Quote:
Originally Posted by Willravel
The Taliban, not unlike like Hezbollah, does a lot more ultimate harm than good and has demonstrated even during what we might consider peace times that they're unwilling to set aside their violent, extremist fundamentalism. They're welcome to their religious beliefs so long as those beliefs don't extend to violence, but since they do unfortunately, they demonstrate that their organizations do not have a constructive place in society. Still, while I think it's the job of every human being to help police ourselves, we have to respect international boundaries. I won't go as far to say, "It's not our problem, therefore we should do nothing about it," but there have to be realistic limits to policing the world. We can't be international peacekeepers everywhere at once when we can barely do it in one country.
|
I am more confused regarding your position and the position of others on this subject now than when we started. My position is that I don't trust the Taliban, that I am not willing to risk the future based on a perception that they can not harm us, and that their goal of having free people bound by Sharia law is unacceptable. On one hand people suggest that I am ignorant and then on the other you write what you wrote above.
But getting back to the subject in the OP, my reasons for not liking the Taliban are clear, at least to me, however, I still don't know what Obama's cause is for escalating the war in Afghanistan. We don't need more troops to find Osama, that is pointless. Is he sending more troops to chase nuclear weapons? Is he sending more troops to promote democracy and religious freedom?
And, if the logic was - our military presence causes people to become terrorists, why is sending more troops going to solve the problem of ridding the world of terrorists?
So many questions, to bad no one is asking those questions and too bad Obama is not making his intentions clear. So, again agree with Bush or not, at least we knew what his intentions were.