US and Nato withdrawal from Afghanistan...- threadbanned users in OP

The Americans being in Afghanistan provided an enemy to focus on. The greatest enemy.. and a perfect rallying call to any fundamentalist Muslim anywhere in the M.East or Asia.

The only way for change to occur in these regions, is to leave them alone, and let them figure out that their primitive culture is horrendous. Involvement by western nations in their country takes away from that awareness ever occurring, because keeping that culture becomes a reason to fight, elevating the culture to something important to retain.

It would be best to withdraw completely from the region, and leave them to whatever they want to get up to. Their neighboring nations will have to deal with them, and that means mostly they'll be contained. No need for the US or any other western nation to be involved.. because time and time again, the initiatives have simply made things worse, especially once the rollback happens when the last American troop leaves.

jmreire

The last time the Taliban ruled Afghanistan ( the part they controlled fully), they ruled with an iron fist. In the beginning, they were welcomed as they put a stop to the warring factions, who were well on the way to destroying what was left of the Country after the war with the Russians. But soon their barbaric methods turned the people against them, and it would be interesting to see how they would have fared out long term if the US had not invaded. My guess is that they would have been a very reformed taliban by now, that is if they were even still in power.
As to how it will go now, is anyones guess. Natural wealth it has in spades,it's thought that Afghanistan's resources could make it one of the richest mining regions in the world. ... The major mineral resources include chromium, copper, gold, iron ore, lead and zinc, lithium, marble, precious and semiprecious stones, sulfur and talc among many other minerals. But the "uncertain climate" meant that it has not been acted on, although the Chinese took out a 30 year mining lease in 2007, so be interesting to see how that goes now, if theres a change of "Management".

kildare lad

jmreire wrote: »

The last time the Taliban ruled Afghanistan ( the part they controlled fully), they ruled with an iron fist. In the beginning, they were welcomed as they put a stop to the warring factions, who were well on the way to destroying what was left of the Country after the war with the Russians. But soon their barbaric methods turned the people against them, and it would be interesting to see how they would have fared out long term if the US had not invaded. My guess is that they would have been a very reformed taliban by now, that is if they were even still in power.
As to how it will go now, is anyones guess. Natural wealth it has in spades,it's thought that Afghanistan's resources could make it one of the richest mining regions in the world. ... The major mineral resources include chromium, copper, gold, iron ore, lead and zinc, lithium, marble, precious and semiprecious stones, sulfur and talc among many other minerals. But the "uncertain climate" meant that it has not been acted on, although the Chinese took out a 30 year mining lease in 2007, so be interesting to see how that goes now, if theres a change of "Management".

Would the Taliban have a great need for wealth through mining ? They seem happy enough living like Mohammed did except with AKs and dirt bikes. They don't seem like the type that want mansions with swimming pools etc . They live a very austere version of Islam compared to most other Islamic countries. I watched a documentary and they were goinh to punish a man for having to many people at is son's wedding as it was a waste of money and that's classed as un - islamic

Galwayguy35

Galwayguy35 wrote: »

Wallace and Daly will be happy the Yanks are leaving anyway, sure they might even pay a visit to see how the Taliban are getting on.

We live in hope. I'd say the Taliban would be really interested in Daly's pontifications

Tyrone212

biko wrote: »

Hopefully Biden will finish what Trump started.
US can't keep policing the rest of the world.
It should never have been invaded in the first place.

Policing is a hilarious term. They invade and plunder.

kildare lad

Tyrone212 wrote: »

Policing is a hilarious term. They invade and plunder.

While the industrial military complex sits back and counts the millions rolling in .. .

jmreire

kildare lad wrote: »

Would the Taliban have a great need for wealth through mining ? They seem happy enough living like Mohammed did except with AKs and dirt bikes. They don't seem like the type that want mansions with swimming pools etc . They live a very austere version of Islam compared to most other Islamic countries. I watched a documentary and they were goinh to punish a man for having to many people at is son's wedding as it was a waste of money that's classed as un - islamic

Theres a lot of truth in that..pre sept 11th, a representative of (I think) Sweden, came to Kabul to discuss helping the Country. They duly explained what they could do in regards health, education, infrastructure etc. An all they wanted in return was that the Taliban relax their extreme version of Islam, and to pay more than lip service to human rights, especially where women were concerned. When they ( the Swedes) were finished talking, the Taliban asked them how had they arrived in Afghanistan? They replied by air. The Taliban replied, then you should leave the same way. End of story. None the less, even at the height of their power, they still needed hard cash ( more than ever, as they were ostracised by the world of commerce due to their inhuman behaviour, so trading as we know it was out) Mullah Omar, their leader would turn on ( and off) the drugs tap, Afghan drugs being of a very high quality and purity, had a ready market, and for hard cash. Will be interesting to see how te new arrangements will work out financially.

Unfortunately this is a relatively common thing in Afghanistan - killing girls who are being educated

https://www.nytimes.com/2021/05/08/world/asia/bombing-school-afghanistan.html

https://www.hrw.org/news/2021/05/10/killing-schoolgirls-afghanistan

Bombing Outside Afghan School Kills at Least 90, With Girls as Targets

The Afghan army and police are taking huge casualties and had always been taking the brunt of the casualties. Its harder for them to recruit.

https://www.reuters.com/world/asia-pacific/afghan-troops-suffer-shockingly-high-casualties-violence-mounts-2021-06-07/

June 7 (Reuters) - At least 150 Afghan troops have been killed or injured in the last 24 hours in a surge of attacks by Taliban militants as foreign forces withdraw, senior government officials said on Monday.

Fighting is now raging in 26 of the country's 34 provinces, the officials said, speaking on condition of anonymity. Casualties were "shockingly high", one added.

ChickenDish

Even half an hours research by a 10 year old could have shown the Americans that invading Afghanistan was a lost cause, yet here we are 20 years later - the Taliban to be shortly be back in power with a lot of new weaponry courtesy of the good old USA.

How many lives, resources and money was wasted on American interference in the middle East. America in its arrogance thought invading Afghanistan and Iraq was a Nobel cause and justified - when in fact all they did was destabilise a huge portion of the middle east and cause the deaths of hundreds of thousands.

At this stage of the game you would think that they have learned a valuable lesson, but unfortunately they will continue to meddle and paint themselves as a legitimate target for reprisals from terror groups across the Middle East.

America, Russia and China are all the same, the difference only being that America purport to be a democracy and shining light in the world.

ChickenDish

ChickenDish wrote: »

Even half an hours research by a 10 year old could have shown the Americans that invading Afghanistan was a lost cause, yet here we are 20 years later - the Taliban to be shortly be back in power with a lot of new weaponry courtesy of the good old USA.

How many lives, resources and money was wasted on American interference in the middle East. America in its arrogance thought invading Afghanistan and Iraq was a Nobel cause and justified - when in fact all they did was destabilise a huge portion of the middle east and cause the deaths of hundreds of thousands.

I seriously doubt they had any real belief in changing anything. It has been tried multiple times to enforce Democracy and western culture on other countries and it's failed even under the best of circumstances. Vietnam, South Korea, Japan.. all places where American culture gained a foothold, and yet, failed to truly change anything. The same can be said for most of South America, or anywhere Americans have tried pushing their beliefs on to others.

Just as I doubt they believed that there was any kind of higher purpose or Nobel prize involved. It was revenge, pure and simple. A need to flex their military muscles again, pushing the attention of the electorate outside of America's borders, and away from the myriad domestic problems they had. The US has always used foreign ventures as a way to distract their population.. it just backfired because they didn't learn their lessons from their last few wars and the effect it had on the US population.

At this stage of the game you would think that they have learned a valuable lesson, but unfortunately they will continue to meddle and paint themselves as a legitimate target for reprisals from terror groups across the Middle East.

Nothing is going to change that. Too much water under the bridge regardless of what the US does, and that's been the case since the 80's.

America, Russia and China are all the same, the difference only being that America purport to be a democracy and shining light in the world.

You need to get out more. I've been to Russia and the US... and I live in China. There are loads of differences between them. Oh, I really don't like US foreign policy, and I don't trust them as a nation to stand for anything worthwhile... but they're not the same as either China or Russia. For one thing, the American public, while completely nutty, still have a chance at influencing the direction of American policy. That's not the case for Russia or China.. but yeah.. the US just has a better propaganda machine than China/Russia.. and TBF we want to believe that the US is better, because they're a western nation.

1874

Sandor Clegane wrote: »

Still, it's incredible to think that after being there for so long the the Afghan government military are so lacking, 20 years is a long time, you'd think they could of trained the Afghans better, surely they had a plan for when/after they withdrew?

Institutional corruption? perhaps, divisions based on tribal lines?
Something the fixed mindset of certain actors could not ever see, or maybe a small number could see and knew most wouldn't.

igCorcaigh wrote: »

Must the Taliban have some significant level of domestic support in order for them to still exist?
Where do they get their weapons from?

Pakistan? The Afghan Govt, legitimately or otherwise,

ChickenDish wrote: »

Even half an hours research by a 10 year old could have shown the Americans that invading Afghanistan was a lost cause, yet here we are 20 years later - the Taliban to be shortly be back in power with a lot of new weaponry courtesy of the good old USA.

How many lives, resources and money was wasted on American interference in the middle East. America in its arrogance thought invading Afghanistan and Iraq was a Nobel cause and justified - when in fact all they did was destabilise a huge portion of the middle east and cause the deaths of hundreds of thousands.

At this stage of the game you would think that they have learned a valuable lesson, but unfortunately they will continue to meddle and paint themselves as a legitimate target for reprisals from terror groups across the Middle East.

America, Russia and China are all the same, the difference only being that America purport to be a democracy and shining light in the world.

You are looking at this as if they went there to do anything, we dont know that at all. Its quite possible the entire thing was for the purpose of arming the Taliban as unlikely as that seems.
You seem to think the people who directed this care about a few US soldiers deaths, they might not want too many so they can stay for long enough without public opposition, but the corporations and businesses supplying a range of equipment, anything from vehicles, weapons to tap fittings have benefited from this. In the long run, the Taleban now have even better training and experience and are now even better armed and equipped, what better way to supply your purported enemies than leaving all that stuff behind, blood experience your own troops, gain/learn operational experience, test weapons. Cant imagine the Chinese having a crack, that could end up expaning into Chinese territory.

What will probably happen is, it/they will be left at it alone for another 15-20 years, in the interim no one will have a look unless some corporation needs some resources or as a reason to prevent another nation getting resources there.

I'll credit the Taleban with this, they sound very eco friendly what with their return to living a very frugal and basic lifestyle

FileNotFound

ChickenDish wrote: »

Even half an hours research by a 10 year old could have shown the Americans that invading Afghanistan was a lost cause, yet here we are 20 years later - the Taliban to be shortly be back in power with a lot of new weaponry courtesy of the good old USA.

How many lives, resources and money was wasted on American interference in the middle East. America in its arrogance thought invading Afghanistan and Iraq was a Nobel cause and justified - when in fact all they did was destabilise a huge portion of the middle east and cause the deaths of hundreds of thousands.

At this stage of the game you would think that they have learned a valuable lesson, but unfortunately they will continue to meddle and paint themselves as a legitimate target for reprisals from terror groups across the Middle East.

America, Russia and China are all the same, the difference only being that America purport to be a democracy and shining light in the world.

Honestly depends on what you think their aim was?

They did get Bin Laden and most of the AQ leadership, Bush stayed in power and they got to have a go at Iraq whatever their reasoning was.

Maybe it was a success?

jmreire

RTE recently showed a film called "The Post". Well worth watching if you get the chance. All the Presidents from the Vietnam war era ( inc, Kennedy) knew that the war was unwinnable, yet continued to throw resources and men into it. At that point the primary objective was not to support the Vietnamese or stop the spread of communism but to not to be seen as losers.

ChickenDish

[Deleted User] wrote: »

I seriously doubt they had any real belief in changing anything. It has been tried multiple times to enforce Democracy and western culture on other countries and it's failed even under the best of circumstances. Vietnam, South Korea, Japan.. all places where American culture gained a foothold, and yet, failed to truly change anything. The same can be said for most of South America, or anywhere Americans have tried pushing their beliefs on to others.

Just as I doubt they believed that there was any kind of higher purpose or Nobel prize involved. It was revenge, pure and simple. A need to flex their military muscles again, pushing the attention of the electorate outside of America's borders, and away from the myriad domestic problems they had. The US has always used foreign ventures as a way to distract their population.. it just backfired because they didn't learn their lessons from their last few wars and the effect it had on the US population.



Nothing is going to change that. Too much water under the bridge regardless of what the US does, and that's been the case since the 80's.



You need to get out more. I've been to Russia and the US... and I live in China. There are loads of differences between them. Oh, I really don't like US foreign policy, and I don't trust them as a nation to stand for anything worthwhile... but they're not the same as either China or Russia. For one thing, the American public, while completely nutty, still have a chance at influencing the direction of American policy. That's not the case for Russia or China.. but yeah.. the US just has a better propaganda machine than China/Russia.. and TBF we want to believe that the US is better, because they're a western nation.

America in their arrogance no doubt did think they could go in and remove what they perceived as a week enemy who could not stand up to the might of the US. I agree, revenge did play a part - blow up one of our buildings and we blow up your entire country. America have had their asses handed to them and sent packing with their tails between their legs. Optics will always play a part with foreign decisions made by the US.

America, China and Russian are indeed alike in numerous ways regarding their foreign policy, propaganda, civil rights violations, greed, xenophobia, middle east meddling etc etc etc Americans live under the illusion that they actual have a say with their 2 party politics, Trump being the prime example - he was simply more open about doing as he pleased. Their are huge differences between them, but for every difference their is a parallel.

America could have inflicted serious damage to their enemies without destabilising the whole of the middle east. Now its a case of will those dumb yanks ever learn - NO!

our views do not differ fundamentally, the whole mess is a lot more nuanced than a few paragraphs.

ChickenDish

FileNotFound wrote: »

Honestly depends on what you think their aim was?

They did get Bin Laden and most of the AQ leadership, Bush stayed in power and they got to have a go at Iraq whatever their reasoning was.

Maybe it was a success?

It certainly was a resounding success for a selection few.

Sandor Clegane

You can lead a horse to water but can't make it drink...invading these countries is like putting a plaster over a broken leg, does nothing to address the fact that these people are still in the dark ages and occupation doesn't or will never change that fact, western ideals can't be enforced on places like this, our way of life is simply incompatible with theirs and they need to be left alone to sort out their own mess.

It's unfortunate for women and children as they never have a chance and are heavily oppressed and indoctrinated, but at the end of the day you just can't fix the world.

ChickenDish

ChickenDish wrote: »

America in their arrogance no doubt did think they could go in and remove what they perceived as a week enemy who could not stand up to the might of the US.

Vietnam taught the US that such an idea was utterly foolish, which was compounded by experience in South America with the various rebel/para groups. Any guerrilla force that retains even an element of public support is virtually impossible to destroy, and the Afghans were already aware of how to fight from both their experience with Russia, and more importantly, by being trained by US special forces or US intelligence operatives.

I agree, revenge did play a part - blow up one of our buildings and we blow up your entire country. America have had their asses handed to them and sent packing with their tails between their legs. Optics will always play a part with foreign decisions made by the US.

Which doesn't counter what I stated previously.

America, China and Russian are indeed alike in numerous ways regarding their foreign policy, propaganda, civil rights violations, greed, xenophobia, middle east meddling etc etc etc

etc etc etc? You would place the US on the same level as Russia or China for civil rights violations, and xenophobia? the rest I could see some similarities, but those two I listed are nothing alike. It's a matter of scale... and context.

Americans live under the illusion that they actual have a say with their 2 party politics, Trump being the prime example - he was simply more open about doing as he pleased. Their are huge differences between them, but for every difference their is a parallel.

All democracies live under that illusion of having a say through our politics. Two parties or six doesn't change that illusion. As for Trump, he was a reaction to those who had gone before him, and also a reaction to the extreme PC/Woke culture that arose in the US.

I have no idea what you mean by your last sentence of that paragraph.

America could have inflicted serious damage to their enemies without destabilising the whole of the middle east. Now its a case of will those dumb yanks ever learn - NO!

How? The removal of Saddam destabilized the whole region, and to be fair, it would have happened anyway. Change was coming to the region with the rise of fundamentalist Islam, and leaders like Saddam would have been removed by them eventually. Did the US presence make things worse? Yes. Definitely.

our views do not differ fundamentally, the whole mess is a lot more nuanced than a few paragraphs.

haha.. no, really? Wow, I didn't know that.

political analyst

Deleted User wrote: »

Vietnam taught the US that such an idea was utterly foolish, which was compounded by experience in South America with the various rebel/para groups. Any guerrilla force that retains even an element of public support is virtually impossible to destroy, and the Afghans were already aware of how to fight from both their experience with Russia, and more importantly, by being trained by US special forces or US intelligence operatives.

Why would a substantial element of the Afghan public support the Taliban? That's like turkeys voting for Christmas!

political analyst

The Taliban were able to take Kabul in 1996 because the support that Najibullah's government received from the Kremlin ceased when the Soviet Union collapsed, e.g. the grounding of the Afghan air force by lack of fuel.

However, the Western powers are not going to have the same fate as the Soviet Union. Therefore, it doesn't necessarily follow that the events of 25 years ago will repeat themselves.

kildare lad

FileNotFound wrote: »

Honestly depends on what you think their aim was?

They did get Bin Laden and most of the AQ leadership, Bush stayed in power and they got to have a go at Iraq whatever their reasoning was.

Maybe it was a success?

Was it though, Taliban soon to be back in power , 2.6 trillion dollars the war cost , 3000 allied soldiers dead , that's excluding cost and deaths in Iraq . I'm sure there's thousands more missing limbs and the veteran rate of suicide is 22 people a day . Tens of thousands of afghanis dead , Al Queda gone but we gained Isis . Bush got 3 times the amount of Americans killed when he invaded Afghanistan and iraq compared to what was killed in 9/11 . We've had countless terrorists attacks in Europe which look like continuing indefinitely.

The irony of boths wars was that it's was implemented by Vietnam war era draft dodgers and chicken hawks . They no problem sending young men to die but when cheney ,bush and Co had their chance to fight in Vietnam , they were no where to be found . Americans are really very gullible when it comes to all this " Freedom " and "patriotism" nonsense .

kildare lad

political analyst wrote: »

Why would a substantial element of the Afghan public support the Taliban? That's like turkeys voting for Christmas!

It might be the only life a lot of men know , I'd say after decades of war they just want peace and stability , women have no say in the matter so they don't count in Afghanistan

johnsae2231

Knowing what psychological warfare/guerilla warfare entails the reason they are withdrawing is because they have probably gained a large amount of control over the taliban through agents/informants etc.

I doubt they are really even the Taliban anymore all the hardcore taliban have probably been killed and replaced with less hardcore members and agents.

johnsae2231

political analyst wrote: »

Why would a substantial element of the Afghan public support the Taliban? That's like turkeys voting for Christmas!

Because what you see on western media is only a small narrow picture of what they want you to see, in reality there is probably a far bigger picture of what is really going on.

I don't know much about Afghanistan but I know from other conflicts around the world that is generally how things work.

Gatling

political analyst wrote: »

The Taliban were able to take Kabul in 1996 because the support that Najibullah's government received from the Kremlin ceased when the Soviet Union collapsed, e.g. the grounding of the Afghan air force by lack of fuel. .

At that stage there was little to fight over defend in Kabul after four years of constant war between multiple warlords for most part the country feel to the Taliban with little or no resistance,
At first they even stopped opium production till they realised they had nothing to replace poppies with and then how much money they could make for themselves flooding the market with heroine .
If they start traveling in large convoys they can can easily be dealt with from the air

titan18

Sandor Clegane wrote: »

Still, it's incredible to think that after being there for so long the the Afghan government military are so lacking, 20 years is a long time, you'd think they could of trained the Afghans better, surely they had a plan for when/after they withdrew?

Stability doesn't make money for the guys financing this tbf.

BluePlanet

johnsae2231 wrote: »

Knowing what psychological warfare/guerilla warfare entails the reason they are withdrawing is because they have probably gained a large amount of control over the taliban through agents/informants etc.

I doubt they are really even the Taliban anymore all the hardcore taliban have probably been killed and replaced with less hardcore members and agents.

That sounds baselessly optimistic.

Anyway, if it's going to be Mullah Omar's eldest son that takes the reigns, we can expect a ramping up of war as he is a battle hardened military commander, and that's probably the only life he knows.
https://foreignpolicy.com/2020/05/29/taliban-leadership-disarray-coronavirus-covid-peace-talks/

ChickenDish

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Vietnam taught the US that such an idea was utterly foolish, which was compounded by experience in South America with the various rebel/para groups. Any guerrilla force that retains even an element of public support is virtually impossible to destroy, and the Afghans were already aware of how to fight from both their experience with Russia, and more importantly, by being trained by US special forces or US intelligence operatives.



Which doesn't counter what I stated previously.



etc etc etc? You would place the US on the same level as Russia or China for civil rights violations, and xenophobia? the rest I could see some similarities, but those two I listed are nothing alike. It's a matter of scale... and context.



All democracies live under that illusion of having a say through our politics. Two parties or six doesn't change that illusion. As for Trump, he was a reaction to those who had gone before him, and also a reaction to the extreme PC/Woke culture that arose in the US.

I have no idea what you mean by your last sentence of that paragraph.



How? The removal of Saddam destabilized the whole region, and to be fair, it would have happened anyway. Change was coming to the region with the rise of fundamentalist Islam, and leaders like Saddam would have been removed by them eventually. Did the US presence make things worse? Yes. Definitely.



haha.. no, really? Wow, I didn't know that.

Vietnam taught the US what!? So what have the last 20 years in Afghanistan been, the Americans exacting revenge! Or them making the same mistakes they made with Vietnam.

So you think America's civil rights record is golden - huh? Let's forget guantanamo bay, their past record/legacy, support of various regimes/dictators, killing of non combatants, detention of families on the Mexican border ( children separated from parents), imprisoning of innocent people, support of "freedom fighters" and various other indiscretions. Let's not mention the BLM global movement that was a direct result of the civil rights violations of black people, attacks of peaceful protesters, banning of Muslims entering the country, rhetoric by certain groups wanting to cleanse America of "ALIENS, MUSLIMS, ASIANS, ANYONE NOT A WHITE AMERICAN" and all that other non infringements on civil rights. Guess I'm wrong, America is a shining light in the world.

A two party system with two parties different sides of the same coin is a total illusion, ours is not perfe t but its no illusion.

If your believe removing Sadam didn't destabilise Iraq and have a knock on effect in the Area, your on hard drugs and probably should do some research. Saying it would probably happen is a cop out and proves absolutely nothing.

Your right, we obviously disagree, I tend to believe the facts.

1874

johnsae2231 wrote: »

Knowing what psychological warfare/guerilla warfare entails the reason they are withdrawing is because they have probably gained a large amount of control over the taliban through agents/informants etc.

I doubt they are really even the Taliban anymore all the hardcore taliban have probably been killed and replaced with less hardcore members and agents.

I agree with the other poster that says this is "baselessly optimistic"


More than likely, as already occurred elsewhere in the middle east, when you take out those in charge at the start, then gradually more militant and extreme sorts take over.
I didnt think the Taliban/Taleban? was completely wiped out in one go, or even at all, so as individuals may have gotten picked off they were as likely replaced by people lined up by the Taliban to replace them anyway.
Cut off one head, at least one more appears to replace it if not more.
The Taliban were always in this for the long haul, they belived it, they believed in what that lands history has shown them, so much so that it is/has become true (se;f fullfilling prophecy)
There was no solid plan, it was always going to be a matter of pouring people and material resources in.


As with Vietnam, if the US spent a fraction of the money lifting the people out of poverty, rather than engaging in warfare, they may have actually brought people onside, maybe then the Taliban or anyone like them would have faded/turned or what remnants there were left, defeated.
The only wars that are a success are those in which have the support of the populace, otherwise your options are not engage in war or kill everyone, the former should be the option, but to satiate the appetites of some people and misplaced anger, Afghanistan (and even Iraq) were invaded, a by product of this was a lot of businesses can only have made a fortune off those wars.

Neither of those Countries was responsible for the attacks on the US,
IF Bin Laden was even responsible himself, he was Saudi and he was only in Afghanistan and even then from what I gathered over time, the US demanded he be handed over early on, without much proof he was responsible, so it does not seem like the attacks on Afghanistan were ever legitimate, I didnt think it was legiitmised in the U.N. and revenge attacks seem to amount to nothing but dead innocents.
in the end, whether Bin Laden was responsible or not, it turns out he was holed up in Pakistan, that is apparent to me, could only have come with the support of the pakistani military and secret service, which from many things I have heard are complicit in supporting the war against the US and elsewhere against India, why not flatten Pakistans military capacity? flatten its nuke sites and then take their military apart piece by piece?

political analyst

political analyst wrote: »

Why would a substantial element of the Afghan public support the Taliban? That's like turkeys voting for Christmas!

First off, I said an element of public support, not a significant amount of support, because there doesn't need to be a significant percentage to provide support and information to any force.

Secondly, why would they? Religious conditioning/indoctrination, propaganda, fear, etc. Any number of reasons. What you think the Taliban doesn't have much support? Where does it's fighters come from? Who encourages others to volunteer to fight?

Gatling

ChickenDish wrote: »

So you think America's civil rights record is golden - huh? Let's forget guantanamo bay, their past record/legacy, support of various regimes/dictators, killing of non combatants, detention of families on the Mexican border ( children separated from parents), imprisoning of innocent people,

Compared with russia and China they are doing quite a good job ,