What is US actual stance on Taliban??

Beginning at least in 1990s, US funded T since they were anti-Shia which in Agency code means Extremist.

Decade later US declared war on Taliban godhead Osama/Osman,Tim in order Occupy iraq whose key GDP is OIL.

Its been 20 years since; Are we now seeing a pattern reversion cycle back to support now to Occupy the nation with 2nd largest economy in Eurasia after China?

(IRAN)

If you can’t beat them, bilk them!

2nd.

a reply to: pressident

Just read this in the peace deal.

...the Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan which is not recognized by the United States as a state and is known as the Taliban...

Sigh

Its jist one letter off

WTD anyways! ; Q / N?

a reply to: pressident

we never funded the taliban, we funded the mujhadeen when afghanistan was occupied by the USSR, after that we left and during the civil war period where various mujhadeen factions were fighting for control the taliban rose up from being a student movement and grew enough power to crush all of the various groups, most of the mujhadeen were forced into the countryside and became warlords with no real power beyond isolated pockets.

these holdout mujhadeen remnants did most of the fighting during our invasion but disbanded after the new government was established, that government's military has been failing to keep control and the taliban will probably take over with force after we leave, probably about to witness a new civil war either way.
and bin laden was never a taliban member.

Ah yea US never funded Osman,Tim a Saudi to Taliban either

originally posted by: namehere
a reply to: pressident

we never funded the taliban, we funded the mujhadeen when afghanistan was occupied by the USSR, after that we left and during the civil war period where various mujhadeen factions were fighting for control the taliban rose up from being a student movement and grew enough power to crush all of the various groups, most of the mujhadeen were forced into the countryside and became warlords with no real power beyond isolated pockets.

these holdout mujhadeen remnants did most of the fighting during our invasion but disbanded after the new government was established, that government's military has been failing to keep control and the taliban will probably take over with force after we leave, probably about to witness a new civil war either way.
and bin laden was never a taliban member.

We never funded the Taliban.... but you know who is backing them now..... Russia.

And I agree with you, the Taliban will be "peaceful" long enough for us to withdraw our troops and then they'll take over with force.

a reply to: pressident

I guess the actual US stance on the Taliban would be something like harder than they look , tenacious fighters led by good strategists, not to be messed with again.

Those who ignore the lessons from history are doomed to repeat the mistakes of history.

originally posted by: gortex
a reply to: pressident

I guess the actual US stance on the Taliban would be something like harder than they look , tenacious fighters led by good strategists, not to be messed with again.

Those who ignore the lessons from history are doomed to repeat the mistakes of history.

Life has little value over there, so I guess the question is how do you fight someone willing to kill themselves in taking you out. The bad side to this is the Taliban are extreme Muslims and so things like women not going to school and treated like cattle will resurface again.

the US and saudi arabia funded the mujahideen through pakistan during the Soviet occupation and bin ladens group got some of that money like many other groups, it's not the big conspiracy it keeps being made out to be, where the cia created al qaeda and bin laden was some agent.

a reply to: Xtrozero

i mean when you do so little that most of the people there don't even know your country exists and forgot they are being occupied,
you can't really say we even tried to do anything to actually win.

lolll obiously…"if you cant beat them...JOIN THEM !!!!

a reply to: Xtrozero

the simple answer is actually go to war. We are fighting a tribal society, with a specific culture and view of how life is supposed to be. You can not, and will not change it, and allowing them to continue to exist only creates an issue down the road. The simple answer is genocide, burn every single village, town, city, and pretty much anywhere you see heat patterns for the areas where taliban fights come from. Kill them all, every man, woman, and child. That is the only way to permanently eliminate this problem. That said, we would never do it, and that's why we never should have spent over 1 trillion dollars in that # hole. We never should have gone in. We should have used MOAB, on every one of their cities when they had power, and called it a day.

Camain

a reply to: pressident

To be perfectly frank the Taliban are a bad bunch of men BUT the US war of liberation has killed more afghan civilian's than they ever did.

Trump spoke the truth when he said the US (or any other major power) could win that war in week's or day's but to do so would require an act of TOTAL war, not a peace keeping and limited war.

Total war has not been waged since probably before the first world war and is when one power ANNIHILATES the other power, civilian's, city's and infrastructure killing all people and effectively neutralizing resistance in the process, it is how the Roman's first conquered though even they became a little bit more human afterwards, it is how Emperor Qin Shi Huang Conquered the other six states and enslaved there survivors, it is how the Mongol Hoard swept across the land's and conquered though they did not wipe out all the Chinese because Temogen wanted them and as they spread they learned to instead of wiping out conquer (they are two different thing's conquest is not total war but nearly as it leaves civilian's as a serf class in the conquered land's).

And the way the US (And coalition) waged war in Afghanistan while nice for the press was just as when the Russian's tried doomed to fail, still the US and allies did a far better job than the Soviet's ever did - if to the men whom have lost brothers in arm's NEVER completed so for many of them walking away now will be like insulting there comrades whom died for that fruitless conflict (Which was really about oil pipelines and rare earth mineral's which Afghanistan may be as rich in as China is - and if so is this more a business deal with the Taliban than a political one?).

a reply to: pressident

We think their hot but we just want to be friends.

a reply to: Xtrozero

How do we fight them? We do what we currently do, we use drones, and hopefully more automation so when they blow themselves up, that's all they blow up.

a reply to: Xtrozero

a reply to: LABTECH767

Yup to conquer Afghanistan means removing their ability to wage war, since they have no industry that means killing everyone that raises a weapon at you.

Even right after 9/11 we didnt have that resolve.

originally posted by: Irishhaf
a reply to: LABTECH767

Yup to conquer Afghanistan means removing their ability to wage war, since they have no industry that means killing everyone that raises a weapon at you.

Even right after 9/11 we didnt have that resolve.

It won't happen as long as the rest of the world is watching. US can't do that by international law. Taliban smarten up from the extremist side, I'm sure of that since ISIS and other groups tried to convert them to join their caliphate suicide run. Their not as dumb as you think compare to ISIS. Has switched sides to Russia because of US bases pissing them off there.

a reply to: makemap

Yup, its amazing what money can do to change a groups perspective, I have no doubt that they understand now they are sitting on a mountain of money and will probably shed their extreme fundamentalist views slowly as they chase the cash.