After Spending Untold Billions to Remove the Taliban; Frist Says Bring Them Back

P

Prakosh

Senior Member
Here we go round in Circles!!!!

Frist: Taliban Should Be in Afghan Gov't
Mon Oct 2, 2006 4:01 PM EDT
world-news, afghanistan, bill-frist, frist
Jim Krane, AP Writer

U.S. Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist awards a Purple Heart medal to 42-year-old Capt. Jacqueline E. King of Tinton Falls, New Jersey during his visit to Qalat ,the provincial capital of Zabul province of Afghanistan on Monday, Oct. 2, 2006. King suffered burns and other injuries when her Humvee was struck by a suicide bomber's vehicle in Qalat, southern Afghanistan, June 28. "I got blown out of the vehicle and burned and beat up," King said. "But I'm tough. I got back up. It's rough. They're not exactly thrilled to see us here." (AP Photo/Musadeq Sadeq)

QALAT, AFGHANISTAN — U.S. Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist said Monday that the Afghan war against Taliban guerrillas can never be won militarily and called for efforts to bring the Islamic militia and its supporters into the Afghan government.

The Tennessee Republican said he learned from briefings that Taliban fighters were too numerous and had too much popular support to be defeated on the battlefield.

"You need to bring them into a more transparent type of government," Frist said during a brief visit to a U.S. and Romanian military base in the southern Taliban stronghold of Qalat. "And if that's accomplished, we'll be successful."

Afghanistan is suffering its heaviest insurgent attacks since a U.S.-led military force toppled the Taliban in late 2001 for harboring al-Qaida leader Osama bin Laden.

According to an Associated Press count, based on reports from U.S., NATO and Afghan officials, at least 2,800 people have been killed nationwide so far this year. The count, which includes militants and civilians, is about 1,300 more than the toll for all of 2005.

The top U.S. military commander in Afghanistan, Lt. Gen. Karl Eikenberry, told Pentagon reporters last month that while the Taliban enemy in Afghanistan is not extremely strong, their numbers and influence have grown in some southern sections of the country.

President Bush has been criticized for his handling of the war and is trying to contain the damage ahead of midterm elections this fall. On Friday, Bush acknowledged setbacks in the training of Afghan police to fight against the Taliban resurgence but predicted eventual victory.

Frist said asking the Taliban to join the government was a decision to be made by Afghan President Hamid Karzai. Karzai's spokesmen were not immediately able to be reached for comment.

Full Story
 
Afghanistan is suffering its heaviest insurgent attacks since a U.S.-led military force toppled the Taliban in late 2001 for harboring al-Qaida leader Osama bin Laden.

According to an Associated Press count, based on reports from U.S., NATO and Afghan officials, at least 2,800 people have been killed nationwide so far this year. The count, which includes militants and civilians, is about 1,300 more than the toll for all of 2005.


dear God, i had no idea 3000 people have been killed there THIS YEAR ALONE!
 
That is because the mainstream US media is doing such a poor job of covering it Care. Bombings have jumped a hundred fold or more this year over last lear. And as I hear it the Taliban pretty much control southern Afganistan.
 
uscitizen said:
That is because the mainstream US media is doing such a poor job of covering it Care. Bombings have jumped a hundred fold or more this year over last lear. And as I hear it the Taliban pretty much control southern Afganistan.
Click to expand...

What was most revealing about the US mainstream media occurred when the War with Lebanon broke out. There was a sort of school of fish mentality about it all. They were all busy covering the Iraq war and evidently getting a bit bored with the war in Baghdad since that is the only town they were actually in at that juncture. Then Israel marched into Lebanon and the press fish all swam over there for a look see and apparently liked it. So they stayed and reported every day from Lebanon, but the reporting from Baghdad dried up almost overnight. And then immediately after the one month war in Lebanon ended the press all swam over to London to over the great London plane bombing caper hoax which has completely disappeared from press coverage; after two weeks of intense and all day and night coverage, the London Muslim plane bombing plot has disappeared without a trace...Gone!!!! And then it was suddenly off to Bangkok for the great John Karr/JonBenet killer hoax of the century, he of the eye-liner and she of the 6 going on 30 look, and of the voyeuristic non-stop day and night repeats of all her available contest footage which lasted for another week or two. By the time it was discovered that Karr was never even in Denver the year she was killed and the statute of limitations had run out on his porn possession charges in California and he had successfully engineered a free trip home and would now be released, all the journalists from the middle east were back in American and since then they have mostly stayed here.

As a result of all that high tension excitement it seems there has been a reconsideration of the former 24/7 war coverage and such coverage has been much more sporadic. Since then we have had some semi-daily coverage of the war in Iraq but for the most part things have gotten scattered. And since London and Lebanon and Thailand and Karr it appears that the people who were formerly reporting daily from Baghdad just never made it back.

But this wasn't anything new. The same phenomenon was observed several years ago in Afghanistan. When Afghanistan was the only war around it was a good war and we needed to know all about it, but then it was over and the press fish swam over to the new war in Iraq where bombs were flying and explosions were lighting up the night sky producing stunning visuals and dramatic voice-overs and all the possible killings and captures. I was a war made for television, and long distance filming. But in the midst of all the excitement over the new war, the old still not quite finished war and occupation in Afghanistan was sort of forgotten and so the things that are happening there have been overshadowed by sex scandals school shootings and all the things that are happening right here in the good old continental USA. In fact I don't see a return to the good old war coverage we used to know until Bush either launches a new war in Iran or the election is over and there is a big enough lull in the domestic news scene for someone in some newsroom somewhere to say, "Hey, what's been happening in Iraq lately." And if that newsroom happens to be in New York City, there will be a vast movement to television news producers, camerapersons and reporters back to Baghdad for the holidays. Maybe the President will even go back to see the troops and present them with another plastic turkey with all the plastic trimmings. Bush probably still thinks that plastic explosives are just like that plastic turkey...but that's a topic for another post. I'll wait until the network news gets that story before I attempt to break it myself...
 
Last edited:
I'd really like to see what some of the militarists have to say about this. Seems to me that many on the left have been saying for years that you can't militarily defeat popular movements that embrace terrorist tactics.

Now it would appear that Bill Frist admits that we've been right all along. I guess that proves even Republicans can learn . . . if they beat their heads against a wall for long enough.

Come on, Dixie, Gaffer et. al.: can you finally admit that military force alone won't beat terrorism?
 
FALSE PREMISE.
Remember that we gave the Taliban the oppurtunity to hand over bin Laden and they refused. Our interest all along in Afghanistan was bin Laden and Al Qaida, it was NOT the ousting of the Taliban, they were only to be ousted because of their covering for bin Laden.

Prakosh tries to set up the (false) argument that we went in to remove the Taliban - bullshit.

Including those of the Taliban who are interested in being a part of a democrat government and ceasing terrorist activities is no different than trying to get militant Sunnis in Iraq or the IRA in Ireland to try and involve themselves in government.

Prakosh needs to think a bit more logically and less like a Democrat party whore...
 
Pot calling a kettle black Dano ?
dano needs to think a bit more logically and less like a neocon party whore...

of course it is a clowntoons fault. LMAO
Keep em comin Dano.
 
You haven't heard much on it becuase the media is too busy covering iraq. I said in another post there were some major battles fought in afgan that no one reported. The media is fighting hard to defeat Bush in iraq and they can't be bothered with reporting fighting in afgan.

The taliban are the same thing as al queada. They have the same beliefs and ideologies. Afganhistan was the country al queada used as a base to operate from. Now you all want to revise history again and start your Bush lied bullshit again. I do not believe the ignorance of you people.
 
TheDanold said:
FALSE PREMISE.
Remember that we gave the Taliban the oppurtunity to hand over bin Laden and they refused. Our interest all along in Afghanistan was bin Laden and Al Qaida, it was NOT the ousting of the Taliban, they were only to be ousted because of their covering for bin Laden.

Prakosh tries to set up the (false) argument that we went in to remove the Taliban - bullshit.

Including those of the Taliban who are interested in being a part of a democrat government and ceasing terrorist activities is no different than trying to get militant Sunnis in Iraq or the IRA in Ireland to try and involve themselves in government.

Prakosh needs to think a bit more logically and less like a Democrat party whore...
Click to expand...


Ignorance is bliss, isn't it? Please read if you want to know about OUR DEALINGS with the TALIBAN....

and WHAT WAS REALLY going on around September 11th with them....we needed the Taliban to approve a natural gas pineline going through their country so that Enron (and others related to halliburten etc)could get cheap natural gas to run a plant of theirs for electricity in India...


This is what the Cheney energy task force discussed in the meeting at the whitehouse that THEY ARE HOLDING IN THE DARK....that we can't get access to even though IT WAS ON OUR TAX DOLLAR....

read it, all of you...

http://www.alternet.org/story/12525/
 
uscitizen said:
Pot calling a kettle black Dano ?
dano needs to think a bit more logically and less like a neocon party whore...

of course it is a clowntoons fault. LMAO
Keep em comin Dano.
Click to expand...
Where did I mention Clowntoon (Clinton) you illiterate idiot? This just proves that you don't actually read points and just pretend to hear what you want to.
Such a waste of life.
 
Care4all said:
Ignorance is bliss, isn't it? Please read if you want to know about OUR DEALINGS with the TALIBAN....

and WHAT WAS REALLY going on around September 11th with them....we needed the Taliban to approve a natural gas pineline going through their country so that Enron (and others related to halliburten etc)could get cheap natural gas to run a plant of theirs for electricity in India...


This is what the Cheney energy task force discussed in the meeting at the whitehouse that THEY ARE HOLDING IN THE DARK....that we can't get access to even though IT WAS ON OUR TAX DOLLAR....

read it, all of you...

http://www.alternet.org/story/12525/
Click to expand...
WRONG. Certain companies needed the government of Afghanistan to approve a pipeline going through the country. It doesn't really matter who the government was, that was who they had to deal with.

Let's not pull out stupid retarded conspiracy BS for Afghanistan like you guys get away with for Iraq. We went there because they refused to hand over bin Laden. Did it make it easier to get a pipeline through there? Possibly, usually economic development is easier in more stable countries, but this is a (possibly good) byproduct and not the reason we went in there.
You know that, so cut the Michael Moore BS.
 
Gaffer said:
You haven't heard much on it becuase the media is too busy covering iraq. I said in another post there were some major battles fought in afgan that no one reported. The media is fighting hard to defeat Bush in iraq and they can't be bothered with reporting fighting in afgan.

The taliban are the same thing as al queada. They have the same beliefs and ideologies. Afganhistan was the country al queada used as a base to operate from. Now you all want to revise history again and start your Bush lied bullshit again. I do not believe the ignorance of you people.
Click to expand...
Hmm, the BBC and PBS seem to cover Afganistan fairly well....
 
TheDanold said:
WRONG. Certain companies needed the government of Afghanistan to approve a pipeline going through the country. It doesn't really matter who the government was, that was who they had to deal with.

Let's not pull out stupid retarded conspiracy BS for Afghanistan like you guys get away with for Iraq. We went there because they refused to hand over bin Laden. Did it make it easier to get a pipeline through there? Possibly, usually economic development is easier in more stable countries, but this is a (possibly good) byproduct and not the reason we went in there.
You know that, so cut the Michael Moore BS.
Click to expand...

the US wanting that pipeline accross Afganistan is no MM bull crap Dano. It is fact. Now some of what is claimed that the USA has done to get that pipeline is perhaps BS , but the fact that we want that pipeline is fact.
 
Dano, how do you KNOW it is crap? HOW? What makes YOU an expert that the KNOWS this is crap? huh....? Did you read the article?

There are hundreds more....

How about soliciting your Representatives to release the CHENEY ENERGY TASK FORCE PAPERS, since YOU are so sure about this....?
 
Gaffer said:
You haven't heard much on it becuase the media is too busy covering iraq. I said in another post there were some major battles fought in afgan that no one reported. The media is fighting hard to defeat Bush in iraq and they can't be bothered with reporting fighting in afgan.

The taliban are the same thing as al queada. They have the same beliefs and ideologies. Afganhistan was the country al queada used as a base to operate from. Now you all want to revise history again and start your Bush lied bullshit again. I do not believe the ignorance of you people.
Click to expand...

Really, I guess the phoney airplane plot in London, you know the one where the terrorists were going to mix bottled water and energy drinks with lipstick, moisturizers and toothpaste and blow up airplanes---what did ever happen with that???, John Karr, Jon Benet Ramsey and now all these school shootings and Republican emails and on and on. Meanwhile the only station today who is reporting on Iraq is FOXSPEWS, and that because they are trying to avoid covering the Republican meltdown, and they are saying that 16 Americans have died since Saturday...So I guess FOXSPEWS is now trying to take down the Bush administration evidently single-handedly...
 
Last edited:
Gaffer said:
You haven't heard much on it becuase the media is too busy covering iraq. I said in another post there were some major battles fought in afgan that no one reported. The media is fighting hard to defeat Bush in iraq and they can't be bothered with reporting fighting in afgan.

The taliban are the same thing as al queada. They have the same beliefs and ideologies. Afganhistan was the country al queada used as a base to operate from. Now you all want to revise history again and start your Bush lied bullshit again. I do not believe the ignorance of you people.
Click to expand...
This isn't even coherent, Gammer. Whatever you've been taking, I think you'd best tell the nurse it ain't agreeing with you.

The Taliban and al Qaeda are not the same thing. They are allied, yes, and their goals often overlap, but it is factually incorrect to state that they are one entity. One might suspect that you were deliberatly trying to mislead -- if one credited you with deliberation.

I do not believe that there have ever been any major battles fought in an afghan, unless you call a cat pouncing on my hand a "major battle." I must admit that it probably seemed that way to the cat. There have been some major battles fought in Afghanistan: I must assume that's what you meant. As to the suggestion that some battles did not get media coverage, I can only assume that's because you weren't paying attention.

In what way, pray tell, are we trying to revise history? It seems to me that your lot are simply come around to our way of thinking at last. Too bad they couldn't have done it four years ago when we might have had an outside chance of saving this grotesque situation.
 
Care4all said:
Dano, how do you KNOW it is crap? HOW? What makes YOU an expert that the KNOWS this is crap? huh....? Did you read the article?

There are hundreds more....

How about soliciting your Representatives to release the CHENEY ENERGY TASK FORCE PAPERS, since YOU are so sure about this....?
Click to expand...

Just more anti-Bush anti-America spin. We went into afgan to get bin laden, the taliban were his allies. We are still fighting there because they took to the mountains and hid out as they have done for hundreds of years. That's what makes the region so hard to control. Along with their hiding in pakistan and coming back across the border to launch attacks then retreat back. The war there has nothing to do with gas pipe lines. That excuse was brought out early in the war by the hate America groups.

according to you we never go to war for anything but resources. Never mind what type of government is in power there or how many died at their hands. Its just resources. What resources does NK have that we are after? Where exactly are these gas deposits we are after in afganhistan? We fought WW2 for which resources?
 
Gaffer said:
Just more anti-Bush anti-America spin. We went into afgan to get bin laden, the taliban were his allies. We are still fighting there because they took to the mountains and hid out as they have done for hundreds of years. That's what makes the region so hard to control. Along with their hiding in pakistan and coming back across the border to launch attacks then retreat back. The war there has nothing to do with gas pipe lines. That excuse was brought out early in the war by the hate America groups.

according to you we never go to war for anything but resources. Never mind what type of government is in power there or how many died at their hands. Its just resources. What resources does NK have that we are after? Where exactly are these gas deposits we are after in afganhistan? We fought WW2 for which resources?
Click to expand...

Anyone who thinks that the Taliban and bin Laden are taking to the mountains and hiding there "as they have done for hundreds of years" has a lot of damn gall telling me I don't know what I am talking about...I think you better spend some time in the history archives and find out just how old bin Laden really is, and when the Taliban actually emerged as a political force in the country...Then see if you can write a clear sentence with no exaggeration in it...And get rid of the 2 by 4 before someone wrestles it away from you and bashes your head in with it.
 
OrnotBitwise said:
This isn't even coherent, Gammer. Whatever you've been taking, I think you'd best tell the nurse it ain't agreeing with you.

The Taliban and al Qaeda are not the same thing. They are allied, yes, and their goals often overlap, but it is factually incorrect to state that they are one entity. One might suspect that you were deliberatly trying to mislead -- if one credited you with deliberation.

I do not believe that there have ever been any major battles fought in an afghan, unless you call a cat pouncing on my hand a "major battle." I must admit that it probably seemed that way to the cat. There have been some major battles fought in Afghanistan: I must assume that's what you meant. As to the suggestion that some battles did not get media coverage, I can only assume that's because you weren't paying attention.

In what way, pray tell, are we trying to revise history? It seems to me that your lot are simply come around to our way of thinking at last. Too bad they couldn't have done it four years ago when we might have had an outside chance of saving this grotesque situation.
Click to expand...

So what didn't you understand? What wasn't coherrent for you? They were pretty straight forward simple paragraphs.

There were three battles fought along the pak border, that I know of, by the 10th Mt. in the last 6 weeks. Things have picked up along there considerably since the paks made their agreement with the warlords there.

The taliban and aq have the same goals and the same ideaology, there's really not much difference between them. The only real difference is the taliban are afgan while the aq are mostly arabs. bin laden ran afganhistan.

Your way of thinking is to revise history to the way you would like it to be.
 
Gaffer said:
Your way of thinking is to revise history to the way you would like it to be.
Click to expand...
In what way, I ask again? You keep stating it but you never back it up.

In fact, you are the one trying to rewrite history -- as you cons almost always do. The fact is that your president was never really interested in Afghanistan, except as a pretext and precedent for invading Iraq. You elected a militaristic adventurer but now you want to cover the facts up with revisionist half-truths and misdirection.

Fact: we never committed the level of force to Afghanistan that we did to Iraq.

Fact: your man allowed the Taliban -- and Osama bin Laden too, most likely -- to escape from eastern Afghanistan by diverting troops to the preparations for the invasion of Iraq.

Fact: your man distorted the intelligence data by omission and mislead the American people to believe that Iraq posed an imminent threat and, worse, was somehow involved in the WTC and Pentagon attacks.

Fact: your man has never given the new Afghan government enough support to really address the Taliban problem. Indeed, its authority is highly questionable outside of Kabul.

The facts are that you lot have betrayed our national interest in pursuit of a long term, geopolitical goal.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top