Jerry Barnes <[email protected]> wrote: > > "(1.) Taliban government squashed." > > The government was squashed, but not the Taliban. It still exists and is > responsible for violence in Afghanistan. Therefore, it is possible to have > peace talks with them. Are you for or against? > >
It depends on how you look at the goals. IMO, the original goals were to kill and disable the people and governments that supported an attack on American soil. To that effect: 1.) Government that supported Bin Laden, dead. 2.) Bin Laden, dead. 3.) Al Quaeda, life support. So we're done. No peace talks necessary because everyone is dead. Goals accomplished. Now if you want to move the goal posts, you can move them out to two general places: a.) To the end of the Taliban, or b.) To the end of the Taliban and then out to the end of the Iran regime, Pakistan, and maybe NK. The first might include peace talks; SecDef Gates seems to support moving the posts out to there and he's a guy who's opinion should be carefully listened too. So, at the end of the day, I'm inclined to support him but I'd want a specific end date and exit strate ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| Order the Adobe Coldfusion Anthology now! http://www.amazon.com/Adobe-Coldfusion-Anthology/dp/1430272155/?tag=houseoffusion Archive: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/message.cfm/messageid:339048 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/subscribe.cfm Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/unsubscribe.cfm
