FDR bombed Pearl Harbor. I seem to recall some farkers hijacking some planes and ramming them into buildings, and the entire world counting that as an act of war against the US.

So, you know, actual count Bush 1, Obama 1 on the wars started in the Middle East. Thanks for playing, though.

The blood is still on Bush's hands.

That's farking amazing. Obama changes policy such that Americans die in Afghanistan at six times the rate they did under Bush-gets more Americans killed in four years than would have died in twenty under Bush's approach-and you blame Bush. I guess Bush gave you the syphilis that's rotting your brain, too?

Here's a quarter. Hold it down on the train tracks with your belly button; when the train runs over it, it'll make the quarter super-flat.


Um, no Obama didn't start Libya. That was a more British and French run UN deal at the behest of the Libyan rebellion.
I can concede on Bush starting Afghanistan, but it was his policies that kept us there so long.
Iraq was a complete lie and clusterfark.

Insults are usually the tactics of the desperate.
 
Displayed 24 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 »
On Twitter





In Other Media


Report