NationStates Jolt Archive

It seems to me that the Taliban will eventually win the current war in Afghanistan, just as they defeated the USSR. Is there anything that can be done to stop them? Are we running out of superpowers for them defeat - maybe we could get China to try their hand?

Start by *not* voting republican.
As everyone knows, by now, when Bush says "Not on my watch", what he really means is, "Not on my Rolex. Time is $."

Start by *not* voting republican.
As everyone knows, by now, when Bush says "Not on my watch", what he really means is, "Not on my Rolex. Time is $."
Or Democrat.

Is there anything that can be done to stop them?

Education and knowledge in the populace. That has always been the most effective weapon against religion. The quill, not the sword...

Education and knowledge in the populace. That has always been the most effective weapon against religion. The quill, not the sword...

Which requires a solid infrastructure and a, not only stable, but growing economic sector.

Education and knowledge in the populace. That has always been the most effective weapon against religion. The quill, not the sword...
*sigh* Yet another intolerant anti-religion quote from Fass, ignoring the many educated, AND religious people both in history and modern times, as well as ignoring the fact that many people would be intolerant towards Fass, religious or not, yet he still prattles on, acting without any respect for them, and wonders why he get none.

And yes, I realize that was an incredible run-on sentence, but I'm getting tired of Fass's intolerance. Okay?

Or Democrat.I'll task you to give me a democratic administration to say, so proudly, "Not on my watch" with such a horrible and humiliating track record.
Let's see it.

*sigh* Yet another intolerant anti-religion quote from Fass, ignoring the many educated, AND religious people both in history and modern times, as well as ignoring the fact that many people would be intolerant towards Fass, religious or not, yet he still prattles on, acting without any respect for them, and wonders why he get none.

And yes, I realize that was an incredible run-on sentence, but I'm getting tired of Fass's intolerance. Okay?

I thought it was a given that Andaras, Fass, LG, UB and a few others are constants - known quantity. For each thread you are 80% likely to predict the exact content of their posts. Bothering with replying, particularly where there is no comedy content, is folly on your part.

I'll task you to give me a democratic administration to say, so proudly, "Not on my watch" with such a horrible and humiliating track record.
Let's see it.

can't say I've seen 'em say something like that, but I can name some serious Democratic blunders, both in and out of wartime.

can't say I've seen 'em say something like that, but I can name some serious Democratic blunders, both in and out of wartime.

So they shagged a few too many women. So what? - penis envy?

Education and knowledge in the populace. That has always been the most effective weapon against religion. The quill, not the sword...

Quoted for truth. Also, CM, what's wrong with the quote? It is a frank expression of an opinion. Just because it happens to stir some emotion does not automatically make it intolerant.

Education. Education. Education. MENA is in dire need of it, and it is the only effective weapon in countering the indoctrination the populace receives from these religious nutjobs.

I thought it was a given that Andaras, Fass, LG, UB and a few others are constants - known quantity. For each thread you are 80% likely to predict the exact content of their posts. Bothering with replying, particularly where there is no comedy content, is folly on your part.
Andaras is a cut-and-paste poster, Fass just tries to play to his own ego as much as possible, LG is funny %100 of time (All who say otherwise will be pied), and I don't know UB too well.

can't say I've seen 'em say something like thatI didn't think so. Thank you for being honest.
but I can name some serious Democratic blunders, both in and out of wartime.Most certainly. I don't disagree with you there. Again, some of us are hard pressed to disprove the issue of voting the lesser of two evils.
And in this case, quantity AND quality prevail.

*sigh* Yet another intolerant anti-religion quote from Fass, ignoring the many educated, AND religious people both in history and modern times, as well as ignoring the fact that many people would be intolerant towards Fass, religious or not, yet he still prattles on, acting without any respect for them, and wonders why he get none.

And yes, I realize that was an incredible run-on sentence, but I'm getting tired of Fass's intolerance. Okay?

Are you saying we should respect the Taliban because they are religious?

*sigh* Yet another intolerant anti-religion quote from Fass, ignoring the many educated, AND religious people both in history and modern times, as well as ignoring the fact that many people would be intolerant towards Fass, religious or not, yet he still prattles on, acting without any respect for them, and wonders why he get none.

And yes, I realize that was an incredible run-on sentence, but I'm getting tired of Fass's intolerance. Okay?
And yet the paragon of knee-jerk ignorance here misses the point unsurprisingly that those who are uneducated and are poor dangerously cling to religion. There are very few tolerant faiths, none among them being monotheistic.

And yes, there have been many educated and religious people. That hasn't stopped them from being highly intolerant and highly dangerous. Dark ages? The Crusades? Opposition to AIDS support? Bombing abortion clinics? Etc.
Even if one is educated, if one adheres more to the moral principles of their religion than their education, their education is irrelevant.

Andaras is a cut-and-paste poster, Fass just tries to play to his own ego as much as possible, LG is funny %100 of time (All who say otherwise will be pied), and I don't know UB too well.

UB will only argue religion, as far as I've seen him... granted that was a while ago.

And as I've said... you can predict pretty accurately what they will say by the type/title of thread.

I don't know UB too well.We heard, from s/he, that they have a website ... not proven as of yet.
And .... iirc, they've been deated.
Maybe they'll be back as someone else.

Quoted for truth. Also, CM, what's wrong with the quote? It is a frank expression of an opinion. Just because it happens to stir some emotion does not automatically make it intolerant.

Education. Education. Education. MENA is in dire need of it, and it is the only effective weapon in countering the indoctrination the populace receives from these religious nutjobs.

It was the second sentence in your quote. "The best weapon against Religion". He's saying the those who are religious are uneducated, which is ignorant and intolerant.

I don't like indoctrination, but all religion is not indoctrination, although I'm sure FASS would argue otherwise. There are religious nut jobs, but there are also very intelligent, tolerant, sane religious followers.

I don't like indoctrination, but all religion is not indoctrination.

In a theocratic state it is.

It was the second sentence in your quote. "The best weapon against Religion". He's saying the those who are religious are uneducated, which is ignorant and intolerant.

I don't like indoctrination, but all religion is not indoctrination, although I'm sure FASS would argue otherwise. There are religious nut jobs, but there are also very intelligent, tolerant, sane religious followers.

I would have thought obvious which kind of religious people we are dealing with in this particular thread.

And since up until last century, the civilised West was still putting atheists in asylums, I'm pretty sure "weapon against religion" is quite a tame expression of an understandable, if vindictive, backlash.

Obviously we need to nuke Afghanistan.

Obviously we need to nuke Afghanistan.And, raze the Mount.

Obviously we need to nuke Afghanistan.

And Israel. And everything in between. And while we're at it, Pakistan too. The whole region is hopeless.

It was the second sentence in your quote. "The best weapon against Religion". He's saying the those who are religious are uneducated, which is ignorant and intolerant.

I don't like indoctrination, but all religion is not indoctrination, although I'm sure FASS would argue otherwise. There are religious nut jobs, but there are also very intelligent, tolerant, sane religious followers.

I understand your point. However, I take objection with the statement that all religion is not indoctrination. I'm struggling to think of any religion that does not - in one way or another - spoon-feed its followers the same type of intolerance you accuse Fass of. Whether its suggesting that their conception of "God" is the true one to the - let's face it - pretentious claim that they are somehow "chosen"...

Note, I'm talking about organized religion here. Not a set of philosophical beliefs. Organized. Religion.

Are you saying we should respect the Taliban because they are religious?
Nope. I never said that. I'm just saying that Being religious /=/ Uneducated.
And yet the paragon of knee-jerk ignorance here misses the point unsurprisingly that those who are uneducated and are poor dangerously cling to religion. There are very few tolerant faiths, none among them being monotheistic.

:rolleyes:

And yes, there have been many educated and religious people. That hasn't stopped them from being highly intolerant and highly dangerous. Dark ages?
The Dark ages was a time period, not an action,put into effect by a small group of scared Royalty who thought anything more complex then a lever was witchcraft. They were uneducated, to say the least (Note that many of the leaders of the day could barely write their own names)
The Crusades?
Religious nut jobs on both sides, mostly uneducated.
Opposition to AIDS support?
I didn't realize all religious people (Such as myself) were against AIDS support.
Bombing abortion clinics? Etc.

Once again, all?
Even if one is educated, if one adheres more to the moral principles of their religion than their education, their education is irrelevant.
:rolleyes:

Note, I'm talking about organized religion here. Not a set of philosophical beliefs. Organized. Religion.This was too clear-cut and coherent. Might not go over well.
:(

And Israel. And everything in between. And while we're at it, Pakistan too. The whole region is hopeless.

Ouch. That includes me. *sobs* :(

The whole region is hopeless.
Aye, there's the rub.

Ouch. That includes me. *sobs* :(

You could... move.;)

In a theocratic state it is.
But we don't live in a theocratic state, now do we?
I would have thought obvious which kind of religious people we are dealing with in this particular thread.

And since up until last century, the civilised West was still putting atheists in asylums, I'm pretty sure "weapon against religion" is quite a tame expression of an understandable, if vindictive, backlash.
We're past that now. Also, was it all religious people, or certain sects, hmm?
I understand your point. However, I take objection with the statement that all religion is not indoctrination. I'm struggling to think of any religion that does not - in one way or another - spoon-feed its followers the same type of intolerance you accuse Fass of. Whether its suggesting that their conception of "God" is the true one to the - let's face it - pretentious claim that they are somehow "chosen"...

Note, I'm talking about organized religion here. Not a set of philosophical beliefs. Organized. Religion.
Depends on what you mean by organized Religion.

Being religious /=/ Uneducated.You may be tasked on this as well. It will take a lot more time to explain it adequately, however, than the first task, should you take it.

*sigh* Yet another intolerant anti-religion quote from Fass,

So?

ignoring the many educated, AND religious people both in history and modern times,

I said it was the most effective weapon against religion we have. I did not say it was 100% effective, as knowledge does not always stamp out its antonymous nemesis of religion, because religion has two powerful sidekicks that it goes hand-in-hand with: self-delusion and wilful ignorance.

Nope. I never said that. I'm just saying that Being religious /=/ Uneducated.


There is statistically a correlation between religious belief and low levels of education.

There is statistically a correlation between religious belief and low levels of education.... and right here is where the tasking begins. *nods*

Aye, there's the rub.

Pity really. We owe that region/Islam the Italian Renaissance. But at the moment all the political power is concentrated in Wahhabi or radical Shi'a hands, the populace is poor and ignorant - and hopelessly exploited.

Come to think about it, the only difference between The US and the Middle East is the wealth factor, and the name of the religion.

You may be tasked on this as well. It will take a lot more time to explain it adequately, however, than the first task, should you take it.
Hmm? Could you word that sentence a bit more clearly?
So?



I said it was the most effective weapon against religion we have. I did not say it was 100% effective, as knowledge does not always stamp out its antonymous nemesis of religion, because religion has two powerful sidekicks that it goes hand-in-hand with: self-delusion and wilful ignorance.
Here we go again...
There is statistically a correlation between religious belief and low levels of education.
Also a correlation between low level of education and poverty. Therefore, most people who are poor need something to give them hope. Religion often gives the hope of paradise or heaven.

You could... move.;)

When I was 12, my dream was to move to either Germany or Sweden. But, honestly, give me one place in the world where an Arab wouldn't feel conspicuous..

Depends on what you mean by organized Religion.

Oh, please. I was wondering when that was going to come up.

For the purpose of this thread, let's restrict our discussion to the three so-called "Abrahamic" faiths: Judaism, Christianity, and Islam.

I know that is not entirely fair, as these are not the only "organized" religions, but let's just assume they are.

We're past that now. Also, was it all religious people, or certain sects, hmm?

Yes. All. Christian psychiatry held atheism as a mental illness. Just as it did homosexuality. And for all the moral highground and all the bullshit that is being served to us by the post-war West, Mengeler was tame compared to what Psychiatry did to some of these people 1600-1950.

Pity really. We owe that region/Islam the Italian Renaissance. But at the moment all the political power is concentrated in Wahhabi or radical Shi'a hands, the populace is poor and ignorant - and hopelessly exploited.

Come to think about it, the only difference between The US and the Middle East is the wealth factor, and the name of the religion.

http://i283.photobucket.com/albums/kk294/Tombombadil9/laugh_up_one__s_sleeve_by_DavedeHaa.gif

Here we go again...

Yup, seeing you fail to ever mount an argument is repetitious, but it exposes the vapidity of your posts most directly in a deliciously ironically circumspect fashion.

Hmm? Could you word that sentence a bit more clearly?
No need ... it's being demonstrated anywho. I supplemented only a post later.

Come to think about it, the only difference between The US and the Middle East is the wealth factor, and the name of the religion.
And that's pretty much what i suspect the rest of this thread is gonna touch on, even to the extent of "scary touching".

Oh, please. I was wondering when that was going to come up.

For the purpose of this thread, let's restrict our discussion to the three so-called "Abrahamic" faiths: Judaism, Christianity, and Islam.

I know that is not entirely fair, as these are not the only "organized" religions, but let's just assume they are.
Not quite what I meant. There are MANY sects of those religions, many of them different enough to be considered almost an entirely different religion. You have sects, or people in said sects that don't believe Homosexuality or abortion is a sin. You've got intolerant sects/people and tolerant sects/people.
Yes. All. Christian psychiatry held atheism as a mental illness. Just as it did homosexuality. And for all the moral highground and all the bullshit that is being served to us by the post-war West, Mengeler was tame compared to what Psychiatry did to some of these people 1600-1950.
:rolleyes: I'm sure. Link?

Seems like we have nothing to add in terms of strategy except bickering about religion. I think Fass is right, we need to find ways of providing education and through that economic stability through ways other than growing opium.

Pity really. We owe that region/Islam the Italian Renaissance. But at the moment all the political power is concentrated in Wahhabi or radical Shi'a hands, the populace is poor and ignorant - and hopelessly exploited.

Come to think about it, the only difference between The US and the Middle East is the wealth factor, and the name of the religion.

That is not fair either. A renaissance cannot be instigated by an outside force. It needs to come from within. That said, the world should NOT sit idly by while the spectre of Islamic radicalism looms on the horizon.

The political power is NOT concentrated in radical hands. These countries are absolute monarchies. The power is concentrated in the hands of their respective ruling families. They just strike the most vicious bargains with the religious establishment in the hopes that the latter will grant them some legitimacy.

The population is not entirely poor or ignorant, but the hands of those who aren't are tied. And, thanks to the past 5 years of meddling in regional affairs, a secular liberal movement 30 years in the making has been crushed by the coalition of the willing. Pity, really, since they could have been America's greatest ally.

Yup, seeing you fail to ever mount an argument is repetitious, but it exposes the vapidity of your posts most directly in a deliciously ironically circumspect fashion.

Fass:

1. Pot, don't call the kettle black.

2. Not all of us are as insecure as you are, and DON'T feel the need to constantly call a group delusional or ignorant.

When I was 12, my dream was to move to either Germany or Sweden. But, honestly, give me one place in the world where an Arab wouldn't feel conspicuous..

Well I guess Spain - people are familiar with Moors. France is quite good as well (being used to Algerians), and perhaps even Britain (being used to Pakistani), if you can deal with seeing the Daily Mail on news stands. Any western country that has had some contact with a Middle Eastern culture en masse and was better for it. Germans resent the large majority of Turks, so that's not such a good idea. Again, Spain or France would be your best bet.

Seems like we have nothing to add in terms of strategy except bickering about religion. I think Fass is right, we need to find ways of providing education and through that economic stability through ways other than growing opium.

Eh, I tried to bring it in earlier but people would rather bitch about religion. Education without context is useless, and that context has to be economic stability and growth. Neither of those can occur without a reliable infrastructure. You place improved education prior to economic stability, but I'd say it's the other way around. Education might lead to growth, but the stability is a necessity before acceptable levels of education can take root.

Seems like we have nothing to add in terms of strategy except bickering about religion. I think Fass is right, we need to find ways of providing education and through that economic stability through ways other than growing opium.
o.9
Wow, this is really early in the thread. Awesome. *bows*

And Israel. And everything in between. And while we're at it, Pakistan too. The whole region is hopeless.

Fuck it. Nuke Earth.*nod*

Fuck it. Nuke Earth.*nod*

*gets in a rocket to Mars* Ready when you are! :tongue:

*gets in a rocket to Mars* Ready when you are! :tongue:
Earth First!
.... we'll stripmine the other planets later.

Fass:

1. Pot, don't call the kettle black.

What is it with this most colonial misuse of that idiom?

2. Not all of us are as insecure as you are, and DON'T feel the need to constantly call a group delusional or ignorant.

As I alluded to, you confuse vapidity and lack of anything to say, with withholding opinion.

Eh, I tried to bring it in earlier but people would rather bitch about religion. Education without context is useless, and that context has to be economic stability and growth. Neither of those can occur without a reliable infrastructure. You place improved education prior to economic stability, but I'd say it's the other way around. Education might lead to growth, but the stability is a necessity before acceptable levels of education can take root.

Very true.

Another thing: you have to remember most countries in this region were never familiar with the concept of "statehood". The long process of nation-building that we saw in Europe post-Westphalia did NOT occur in the Arab World: it was shoved down MENA's throat by Europe after the break-up of the Ottoman Empire. Hence, most people are afraid of change because they see NO ALTERNATIVE to the status quo. The families that rule these countries are the SAME families that ruled them two centuries ago (i.e. before they became internationally-recognized states).

Ad Nihilo - Er, no on all three counts ;)... Although I've got nothing against Spain, France, or the United Kingdom, I've seen first-hand the friction between these communities and the local populace. Plus, three years of living in the good ol' USA has led to me holding a strong but completely irrational hatred for anything French.

Eh, I tried to bring it in earlier but people would rather bitch about religion. Education without context is useless, and that context has to be economic stability and growth. Neither of those can occur without a reliable infrastructure. You place improved education prior to economic stability, but I'd say it's the other way around. Education might lead to growth, but the stability is a necessity before acceptable levels of education can take root.

I take your point, but I think it is not that one thing follows another but that all three need each other to thrive.

:rolleyes: I'm sure. Link?

Foucault or any commentator on mental illness in the classical period, or even google are your friends ;)

Very true.

Another thing: you have to remember most countries in this region were never familiar with the concept of "statehood". The long process of nation-building that we saw in Europe post-Westphalia did NOT occur in the Arab World: it was shoved down MENA's throat by Europe after the break-up of the Ottoman Empire. Hence, most people are afraid of change because they see NO ALTERNATIVE to the status quo. The families that rule these countries are the SAME families that ruled them two centuries ago (i.e. before they became internationally-recognized states).
While this is true, there were many strong Arab Nationalist movements (well, one, I guess, in multiple iterations) over the last century or so. Unfortunately, those fell apart in the latter half of the 20th century, and especially died after Nasserism's failure.
I take your point, but I think it is not that one thing follows another but that all three need each other to thrive.

I don't see how any can come about without a safe and dependable infrastructure. And such an infrastructure is really interwoven with the concept of a stable economy. I would definitely say the others follow these first two necessities.

Have to go to work, will return this thread later if it remains focused on this much more interesting topic rather than watching Fass and CM bitch at each other.

What is it with this most colonial misuse of that idiom?

I called you a hypocrite. That's what that idiom means. Kat's said it to you too, and you accused her of being wrong as well. So why don't step down off that high horse and admit you're wrong, eh?
As I alluded to, you confuse vapidity and lack of anything to say, with withholding opinion.
And you avoid the comment yet again.

Foucault or any commentator on mental illness in the classical period, or even google are your friends ;)

Then why not give me a link? In the time it took to type that post you could've found one and gave me a hyperlink.

Ad Nihilo - Er, no on all three counts ;)... Although I've got nothing against Spain, France, or the United Kingdom, I've seen first-hand the friction between these communities and the local populace. Plus, three years of living in the good ol' USA has led to me holding a strong but completely irrational hatred for anything French.

Well I did try :P

Alternatively, Egypt ;) (which escaped my initial designation)

I called you a hypocrite.

Yes, you tried to, that much I could ascertain. But you see, you failed because the situation in which you did so did not grant you the opportunity to do so in a well supported fashion. So, you used an idiom where it was not verisimilar. Thus, you misused it. Much like Kat, yes.

And you avoid the comment yet again.

I cannot avoid what you never furnish.

Then why not give me a link? In the time it took to type that post you could've found one and gave me a hyperlink.

Read Madness and Civilisation if you are really interested.

Yes, you tried to, that much I could ascertain. But you see, you failed because the situation in which you did so did not grant you the opportunity to do so in a well supported fashion. So, you used an idiom where it was not verisimilar. Thus, you misused it. Much like Kat, yes.



I cannot avoid what you never furnish.
Fass, at this point you're just drawing this out, refusing to answer any counterarguments with little reason, all because you can see that you're wrong. You are, in your own words, being willfully ignorant. Now, if you'll excuse me, I'll find someone willing to admit that they aren't #1 in every possible way.

I don't see how any can come about without a safe and dependable infrastructure. And such an infrastructure is really interwoven with the concept of a stable economy. I would definitely say the others follow these first two necessities.

Have to go to work, will return this thread later if it remains focused on this much more interesting topic rather than watching Fass and CM bitch at each other.

Maybe I am biased because I am involved with adult education. I can think of a few examples where literacy and vocational classes with women have taken place in very unstable situations. The results being the women were able to improve their local economy. I will concede that these small positive effects are very fragile and easily wiped out.

counterarguments

You have yet to furnish them. My patience has been surprisingly long this evening. I just ran out, though, and will file this as yet another one of your failures.

Fuck it. Nuke Earth.*nod*

Indeed, I can't wait to get a mohawk and live amongst the rubble with my tribe. It'd be like the 80's again...except a bit fatter.

Indeed, I can't wait to get a mohawk and live amongst the rubble with my tribe. It'd be like the 80's again...except a bit fatter.

Yay! :D

The Dark ages was a time period, not an action,put into effect by a small group of scared Royalty who thought anything more complex then a lever was witchcraft. They were uneducated, to say the least (Note that many of the leaders of the day could barely write their own names)
The leaders were not necessarily the educated ones, the clergy were.

Religious nut jobs on both sides, mostly uneducated.
You mean like the Pope? :rolleyes:
The clergy were the best educated people in the world.

I didn't realize all religious people (Such as myself) were against AIDS support.

Once again, all?

:rolleyes:
I don't need to prove all. I just need to prove that any of them are educated to counter your statement.


I don't like indoctrination, but all religion is not indoctrination, although I'm sure FASS would argue otherwise. There are religious nut jobs, but there are also very intelligent, tolerant, sane religious followers.
Lulwrong. Religion doesn't work without indoctrination. Maybe you don't quite understand what indoctrination is, not that you need to given that religious mandates are called doctrines.

So why don't step down off that high horse and admit you're wrong, eh?
+
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=13869116&postcount=63
Erm ... what? I'm kinda curious if you really know all that much about him.
Oh well ... hope springs eternal. :)

It seems to me that the Taliban will eventually win the current war in Afghanistan, just as they defeated the USSR.

Taliban did not defeat USSR.

Taliban won't "eventually win" the current war.

Maybe I am biased because I am involved with adult education. I can think of a few examples where literacy and vocational classes with women have taken place in very unstable situations. The results being the women were able to improve their local economy. I will concede that these small positive effects are very fragile and easily wiped out.

Can you be more specific? By unstable situations do you mean that these women live in an urban ghetto or some such or that the nation they live in is actually lacking in infrastructure and economic stability?

Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying education doesn't help grow an economy and better a society, but a highly educated individual living in a remote area with iffy access to electricity and communication and a few crappy roads isn't likely to benefit from that increased knowledge. Even if that person were to live in an urban environment, if there is little trade going on because of a non-stable economy, an education will be hard to put to use. Furthermore, if we are to provide popular access to that education, this becomes even more difficult without that aforementioned economic stability and infrastructure.

Start by *not* voting republican.
As everyone knows, by now, when Bush says "Not on my watch", what he really means is, "Not on my Rolex. Time is $."

Barack Obama who opposed the war in Iraq, opposed the surge, supports to bring the troops home. Now supports to bring the troops home, wants to fight the war on terror in Afghanistan. Which would require a surge by the same troops or other troops. I wonder how his bring the troops home at any cost supporters feel about that one? Perhaps they dont believe him? This guy Obama who would never say or do anything bad unlike his opponents. Who would never take a position on any issues just to get your votes is a fake. Obama is not the saint of change you can believe in he claims to be.

On Israel and other subjects.

Would meet with unfriendly world leaders without preconditions after preparations with conditions, lol.

I hope and trust independent voters are beginning to see the fake Obama is.

Barack Obama who opposed the war in Iraq, opposed the surge, supports to bring the troops home. Now supports to bring the troops home, wants to fight the war on terror in Afghanistan. Which would require a surge by the same troops or other troops. I wonder how his bring the troops home at any cost supporters feel about that one? Perhaps they dont believe him? This guy Obama who would never say or do anything bad unlike his opponents. Who would never take a position on any issues just to get your votes is a fake. Obama is not the saint of change you can believe in he claims to be.All i need to is to remind you of one thing: Obama is not representative of all democrats, nor all functions of government. Rail against him as you like, oh well. And to the point, i gladly give you the last 8 fucking miserable years of republican empiricism of which you can judge, again, the point of my statement. Ask myself and Sumamba Buwhan if we know anything or can point you in anyway to a further clarification as to why voting republican typically has disastrous results to the United States of America. We had *quite* a lively thread about it. You should check it out in the archives yourself sometime, being independent-minded and all.

I hope and trust independent voters are beginning to see the fake Obama is.As compared to, of course, ignoring the fake that McCain is? I *am* an independent, do you think i might have a reason why? I'll ask that you show what you really mean by "independent" in this context, so it doesn't appear that you're only practicing character disparagement for the greater good of the GOP.

It seems to me that the Taliban will eventually win the current war in Afghanistan, just as they defeated the USSR.

....umm....

The Taliban didn't fight the USSR in Afghanistan, mostly because it didn't exist. The Mujahideen did.

Are you under the impression that every radical muslim in the history of the Middle East was a member of the Taliban? You realize, I hope, that middle eastern politics are a bit more complicated than "friend" and "taliban terrorist"

Corrected and Updated Post:
Barack Obama who opposed the war in Iraq, opposed the surge, supports to bring the troops home. Now supports to bring the troops home, wants to fight the war on terror in Afghanistan. Which would require a surge by the same troops or other troops. I wonder how his bring the troops home at any cost supporters feel about that one? Perhaps they dont believe him?

This guy Obama who would never say or do anything bad unlike his opponents. Who would never take a position on any issues just to get your votes is a fake. Obama is not the saint of change you can believe in he claims to be.

On Israel and other subjects.

Would meet with unfriendly world leaders without preconditions after preparations with conditions, lol.

Obama as a possible USA President, would so call win the war in Afghanistan the same way President Bush would, the same way a President McCain would, the same way any American President would, by a surge of American troops.

I hope and trust independent voters are beginning to see the fake Obama is.

My last post on our democratic interchange of views.

wow, thanks annonymous guy on the internet, I have seen the light!

:rolleyes:

wow, thanks annonymous guy on the internet, I have seen the light!

:rolleyes:

As well you should, lol. My last post on our democratic interchange of views, lol.

As well you should, lol. My last post on our democratic interchange of views, lol.The fact that this isn't actually your "last post", and that in your "last post" you said it would be, and the fact that evidence of the "last post" before this "last post" hovers just above the "last post" i'm replying to, here, might just indicate you not being particularly .... oh whatever.
Welcome to NSG. We'll love you.

The fact that this isn't actually your "last" post, and that in your "last post" you said it would be, and the fact that evidence of the "last post" before this "last post" hovers just above the "last post" i'm replying to, here, might just indicate you not being particularly .... oh whatever.
Welcome to NSG. We'll love you.

When I said my last post on our democratic interchange of views. I was refering to the issue, not the after effects of the issue, lol. At first I thought Neo Art was refering to my post to you, lol, then to someone else, then to my post, lol.

If Neo Art was refering to my post to you, then my post to Neo Art stands, who ever Neo Art is, lol. sorry for the confusion, lol.

Welcome to NSG. We'll love you.I am the most disliked, most ignored poster on NSG for my views, once in a while you all throw a bone at me, lol. Thanks. Miami Shores.

My last post on our democratic interchange of views on the after effects of the issue, lol.

I think I made an excellent point on Obama.

Now you all back to the issues.

I am the most disliked, most ignored poster on NSG for my viewsNot so much, no. AFAIK, you're not deat-rash. There's a lot of sincere assholes here.

My last post on our democratic interchange of views on the after effects of the issue, lol.Three things - one, this might end up a sig or something.
Two, it's good to engage in your democratic leanings. :)
Three ....
Last edited by Miami Shores; Today at 5:56 AM.
What what?

I don't think any taliban victory is likely in Afghanistan. It seems much more likely, that as Iraq continues to gain stability, US forces would be redeployed to Afghanistan, at which point the Taliban would most likely be ousted from Afghanistan. However, there is still the problem of them being in Pakistan, but that's another issue all together.

....umm....

The Taliban didn't fight the USSR in Afghanistan, mostly because it didn't exist. The Mujahideen did.

Are you under the impression that every radical muslim in the history of the Middle East was a member of the Taliban? You realize, I hope, that middle eastern politics are a bit more complicated than "friend" and "taliban terrorist"

Sorry that was just carelessness on my part. I still think my point stands - that we are going to lose this war as the USSR did with the Mujahideen. The situation following the defeat of the USSR allowed the Taliban to take control because they provided more stability than a bunch of squabbling warlords. Now if/when this war in Afghanistan is lost to the Taliban - their sense of invulnerability (that no outside superpower can win a war in Afghanistan) will mean they may become even more extreme than they were before.

I don't think any taliban victory is likely in Afghanistan. It seems much more likely, that as Iraq continues to gain stability, US forces would be redeployed to Afghanistan, at which point the Taliban would most likely be ousted from Afghanistan. However, there is still the problem of them being in Pakistan, but that's another issue all together.

Sorry I must have missed the report saying Iraq was suddenly stable. If you think the reason why the USSR lost, but the US can win, is simply around troop numbers I think you are wrong.

Can you be more specific? By unstable situations do you mean that these women live in an urban ghetto or some such or that the nation they live in is actually lacking in infrastructure and economic stability?

Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying education doesn't help grow an economy and better a society, but a highly educated individual living in a remote area with iffy access to electricity and communication and a few crappy roads isn't likely to benefit from that increased knowledge. Even if that person were to live in an urban environment, if there is little trade going on because of a non-stable economy, an education will be hard to put to use. Furthermore, if we are to provide popular access to that education, this becomes even more difficult without that aforementioned economic stability and infrastructure.

I was thinking of some projects in countries like Uganda, and a few other African countries that have been involved in war. I am not talking about highly educated individuals - but women who have had no access to any form of education. Basic literacy work combined with some practical skills training enable people to start small businesses that they would otherwise not be equipped to do. Things like small scale market gardening, bicycle repair etc. I tend to go with the idea that small enterprises are the basis of improving a countries economy and giving an incentive to maintain stability.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying education doesn't help grow an economy and better a society, but a highly educated individual living in a remote area with iffy access to electricity and communication and a few crappy roads isn't likely to benefit from that increased knowledge.
I think you're gravely mistaken - and furthermore confuse high education with, well, teaching things a man needs to know to improve the quality of his or her life in the situation he or she is.

Of course, teaching someone in rural Africa, Middle East about HTML, Ajax or Web 2.0 isn't going to be of much use but make them learn sanitation, rudimentary medicine & engineering, biology (namely agriculture & sustainable developement), social sciences, cultural history, philosophy and you most certainly can improve the quality of life in the region.

The Taliban will not re-conquer Afganistan. We Canadians will defeat them with our superior military equipment, our plentiful intel, and our complete bemusement at the poppy problem.

Sorry I must have missed the report saying Iraq was suddenly stable. If you think the reason why the USSR lost, but the US can win, is simply around troop numbers I think you are wrong.

Nope, I certainly didn't mention the USSR. I think they lost because there was a large anti-USSR movement in the region, with fighters from many places (such as saudi arabia, like where Osama bin Laden is from) coming to fight the soviet union, not to mention all the weapons, and probably funds we gave them. None of those exist today, although to a smaller degree there is probably fighters from different areas and anti-USA sentiment. So unless the USSR or some other power with a lot of cash on hand is helping them out, then it certainly isn't the same situation.

However, we also have better technology than the Russians did 30 years ago, meanwhile our enemies are probably using much the same technology that they were 30 years ago.

Besides which, we had ousted most of their forces from the country, and considering that the commanders there have requested additional troops, I'd assume that they know better than either of us and that those troops would make a difference.

right now there are 55,000 foreign troops in Afghanistan (http://www.voanews.com/english/archive/2008-01/2008-01-15-voa69.cfm?CFID=18323379&CFTOKEN=29127235), before the surge in iraq there was 130,000 american troops there (http://www.iht.com/articles/2007/02/09/news/afghan.php), if you don't think that tripling your military presence somewhere will have an effect, well I don't know what to say to that I guess.

edit: also, I guess you did miss the report, check under June 2008 http://www.defenselink.mil/home/features/Iraq_Reports/

"all major violence indicators reduced 40-80% from pre-surge levels" and "civilian deaths are 75% lower than July 2007"

Sorry I must have missed the report saying Iraq was suddenly stable. If you think the reason why the USSR lost, but the US can win, is simply around troop numbers I think you are wrong.

I think probably the reason the NATO could win in Afganistan and the USSR couldn't was because the USSR relied on mass infantry tatics as a method of counter-insurgency. Because we all know that's going to work.

As a Christian grad student, I COULD make a claim that throughout history, clergy were the educated ones and without them, we would lose TONS of records that are extremely important to history.... I COULD make a claim that Christians are educated today.... I COULD make all sort of arguments about how foolish the athiests on this thread are being, but I'm not going to waste my time. It's like trying to telling clay to turn itself into a brick... It just doesn't work.

I was thinking of some projects in countries like Uganda, and a few other African countries that have been involved in war. I am not talking about highly educated individuals - but women who have had no access to any form of education. Basic literacy work combined with some practical skills training enable people to start small businesses that they would otherwise not be equipped to do. Things like small scale market gardening, bicycle repair etc. I tend to go with the idea that small enterprises are the basis of improving a countries economy and giving an incentive to maintain stability.
Ah, then yes...I agree with that. When I think of increasing levels of education, I think more in terms of increasing breadth and then depth. Maybe it's because that's the system I'm used to in America, I don't know.

But, yes, vocational type training is necessary to creating an infrastructure and stabilizing an economy, I'd say.
I think you're gravely mistaken - and furthermore confuse high education with, well, teaching things a man needs to know to improve the quality of his or her life in the situation he or she is.

Of course, teaching someone in rural Africa, Middle East about HTML, Ajax or Web 2.0 isn't going to be of much use but make them learn sanitation, rudimentary medicine & engineering, biology (namely agriculture & sustainable developement), social sciences, cultural history, philosophy and you most certainly can improve the quality of life in the region.

Yes, I did conflate the two, you're right. I consider setting up the basics as including teaching the type of specialized training that is being implied.

Like I said, when I first read Rambhutan's reply, I missed the vocational classes part. I agree that this type of training is incredibly important. But, of what you said, the social sciences, cultural history and philosophy...while I have great respect for those fields (hell, if I didn't, I'd have wasted a whole lot of time during the last four and a half years of my life), I do recognize that those are part of a growth phase in a country rather than a stabilizing phase. Important? Yes, but in an unstable environment it becomes hard justifying the time and energy spent on that type of learning as compared to learning irrigation techniques and road construction.

... I think they lost because there was a large anti-USSR movement in the region, with fighters from many places (such as saudi arabia, like where Osama bin Laden is from) coming to fight the soviet union, not to mention all the weapons, and probably funds we gave them. None of those exist today...


You are living in fantasy land. There is huge anti-US and anti-British feeling in Afghanistan. The Taliban also has fighters coming from Pakistan, Chechnya, Saudi Arabia...

As for your advanced weapons - it didn't do the USSR any good and at the time the Afghans weapons were probably more than thirty years out of date.

Opium will fund them courtesy of western heroin users, as will money from supporters in other Sunni countries.

It seems to me that the Taliban will eventually win the current war in Afghanistan, just as they defeated the USSR. Is there anything that can be done to stop them? Are we running out of superpowers for them defeat - maybe we could get China to try their hand?

If we continue to allow them to have safe refuge in Pakistan, yes, the moment NATO leaves, the place will be taken over by them.

I don't think it's a realistic hope that you could eliminate their havens in Pakistan (for one, the Pakistani government won't go along with it, neither will the Pakistani ISI who created the Taliban, nor will half the people in Pakistan).

Fight them in their Pakistani camps, and they'll just retreat further into Pakistan.

You would have to destroy Pakistan and annihilate half or more of the population to eliminate the Taliban.

Fighting them in their Pakistani camps is Obama's plan. I don't see that as a realistic one, and more of a "quagmire" than any possible outcome in Iraq (which seems to have become an un-quagmire according to the AP).

Well, Pakistan has done great things against the Talibans, isn't the ISI who captured the most of Al-Qaïda operatives ?
The Pakistani Army isn't fighting regurlary against Talibans ?

Winning in Afghanistan would need large surges, indeed.

And this fight is far more important than the Iraki fatal error.

Well, Pakistan has done great things against the Talibans, isn't the ISI who captured the most of Al-Qaïda operatives ?
The Pakistani Army isn't fighting regurlary against Talibans ?

Winning in Afghanistan would need large surges, indeed.

And this fight is far more important than the Iraki fatal error.

The ISI created the Taliban.

The Taliban grew too powerful for the ISI to control. Many within the ISI are actually either sympathetic to the Taliban or actual members of the Taliban.

The ISI cannot control it - and neither can the Pakistani Army. There is fighting, occasional captures, but not anything remarkable.

It was the CIA who captured most of the al-Q operatives, usually without the knowledge of Pakistan or against their will.

If you knew how much most of Pakistan was involved with the Taliban, you would realize that Obama's strategy involves the invasion and subjugation of Pakistan (the logical necessity to subdue the Taliban after Obama's "attack them in their bases in Pakistan").

but I'm getting tired of Fass's intolerance. Okay?
It's interesting how those who demand tolerance of their lifestyle are often less than tolerant of other things.

It's interesting how those who demand tolerance of their lifestyle are often less than tolerant of other things.

Which only proves that given the right target, everyone is an intolerant bigot.

The ISI created the Taliban.

The Taliban grew too powerful for the ISI to control. Many within the ISI are actually either sympathetic to the Taliban or actual members of the Taliban.

The ISI cannot control it - and neither can the Pakistani Army. There is fighting, occasional captures, but not anything remarkable.

It was the CIA who captured most of the al-Q operatives, usually without the knowledge of Pakistan or against their will.

If you knew how much most of Pakistan was involved with the Taliban, you would realize that Obama's strategy involves the invasion and subjugation of Pakistan (the logical necessity to subdue the Taliban after Obama's "attack them in their bases in Pakistan").

I'm quite aware of the fact that there is lots of fundamentalists in Pakistan.
They are also not all Talibans, and sometimes are opponents to them...because of ethnical bloodshed.

About the fact that it is the CIA who get most of Al Qaida prisonners, it's CIA claim, I don't see why I should trust them... ISI was involved in the creation of the Talibans and many ISI were still involved (and still they are ), so it's not surprising they have far more sucess against them than outsiders who don't understand anything about a country and a culture.

About the fightings between Pakistani soldiers and Talebans, I think that you are really understimating it...hundreds have died on both sides.

I don't know the plan of Obama about Pakistan and don't think it's the subject here :]

It seems to me that the Taliban will eventually win the current war in Afghanistan, just as they defeated the USSR.
How so?

Total NATO casualties are extremely low considering how long we've been fighting there, and they've been forced out of urban environments.
Is there anything that can be done to stop them?
Proper cross-border raids into Warizstan(?) where they're currently based, instead of just irritating the public by setting predators on the odd militant here and there. Put a human face to the people attacking warlords there. Might stop people calling for their deaths if the public can see them not entirely being arseholes.

Put more effort into the civilian infrastructure in Afghanistan, so that we are providing something genuinely useful to the population.

Stop destroying so many opium fields. If that's peoples' only source of income, removing it isn't going to make their our friends. Try to replace it with something better, certainly, but until that time, don't starve people over something which isn't particularly their fault.
Are we running out of superpowers for them defeat - maybe we could get China to try their hand?
I think China's happy not getting involved in this particular conflict. Wise.

Anyone else think the Afghanis only beat the Soviet Union because we were funding them and providing them with CIA assistance?

Okay, so George Bush made some bad decisions. I don't think he's representative of Republicans. Usually when they say something like that they mean it. In fact, usually it's the Democrats who mess up military operations...

See Carter, Jimmy
See Reagan, Ronald
See Iranian Hostage Crisis
Nixon, much?

Nixon, much?

See, I missed the last 7 pages and edited the post. :D

Nixon... you go into office with a war started by a Democrat already being fought... you realize public opinion is against it and start to pull out...

I think Barack Obama (if elected) will still be much more highly thought of than Bush, even if he screws up the pull out in Iraq as bad as Nixon and Ford did in Vietnam.

Anyone else think the Afghanis only beat the Soviet Union because we were funding them and providing them with CIA assistance?
No, they also had massive advantages such as their superior knowledge of the local areas, and were fighting against fairly demoralised Soviet conscripts who could see the end coming at home and had no real reason to fight, and more importantly die in Afghanistan for no visible effect.

No, they also had massive advantages such as their superior knowledge of the local areas, and were fighting against fairly demoralised Soviet conscripts who could see the end coming at home and had no real reason to fight, and more importantly die in Afghanistan for no visible effect.

I would argue that Russian air force would have been a determining factor to the war had we not provided the Mujahideen with Stinger missiles. War is rarely solely about the ground troops: no matter how unaware of the area or demoralized they are.

And in this case, quantity AND quality prevail.

Sadly, this isn't the case. Having a Tickle-Me-Obama in the White House, who spouts "We need change!" every time someone touches just the right spot, doesn't meet the needs of this country.

As with the last election, we're pretty much screwed in this one. McCain's no better than Obama.

As for Democratic blunders - really, all we need to do is look in history - Nixon alone provides as much fodder as George W. Bush. Neither side is innocent or blameless here.

So, this year we have our choice - Tickle-Me-Obama, or Rambo McCain. I'll write in my own candidate in November, I think.

I would argue that Russian air force would have been a determining factor to the war had we not provided the Mujahideen with Stinger missiles.
Well seeing as the USSR lost very, very few planes to Stingers, and didn't lose a single Hind to a frontal blow from a Stinger, I'd disagree.

They never shot down very many planes, and the vast majority of helicopters were downed by 14.5mm AA fire.
War is rarely solely about the ground troops: no matter how unaware of the area or demoralized they are.
It is when you're fighting in such shitty terrain against guerillas.

No, they also had massive advantages such as their superior knowledge of the local areas, and were fighting against fairly demoralised Soviet conscripts who could see the end coming at home and had no real reason to fight, and more importantly die in Afghanistan for no visible effect.

Which is why I think they will win again. NATO troops will eventually get demoralised because there will be no discernible progress in the war.

But, honestly, give me one place in the world where an Arab wouldn't feel conspicuous..

Dearborn.

Which is why I think they will win again. NATO troops will eventually get demoralised because there will be no discernible progress in the war.
I don't know, it's such a shithole at the moment that almost anything that gets done is big progress, and I think that helps to keep people cheery.

Yeah i dont think hiding out in Mountain Caves counts as winning...more like turtling, lol...Taliban and their n00b tactics, lol...

Theyre just benifiting from our distraction in Iraq, in a year or two its lookin like we're gonna come to our senses, then the Talibanll be back in the spot they were in 6 years ago, and eventually will be snuffed out completely...

It's interesting how those who demand tolerance of their lifestyle are often less than tolerant of other things.

I think you're getting different meanings of 'tolerance' mixed up. Fass demands 'tolerance' in the sense of equality before the law, but he'd be the first to tell you that he doesn't give a damn what people think of him (which falls under the definition of 'tolerance' that you're using). Unless Fass is actually advocating legal sanctions against religion then there's no hypocirsy.

Yeah i dont think hiding out in Mountain Caves counts as winning...more like turtling, lol...Taliban and their n00b tactics, lol...



Just like those pesky Viet Cong in their tunnels...

Education and knowledge in the populace. That has always been the most effective weapon against religion. The quill, not the sword...
*sigh* Yet another intolerant anti-religion quote from Fass, ignoring the many educated, AND religious people both in history and modern times, as well as ignoring the fact that many people would be intolerant towards Fass, religious or not, yet he still prattles on, acting without any respect for them, and wonders why he get none.

And yes, I realize that was an incredible run-on sentence, but I'm getting tired of Fass's intolerance. Okay?

Axctually, Fass is right -- one of Al Qaeda's despicable tactics is blowing up schools to try and forced people to join them.


can't say I've seen 'em say something like that, but I can name some serious Democratic blunders, both in and out of wartime.
"Let's order a couple guys to rob the democratic party headquarters and then lie about it udner oath!"
"Let's pardon the president who resigned to avoid being thrown out of office!"
"Let's deny that the USSR dominates eastern europe even though everyone else claims they do!"
"Let's stupidly believe that lowering taxes for the rich will help the poor even though siply lowering taxes for the poor will be much more effective!"
"Let's make the poor people poorer, the rick people richer, and call it sound economics!"
"Let's sell arms to Iran and use the money to fund nicaraguan rebellion even though one helps a later enemy and the other violates international law!"
"Let's build up a government debt that it'll take decades to repay!"
"Let's quadruple thta huge government debt!"
"Let's choose a known moron as the VP... twice!"
"Let's refuse to raise taxes and then raise them anyway!"
"Let's invade Iraq but leave the psychopath who runs it in power!"

I'd add in the Dubya presidency, except it'd triple the list's size...

Just like those pesky Viet Cong in their tunnels...

Well, the Viet Cong had the support of the Population...I hear that the Afghans hate the Taliban...

I think its more like Robes Pierre in the French Revolution, theyre only in power long as theyre killing things, lol...

It seems to me that the Taliban will eventually win the current war in Afghanistan, just as they defeated the USSR. Is there anything that can be done to stop them? Are we running out of superpowers for them defeat - maybe we could get China to try their hand?

The Taliban won't win unless you vote Obama.

Just thought I would anger the Obamites out there. It's good fun.

It's good fun.
= infantile
And not out of the ordinary.

Sadly, this isn't the case.Potato, potato.

The Taliban/Mujaheddin won before? According to my dad, the Arabs were piss poor at fighting when he was in Afganistan[1985-88], and the self-proclaimed-Mujaheddin I fought against in Chechnya were pretty poor at accomplishing anything too...

The Taliban/Mujaheddin won before? According to my dad, the Arabs were piss poor at fighting when he was in Afganistan[1985-88], and the self-proclaimed-Mujaheddin I fought against in Chechnya were pretty poor at accomplishing anything too...

Yes the USSR won a glorious victory and left of their own accord. :rolleyes:

What Arabs in Afghanistan?

The Taliban/Mujaheddin won before? According to my dad, the Arabs were piss poor at fighting when he was in Afganistan[1985-88], and the self-proclaimed-Mujaheddin I fought against in Chechnya were pretty poor at accomplishing anything too...

The Taliban didn't exist really until 1990.

Yes the USSR won a glorious victory and left of their own accord. :rolleyes:

What Arabs in Afghanistan?

The Arab Mujaheddin did barely any fighting, they just stayed around in their bases until the Soviets withdraw, so they could fight for control of the country.

i dont really see the taliban winning. the soviets lost because the afghans were united against a common enemy, had foreign support, and the soviet economy could not handle the extra burden in addition to maintaining their communist empire and the expensive Cold War.

The taliban is unpopular with the locals and is fighting not only a nation that has fought worse wars (see: Vietnam War, WWII Pacific Theatre, WWI), but also those they fought alongside with during the Soviet invasion.

i dont really see the taliban winning. the soviets lost because the afghans were united against a common enemy, had foreign support, and the soviet economy could not handle the extra burden in addition to maintaining their communist empire and the expensive Cold War.

The taliban is unpopular with the locals and is fighting not only a nation that has fought worse wars (see: Vietnam War, WWII Pacific Theatre, WWI), but also those they fought alongside with during the Soviet invasion.

The Taliban didn't exist during the Soviet occupation, not in any kind of monolithic way anyways. What fought the Soviets were the Afghan Mujaheddin, who broke up into the camps of rival warlords after the Soviets withdrew, causing a period of anarchy.

The Taliban were 'created' by the ISI (Pakistani Intelligence Agency) out of the camps of Pashtun tribes along the Afghani border (and the tribal areas of Pakistan), and they were meant to be a stablizing force in the region.

The people at first supported the Taliban because they brought order over the corruption and warlordism of the Mujaheddin, later on however they became batshit insane, beheading Shias, beating women in public, hanging homosexuals etc.

It seems to me that the Taliban will eventually win the current war in Afghanistan, just as they defeated the USSR. Is there anything that can be done to stop them?


The USA could send this guy.
http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=MKq7ushFlhk

Last time, he was helping the Talibans - then named Mujahedeen - who were obviously goodies because they fought against teh ebil ruskie kommiez.

John Rambo on a Mi-24... :hail:the sheer irony of it.

Well seeing as the USSR lost very, very few planes to Stingers, and didn't lose a single Hind to a frontal blow from a Stinger, I'd disagree.
.

Your disagreement doesn't change the reality. It is not necessary to shoot down many aircraft to force them to adopt safer, higher flight profiles. Without American style precision guided weapons, the Soviet aircraft lost much of their effectiveness. This effect is called "Suppression". Both sides knew this. Russians lost fewer aircraft to Stingers, Mujadeen lost fewer men to Russian aircraft.

If you speak to both Afghans and Pakistanis (not at the same time, please!) you will notice a very odd consensus: Each blames the other.

Afghanis consider the Taliban to be a foreign menace- if they include Afghans, they are illiterate simple country folk seduced by Saudi and Pakistani money and indoctrination.

Pakistanis blame the Afghans for being simple illiterate country folk, easily seduced by Saudi money and indoctrination, and if some of their illiterate country folk go the same way, well, it's to be understood from simple country folk.

There is such a vast cultural gap between the cosmpolitan, westernized middle class resident of Lahore and the Wazirstan goat farmer that the former barely recognizes the latter as a product of the same nation. They would rather consider them more like Afghanis that "leaked" across the border.

Joke told to me by a Pakistani: A plane is preparing to land at Kabul. The pilot announces "We are making our final approach for landing in Afghanistan. Please adjust your watch by setting it back 1000 years."

Probably much funnier to Pakistanis.

who says they are going to win?

The Taliban cant win because your forgetting about the invention of a great and powerful weapon that didnt commonly exist back in the 1980s.



Portable sattelite TV dishes. The poisonous spread of Western decadence is unstoppable at this point. They wont for long put up with strict forms of Islam when what women really want to do is buy a nice pair of new shoes in a stable environment and not have crazy people with guns running around in the streets. They eventually will simply refuse to wear the Niqab because eventually everyone will figure out the world has moved on. You cant put the Genie back in the bottle.

The Taliban cant win because your forgetting about the invention of a great and powerful weapon that didnt commonly exist back in the 1980s.



Portable sattelite TV dishes. The poisonous spread of Western decadence is unstoppable at this point. They wont for long put up with strict forms of Islam when what women really want to do is buy a nice pair of new shoes in a stable environment and not have crazy people with guns running around in the streets. They eventually will simply refuse to wear the Niqab because eventually everyone will figure out the world has moved on. You cant put the Genie back in the bottle.

Threadwin

We can only hope at least.

Threadwin

We can only hope at least.

Can't say. Indian soaps are wildly popular but there's already calls to ban TV by clerics.

Guns + beards would probably silence TV, if they come back to power.