Capitol Hill Blue Forums Political Issues Iraq & Afghanistan Reconciliation Agreement with the Taliban

>uniforms

It will be interesting to see if they become more of an Afghan Army, now that they have specialized weapons (that require training to use) and uniforms.

I heard that the Taliban guided the last Americans safely to the airport.

That crowd isn't much for uniforms and their weapon of choice is the AK47 because one gun will last a lifetime under adverse desert conditions.

I hope the best for the Taliban and I hope their leadership is strong enough to lead when times call for peacekeeping.

I'm not much for Muslim extremism, but if they are going to kill some of those ISIS a-holes, I'm all for it.

The Taliban is going to have to revise their understanding of the QuranIf they intend to be a better government than they have been in the past.

I'm not saying they are going to be better for Afghanistan. I'm saying "Let's you and them fight." The Taliban is pretty bad, but at least they have a set of strict rules. ISIS is just pure evil. What they did to the Yazidi is horrendous.

I continue to find the term "war", in regards to Afghanistan. When there is war there is something to win. I know, we claimed victory several times but I continued to ask my elected what, exactly, were we going to win against who and received no response (well, except to dun me for money). Were we at war with the Taliban? Given the simple fact that Afghanistan seems to be the home of a LOT of different extremist groups perhaps were were warring against them all? As far as I can tell our war was to 'civilize' Afghanistan, we just didn't say that out loud so as not to upset any that vote over here. We, basically, went to war to 'help' and managed to slaughter a fair number of civilians whilst 'helping' them.

I repeat - anybody who we 'help' we also tend to also kill. (and, in some quarters are damned happy to brag on it)

That’s a nice, brief, understandable definition; I certainly won’t argue with it.

But I would add a second definition: whenever we send armed citizens into conflict, many of the rest of our citizens, particularly family members, and very particularly “gold star” families, will call that a war as well.

(This one holds, I think, for everything since Korea.)

War is often not the grand and glorious endeavor it is made out to be. I'm not sure that anybody has ever really "won" a war.

We didn't go to Afghanistan to win. We went for revenge.

And what we got was an extreme case of something like Montezuma's Revenge (metaphorically speaking).

Yep, that's what started it. We did that and killed a lot of civilians whilst doing the deed. But, after 20 years? Who knows what the hell we were doing over there. I can remember the good old days when the generals were concerned about 'blooding' the troops. Then they got the Vietnam thing to "blood' the troops. We now have an army that has been "blooded, and it only took the lives of thousands of our own and 3 so called wars to do it in. We went to war and we lost our shirts, every time but we blooded the troops, killed thousands, and didn't win a damn thing. If war was a financial endeavor I would suggest that, by this time, we would have been completely bankrupt and done.

What's really interesting is that, in all cases, BOTH parties supported our efforts and everybody is now spouting nonsense like we have learned our lesson and won't do anything like that again. The problem is that we said exactly the same thing after each little adventure.

Little something wrong here, I think.