NationStates Jolt Archive

THE Taliban called on US President Barack Obama to close all "evil" US detention centres for militants, "completely withdraw" from Iraq and Afghanistan and "stop defending Israel".

The message, a copy of which was obtained from the SITE Intelligence Group, called on Mr Obama to take these steps to reverse the "satanic policies" of his predecessor, George W Bush.

"Obama's move to close Guantanamo detention centre is a positive step for peace and stability in the region and the world," said the message, which was posted on online jihadist forums.

"If Barack Obama sincerely wants real stability and peace in the world, he should not only close Guantanamo.

"Rather, he should void all those evil projects established in the light of Bush's satanic perspective of instability in the world."

Mr Obama signed executive orders in his first week in office to ban torture, shut secret overseas CIA detention centres and close the US military prison at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, where some 245 detainees are still held.

The Guantanamo prison camp was established in 2002 as a means to hold detainees beyond the reach of US courts.

The US also holds approximately 600 detainees at the US airbase in Bagram, Afghanistan, the fate of which Mr Obama has not yet decreed.

The Taliban issued a stern warning to Mr Obama should he not heed their advice. "It is imperative that Obama, before he gets hit with the same fate as the Communist empire, must find potential ways to carry a message of peace and stability to the world," the message said.

The Pentagon has promised to deploy up to 30,000 additional forces to Afghanistan to combat the insurgency led by the Taliban and al-Qaeda, nearly doubling the 36,000-strong US force there.

It is expected Mr Obama will ask Prime Minister Kevin Rudd to send more Australian troops there too.

Nice. Sounds like the Taliban can smell victory.

so sad for them then.

Here we go again. :rolleyes:

Gee, the Taliban's statement couldn't be anything like all the other "We welcome the opportunity to work with the new president and hope he focuses on xyz" that every OTHER group in the world has issued could it?

Bush = Satanic

So basically The US forces have captured Talliban fighters, except not all of them are talliban out of the 600, and now their mates are wanting to get back together with them. So they're telling the big guy with the stronger country to give their nice chums back and they can get back to talking nice to each other like before...oh no wait a minute....

Nice. Sounds like the Taliban can smell victory.

Rather than consider U.S. strategic interests, human rights, and/or international law, the U.S. should definitely make policy decisions based on what the Taliban or Al-Qaeda say in public statements.

:rolleyes:

Here we go again. :rolleyes:

Gee, the Taliban's statement couldn't be anything like all the other "We welcome the opportunity to work with the new president and hope he focuses on xyz" that every OTHER group in the world has issued could it?
i dont know why they havent taken the alqaeda line and dissed him big time.

both groups have greatly benefitted from the prison at guantanamo and the seeming anti-muslim bias of the bush administration.

To be fair though if Obama did what these Talliban did, they'd lose their support for suicide bombers like lightning, and they wouldn't have any good reasons to capture US/Western citizens.
I know it's stupid to listen to these guys but i still wonder what might happen if they did, perhaps if Obama found a way to do what they said but in a way which still kept him in charge and looking strong as ever.

On a personal note i don't know why we should refer to these guys as Terrorists, it just gives anyone with an axe to grind an excuse to get together with another guy like himself and attack anything Western/US, like a banner for nasty people to rally behind.
Really Obama shouldn't refer to them as Terrorists just, confused people who are too frightened of social contact with others that they've forgotten how to just try to fix things.

Bush made the error of blurring his enemies. That was such a counter-productive move.
When Condy got up and lied about Saddam and Osama being linked and using that as the justification of invading Iraq for its oil, I was disgusted. But it left Bin Laden a chance to regroup and it left the post-Taliban government in Afghanistan looking very vulnerable.
Al Quedah managed to outmanouevre George the Chimp, stategically and every other way.
America suffered huge diplomatic setbacks because of those Neo-Cons.

The positive of all this is that Obama can disengage fairly quickly from Iraq..... mission accomplished or not and begin negotiations with the Taliban.
Yes, Ferrous, negotiations. Thats what statesmen do. There is no "victory" in Afghanistan to fight for. The victory for the US and its Allies will be retiring in good order and to see the Moslem states turn their backs on Al Quedah.

Nice. Sounds like the Taliban can smell victory.
FO, exactly what do you object to in the part of the report you quoted?

Apart from some rather hyperbolic language, I see nothing considerably wrong in a hostile organisation weloming a "positive step for peace and stability in the region and the world".

Victory can only be acheived when the people of Afghanistan forever cast the Taliban out of any position of power. Our soldiers cannot guarantee that, but they can aid the Afghan forces and give them the resources and training to counter the Taliban.

Also a lot of people welcomed Obama's moves, not just the Taliban. Sure I was surprised when I read it, but then think on it. Is a war of attrition really what either side needs?

Saying Lets Be Friends while sending 30,000 more troops to Afghanistan sounds exactly like the right thing to say and do to me.

Rather than consider U.S. strategic interests, human rights, and/or international law, the U.S. should definitely make policy decisions based on what the Taliban or Al-Qaeda say in public statements.


Don't be naive, Cat-Tribe. Can't you see that this is all part of Obama's plan to turn the U.S. into a Muslim theocracy?

:rolleyes:

Nice. Sounds like the Taliban can smell victory.

I've missed you, Rusty.

Nice. Sounds like the Taliban can smell victory.

Cheering makes it easier for the cruise missile to find you. :)

Do the Taliban REALLY think that Obama's gonna be manipulated so easily? Yeah, I'm Conservative, but I realize that all of these are subtly-hinted orders for Obama to GTFO so they can continue killing Zionists and terrorizing (lulz 'terrorism', who knew?) their little patch of land without foreign interference. Obama won't listen.

We aren't pulling 100% out. I don't care what political background you have, you should realize that. We do that, U.S. flags are gonna be burned in the street as some Taliban chant "HAHA WE WON!" on their way back into their palaces (mansions, whatever they lived in).

Sure, but the Taliban has to meet halfway... Oh wait they'll refuse too?
Too bad, have some Hellfire missile love instead.

Obama orders Gitmo closed and the Taliban are trying to make themselves look relevant with a press release sounding like he's doing what they want him to.

Oh, and that crackling sound is the straw man lit on fire by our resident Howardista pining for the Good Old Days and trying to present the OP as Damning Evidence of Obama's Failure as President.

And obligatory comments about the sky, defecating bears and the Pope.

Oh, and that crackling sound is the straw man lit on fire by our resident Howardista pining for the Good Old Days and trying to present the OP as Damning Evidence of Obama's Failure as President..

Do you know anything about the Howard era? No? Then can it.

both groups have greatly benefitted from the prison at guantanamo and the seeming anti-muslim bias of the bush administration.

^^^This...

Its just not Strategic to keep high profile prisons like Guantanamo open...Its a major weapon for Jihad, and probably gave them more fuel for their organization than all the Osamas in the world...

Hitler was a vegetarian, therefore vegetarianism is evil.

Hitler was a vegetarian, therefore vegetarianism is evil.

Not particularly evil, but probably wrong.

Not particularly evil, but probably wrong.

Also Hitler liked to breathe oxygen. Definitely something we should all reconsider.

Also Hitler liked to breathe oxygen. Definitely something we should all reconsider.

If we could just find a way to become Photosynthetic we could solve many problems involved with Mankind.....

Nameks get all the luck, lol...

Also Hitler liked to breathe oxygen. Definitely something we should all reconsider.

I propose we all switch to sulfur hexafluoride.

If we could just find a way to become Photosynthetic we could solve many problems involved with Mankind.....


But if we did that, the terrorists win.

Noone will will in Afghanistan. Negotiation is a wise option. Peole should not keep standing armies on foreign soil for longer than is necessary. If Obama can negotiate a truce, then good for him. We have two major enemies to worry about:
1. Global warming
2. The economic recession that keeps asking, "Can I turn into another Great Depression, pretty please?"
The reality is that theAllies in Afghanistan will negotiate with the Taliban. The British military leader in the fireld argued for it already. Negotiation is not losing. Never listening to anybody (like George the Chimp) is losing.
Source: http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20081005/taliban_negotations_081005/20081005?hub=CTVNewsAt11

snip

You and your logic....WE only listen to Real Americans here!!!






Nah, but seriously, I agree, only the Limbaugh supporters I think would disagree with those points......

Noone will will in Afghanistan. Negotiation is a wise option. Peole should not keep standing armies on foreign soil for longer than is necessary. If Obama can negotiate a truce, then good for him. We have two major enemies to worry about:
1. Global warming
2. The economic recession that keeps asking, "Can I turn into another Great Depression, pretty please?"
The reality is that theAllies in Afghanistan will negotiate with the Taliban. The British military leader in the fireld argued for it already. Negotiation is not losing. Never listening to anybody (like George the Chimp) is losing.
Source: http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20081005/taliban_negotations_081005/20081005?hub=CTVNewsAt11

I'm not sure you can negotiate with the Taliban and actually get a viable deal out of it.

I'm not sure you can negotiate with the Taliban and actually get a viable deal out of it.

That is a possibility, but it doesnt mean it shouldnt be attempted...Wars arent just Military conflict, the PR alone would make it worth it...

That is a possibility, but it doesnt mean it shouldnt be attempted...Wars arent just Military conflict, the PR alone would make it worth it...

The Taliban's ideology makes it impossible to negotiate with them on a fundamental level. It would be like negotiating with the Nazis after WWII; you can't in good conscience let them get back up again. The best way to beat the Taliban is to stay in the country and improve it, thus making a return to the ways of the Taliban non-viable.

The Taliban's ideology makes it impossible to negotiate with them on a fundamental level. It would be like negotiating with the Nazis after WWII; you can't in good conscience let them get back up again. The best way to beat the Taliban is to stay in the country and improve it, thus making a return to the ways of the Taliban non-viable.

Well, the situations arent comparable, the majority of the world recognized that the Nazis were in effect bad...

The majority of the world is at the moment torn as to whether the Taliban or the US is worse than the other...Im not saying its founded, but just pointing out reality...

And I think at least an attempt to solve the problem peacefully would be seen by the world, and by the world I mean NATO allies, specifically France and Germany and their ilke, as a good thing, and where they go generally the rest of the world will go...

More than likely, no you wont get a good deal out of the negotiations, but, if we can gain the Moral High Ground in the situation, it would go a long way towards that goal...

Nice. Sounds like the Taliban can smell victory.

http://www.flippeh.de/funPics/MOAR/not%20this%20shit%20again.jpg

I have a feeling that President Obama will keep us in Afghanistan for the duration, partially because it's somewhat NATO's show now and partially because we went after the Taliban with a decent set of objectives and have so far failed to achieve a single one of them.

Iraq is a memory that we all want to forget, but Afghanistan still has the chance to look like a reasonable course of action (albeit undertaken by a cabal of idiots).

The majority of the world is at the moment torn as to whether the Taliban or the US is worse than the other...Im not saying its founded, but just pointing out reality...

Nobody with an ounce of credibility actually thinks that.

Noone will will in Afghanistan. Negotiation is a wise option. people should not keep standing armies on foreign soil for longer than is necessary. If Obama can negotiate a truce, then good for him. We have two major enemies to worry about:
1. Global warming
2. The economic recession that keeps asking, "Can I turn into another Great Depression, pretty please?"
The reality is that theAllies in Afghanistan will negotiate with the Taliban. The British military leader in the fireld argued for it already. Negotiation is not losing. Never listening to anybody (like George the Chimp) is losing.
Source: http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20081005/taliban_negotiations_081005/20081005?hub=CTVNewsAt11

^^^^ This ^^^^
There can't be an outright military victory in Afghanistan for either side. At some point it's going to have to be negotiated so it might as well be sooner rather than later. The Caspian deals are mostly off, anyway. Nothing there to fight for anymore.

^^^^ This ^^^^
There can't be an outright military victory in Afghanistan for either side. At some point it's going to have to be negotiated so it might as well be sooner rather than later. The Caspian deals are mostly off, anyway. Nothing there to fight for anymore.

I would have thought humans rights was worth fighting for.

I would have thought humans rights was worth fighting for.

I'm sure that was the number one concern in the minds of American officials when they threw billions of dollars and many, many lives at this conflict. :rolleyes:

No government ever has, or ever will, fight for that stuff. The only reason the US is in Afghanistan was to try to salvage the Caspian deal and get a foothold in the region, particularly Turkmenistan, which is useless without Afghanistan. That's it. The rest is just PR/propaganda/BS/call it what you will.

Ooh, Abju! I love it when you start talking Realpolitik! It's so.....dirty!

Yet a lot more logical than the pseudo-idealistic hogwash the Neo-Cons were dishing up.

I'm sure that was the number one concern in the minds of American officials when they threw billions of dollars and many, many lives at this conflict. :rolleyes:

No government ever has, or ever will, fight for that stuff. The only reason the US is in Afghanistan was to try to salvage the Caspian deal and get a foothold in the region, particularly Turkmenistan, which is useless without Afghanistan. That's it. The rest is just PR/propaganda/BS/call it what you will.

Of course, that means it's ok to bail now, even if it results in gross human rights violations?

Of course, that means it's ok to bail now, even if it results in gross human rights violations?

Wait...you care about the human rights of brown people now?

In seriousness, its an unwinnable war, so you either have unrelenting armed conflict leading to thousands of deaths on either side until the West is defeated, or you accept defeat now. "Win and establish freedom, human rights and democracy" doesn't seem to be a viable option, so those human rights violations are going to come whether we stay or leave. Which makes fighting on seem a little futile. Its not a pleasant outcome, but its been doomed to this ever since the idiotic decision was taken to invade in the first place.

Oy Gevalt!
Ferrous, stop reading the Murdoch press - it's rotting your brain.
I doubt if even Rupert beleives half the crap he publishes.

Wait...you care about the human rights of brown people now?

In seriousness, its an unwinnable war, so you either have unrelenting armed conflict leading to thousands of deaths on either side until the West is defeated, or you accept defeat now. "Win and establish freedom, human rights and democracy" doesn't seem to be a viable option, so those human rights violations are going to come whether we stay or leave. Which makes fighting on seem a little futile. Its not a pleasant outcome, but its been doomed to this ever since the idiotic decision was taken to invade in the first place.

So I guess that excuse works with every genocide and crime against humanity? "We can't win, let's not try."

So I guess that excuse works with every genocide and crime against humanity? "We can't win, let's not try."

Firstly, there's no genocide here. Secondly, there are human rights abuses all over the world far worse than those going on in Afghanistan, i.e. actual genocides we're doing sod all about, and which we might have more chance of stopping. Maybe it might be best to reallocate our scarce resources to somewhere where we aren't doomed to failure? I'd like to see your argument for staying there given that no matter how much money is poured in the war is being lost. If we can't win, then yes, lets not try by continuing to throw money that could be better spent on things that might produce a positive result elsewhere.

While the situation in Afghanistan is best described by a word that rhymes with "Dusterbuck", I don't think we can simply declare it unwinnable without seeing the effects of this troop deployment. One of our biggest problems in Afghanistan is that we've simply failed to focus on the important things: instead of trying to make the people feel safe, we've abandoned them so that we can pursue a couple of Al-Qaeda members into the mountains. We've utterly failed to train a proper police force. We've conducted air strikes that result in enormous collateral damage.

This isn't an unwinnable war, but it's quickly spiraling into one. If we don't see dramatic improvements in the next couple of months, I'll concede that we've let things go irrevocably out of control. For now, I think that simply calling it quits is premature.

Firstly, there's no genocide here. Secondly, there are human rights abuses all over the world far worse than those going on in Afghanistan, i.e. actual genocides we're doing sod all about, and which we might have more chance of stopping. Maybe it might be best to reallocate our scarce resources to somewhere where we aren't doomed to failure?

Yes, there are worst human rights abuses NOW. Do you know anything at all about Taliban-ruled Afghanistan?

I'd like to see your argument for staying there given that no matter how much money is poured in the war is being lost.

I don't think the war is lost. Isn't Afghanistan occupied? The Taliban scattered and restricted to a few remote regions?

If we can't win, then yes, lets not try by continuing to throw money that could be better spent on things that might produce a positive result

Nothing could possibly produce a positive result if the Taliban regain control of the country.

Ooh, Abju! I love it when you start talking Realpolitik! It's so.....dirty!


And for just $9.99 per month via pay pal, you can have more via exclusive private chat! :p

Of course, that means it's ok to bail now, even if it results in gross human rights violations?

Er... did you read my post? Your government doesn't CARE about that stuff, and neither does mine, or ANY government. You can worry about it all you want, but it won't make any difference at all to the facts on the ground and the decisions taken by the rulers.

Oy Gevalt!
Ferrous, stop reading the Murdoch press - it's rotting your brain.
I doubt if even Rupert beleives half the crap he publishes.

He doesn't believe any of it. He knows exactly what he needs to do to get his nice lucrative networks get all the permits and exclusive distribution rights he'll ever need...

To be fair FO, he's not entirely off. We've scattered our operations into the deepest, most remote corners of Afghanistan to hunt down the insurgents that are fleeing, but we've largely failed to go after the elements of the Taliban that are slowly building up in (southern?) Afghanistan's cities.

In short, we're trying to wipe them out, and that's simply not the way to win this war.

Yes, there are worst human rights abuses NOW. Do you know anything at all about Taliban-ruled Afghanistan?

Yes.

I don't think the war is lost. Isn't Afghanistan occupied?

It is.

The Taliban scattered and restricted to a few remote regions?

No

Nothing could possibly produce a positive result if the Taliban regain control of the country.

No positive result either way. Not what we there for.

So shouldn't we make it our reason to be there?

Say what you want about President Obama, but I believe that the man has an idea of what can be achieved if we change our tactics and make this war about Afghanistan rather than Al-Qaeda.

Six months ago, ranking members of both the British and German forces were saying that this war was unwinnable. Low troop numbers were cited as one of the primary impediments to success. Calling this defeat a foregone conclusion seems to ignore the realities of a new presidency.

EDIT: Honestly, I'm not trying to be naive or hopelessly optimistic. FO and I differ in our opinions on a huge number of issues, but in this case we simply don't have the evidence to say that Afghanistan is beyond hope.

Yes, there are worst human rights abuses NOW. Do you know anything at all about Taliban-ruled Afghanistan?

Wow. Being accused of a lack of knowledge by Rusty. Its like a paedophile telling me I'm unfit to raise kids.

I don't think the war is lost. Isn't Afghanistan occupied? The Taliban scattered and restricted to a few remote regions?

Question a - Yes
Question b - No - if anything they're growing stronger, and they're impossible to eliminate

Nothing could possibly produce a positive result if the Taliban regain control of the country.

And as its essentially an unwinnable war, nothing can produce a positive result if we keep on fighting either. Unless your good friend the shrub comes back and slaps the Taliban into submission using his mighty schlong of justice.

Question b - No - if anything they're growing stronger, and they're impossible to eliminate.

I hardly think that this is the case. Even the British Generals, from whom much of the dissent seems to originate from (and they may very well speak the truth), admit that the Taliban only has support from the Pashtun peoples and that it is a much more fractured, unorganized force than it was prior to the invasion. Our biggest problem is that neither side has the numbers to push the other one around. Stalemate.

So shouldn't we make it our reason to be there?

Say what you want about President Obama, but I believe that the man has an idea of what can be achieved if we change our tactics and make this war about Afghanistan rather than Al-Qaeda.

Six months ago, ranking members of both the British and German forces were saying that this war was unwinnable. Low troop numbers were cited as one of the primary impediments to success. Calling this defeat a foregone conclusion seems to ignore the realities of a new presidency.

EDIT: Honestly, I'm not trying to be naive or hopelessly optimistic. FO and I differ in our opinions on a huge number of issues, but in this case we simply don't have the evidence to say that Afghanistan is beyond hope.

I just don't understand why you think NATO being there is going to have a positive effect... Our "freedom loving" democratic ally in this is Hamid Karzai. He's a warlord. He deals in opium harvests. He used to have attack dogs bite of peoples genitalia. What on earth do you think that the US and their local chum can bring to the place except a backhander deal for some transfer and infrastructure contracts, in return for a blind eye to opium smuggling? That's it.

No war has ever brought benefit to the mass population. That is not what this is about. It's not going to change. Not in Afghanistan. Not anywhere. Obama wants to make one last stab at Afghanistan to try and placate his donors and keep the "patriots" (people who brought into the whole "war against terror" BS) off his back for a bit.

I hardly think that this is the case. Even the British Generals, from whom much of the dissent seems to originate from (and they may very well speak the truth), admit that the Taliban only has support from the Pashtun peoples and that it is a much more fractured, unorganized force than it was prior to the invasion. Our biggest problem is that neither side has the numbers to push the other one around. Stalemate.

We need to stop chasing them around the mountains and let them come to us, we are more prepared than they are for fighting period, anything they can think to do we already have guys whose entire job is to figure out how to counter it. We need to sit and wait; we need to win the complete confidence of the locals, and prepare them to defend themselves on the chance that we can't; and let the Taliban use their precious resources coming after us, and when they show their ugly heads hit them hard, fast, and in the open when they least expect it just like we did during the initial invasion. Work them over, get our people on the inside through the CIA, know exactly what they are going to do and when... in short we need to realize that our superior firepower and intelligence techniques will benefit us better if we step back and let them come to us, giving us the chance to pick where, when, and how we will engage them; sometimes the best defense is a good offense but conversely your best offense is sometimes a good defense.

I just don't understand why you think NATO being there is going to have a positive effect... Our "freedom loving" democratic ally in this is Hamid Karzai. He's a warlord. He deals in opium harvests. He used to have attack dogs bite of peoples genitalia. What on earth do you think that the US and their local chum can bring to the place except a backhander deal for some transfer and infrastructure contracts, in return for a blind eye to opium smuggling? That's it.

No war has ever brought benefit to the mass population. That is not what this is about. It's not going to change. Not in Afghanistan. Not anywhere. Obama wants to make one last stab at Afghanistan to try and placate his donors and keep the "patriots" (people who brought into the whole "war against terror" BS) off his back for a bit.NATO is already there. NATO has been there for a while doing everything they can to hold the Taliban at bay while our vaunted military chased spectres around the deserts of Iraq. If you want to demoralize an enemy, you show them that there's a true multinational effort to hold the line. The Taliban is not stupid. They seize on every bit of defeatist language that leaks into the press, but on the flip side they realize that they're not fighting a committed foe.

A good chunk of NATO simply refused to fight in Southern Afghanistan when it became apparent that CENTCOM had no idea what the hell they were trying to accomplish down there. Say what you will of Obama's motivations, but a troop surge indicates a commitment, and signs of determination can bring the allies together in a way that hasn't happened as of late. If this is accompanied by a change in strategy, there's a good chance to achieve that elusive "decisive victory" that we've wanted for years now.

As SaintB points out, we need to stop going after Al-Qaeda and start cleaning up our mess. The Taliban doesn't simply own half of the country. We have a limited window in which we can shrink the front lines and attempt to make good on our promises to the people of Afghanistan. If we do that, this transforms from a running gunfight into a peacekeeping operation.

Hamid Karzai isn't a wonderful President, this is true. Where did I say that he was? You can't lay the blame for Afghanistan's problems in the laps of its leaders, though. We've failed to train a proper police force. We've failed to provide the Afghani people with proper security. We need to make improvements from the bottom, not the top. 30,000 troops patrolling the streets of Kabul and Kandahar goes a long way towards achieving such a goal.

We need to stop chasing them around the mountains and let them come to us, we are more prepared than they are for fighting period, anything they can think to do we already have guys whose entire job is to figure out how to counter it. We need to sit and wait; we need to win the complete confidence of the locals, and prepare them to defend themselves on the chance that we can't; and let the Taliban use their precious resources coming after us, and when they show their ugly heads hit them hard, fast, and in the open when they least expect it just like we did during the initial invasion. Work them over, get our people on the inside through the CIA, know exactly what they are going to do and when... in short we need to realize that our superior firepower and intelligence techniques will benefit us better if we step back and let them come to us, giving us the chance to pick where, when, and how we will engage them; sometimes the best defense is a good offense but conversely your best offense is sometimes a good defense.

Not entirely workable. One of the current Taliban tactics is to raid undefended towns and villages with enough force to get a response from NATO air and artillery assets and run off before the response arrives, tricking the villagers into coming back home just in time for a 500lb bomb or 155mm shell to come knocking.

To put a stop to this, you need a massive troop influx to not only hold all population areas, but patrol the areas in between. You also need a dedicated engineering corps building up solid infrastructure not just to help the people, but create tempting tactical targets for the Taliban to aim for which at the same time can be guarded much more effectively.

Whether this will be done, well, we'll see.

I would have thought humans rights was worth fighting for.

That being the case, I'm just waiting for someone to start lynching Bush administration officials. Torture is against human rights (never mind COMPLETELY ineffective for info-gathering), and it's no secret the Bush administration tortured.

NATO is already there. NATO has been there for a while doing everything they can to hold the Taliban at bay while our vaunted military chased spectres around the deserts of Iraq. If you want to demoralize an enemy, you show them that there's a true multinational effort to hold the line. The Taliban is not stupid. They seize on every bit of defeatist language that leaks into the press, but on the flip side they realize that they're not fighting a committed foe.

A good chunk of NATO simply refused to fight in Southern Afghanistan when it became apparent that CENTCOM had no idea what the hell they were trying to accomplish down there. Say what you will of Obama's motivations, but a troop surge indicates a commitment, and signs of determination can bring the allies together in a way that hasn't happened as of late. If this is accompanied by a change in strategy, there's a good chance to achieve that elusive "decisive victory" that we've wanted for years now.

As SaintB points out, we need to stop going after Al-Qaeda and start cleaning up our mess. The Taliban doesn't simply own half of the country. We have a limited window in which we can shrink the front lines and attempt to make good on our promises to the people of Afghanistan. If we do that, this transforms from a running gunfight into a peacekeeping operation.

Hamid Karzai isn't a wonderful President, this is true. Where did I say that he was? You can't lay the blame for Afghanistan's problems in the laps of its leaders, though. We've failed to train a proper police force. We've failed to provide the Afghani people with proper security. We need to make improvements from the bottom, not the top. 30,000 troops patrolling the streets of Kabul and Kandahar goes a long way toward achieving such a goal.

Well if you can't blame the rulers, then who do you blame? Well, if he's a vassal, then perhaps his overlord? Either way, it's not a pretty picture. But lets be clear about Kazai. You are not going to get freedom, democracy and (civilian) security from him, even if NATO does win a glorious total victory against the Taliban. He wasn't put there for that, and it's certainly not a part of his philosophy.

New and Improved Afghanistan - Now with extra troops!
If you have a troop "surge", Kazai or a Kazai-alike (as he's falling out of favour for being unreliable in the required areas) will, following an escalated war, become supreme war lord, and will be given some weapons to keep the people in check and protect the west's future pipeline route and his opium fields from other warlords. He may or may not flog women with uncovered ankles and chuck acid in their faces, but none of the great men really care either way about that, it's all down to his personal preferences on that one.

Crappy old generic brand Afghanistan
If you don't have a troop surge, chances are Karzai will get an eviction order on his palace and their will be a civil war, until either the taliban or another warlord secures enough of the opium crop to either get noticed by the west and so given, or else buy on the international market, enough weapons to keep the people in check and protect the west's future pipeline route and his opium fields from other warlords. He may or may not flog women with uncovered ankles and chuck acid in their faces, but none of the great men really care either way about that, it's all down to his personal preferences on that one.

Conclusion:
Who cares who wins?

<snip>
I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and ask you again (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=14449703&postcount=10) Ferrous, what exactly about the article you quoted in your OP do you object to?

I'll quote the text you did:

THE Taliban called on US President Barack Obama to close all "evil" US detention centres for militants, "completely withdraw" from Iraq and Afghanistan and "stop defending Israel".

The message, a copy of which was obtained from the SITE Intelligence Group, called on Mr Obama to take these steps to reverse the "satanic policies" of his predecessor, George W Bush.

"Obama's move to close Guantanamo detention centre is a positive step for peace and stability in the region and the world," said the message, which was posted on online jihadist forums.

"If Barack Obama sincerely wants real stability and peace in the world, he should not only close Guantanamo.

"Rather, he should void all those evil projects established in the light of Bush's satanic perspective of instability in the world."

Mr Obama signed executive orders in his first week in office to ban torture, shut secret overseas CIA detention centres and close the US military prison at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, where some 245 detainees are still held.

The Guantanamo prison camp was established in 2002 as a means to hold detainees beyond the reach of US courts.

The US also holds approximately 600 detainees at the US airbase in Bagram, Afghanistan, the fate of which Mr Obama has not yet decreed.

The Taliban issued a stern warning to Mr Obama should he not heed their advice. "It is imperative that Obama, before he gets hit with the same fate as the Communist empire, must find potential ways to carry a message of peace and stability to the world," the message said.

The Pentagon has promised to deploy up to 30,000 additional forces to Afghanistan to combat the insurgency led by the Taliban and al-Qaeda, nearly doubling the 36,000-strong US force there.

It is expected Mr Obama will ask Prime Minister Kevin Rudd to send more Australian troops there too.

Once again, what's wrong with the above?

What is it about a hostile, militant group welcoming measures that are, in their words, a "positive step for peace and stability in the region and the world" that you find distasteful?

Do you know anything about the Howard era? No? Then can it.

Are you telling someone to shut up because they perhaps might not know what their talking about?

Shall I direct you to my sig?


Anyway, whats all this talk on Potato Boy's part about leaving Afghanistan? Obama is increasing troop presence there...