Yes, however you were saying that if we kill all current members of the Taliban, we don't win. In reality, if we kill a good enough amount of the Taliban, we can contain them.
Define contain? Even if we killed most of their war fighters, we'd still have to deal with terrorist attacks and the like. Really it's all to do with hearts and minds, not bombs and bullets.
So, you're saying that even though they tried to overthrow the government before, they won't if we leave them alone?
I'm not arguing that they won't pverthrwo the government, which they almost certainly would if the US and UK left Afghanistan. You're completely missing the point. The point is that until 2001 when the US decided to invade, they were the legitimate rulers of the country.
Actually, if they turn themselves in they aren't punished and receive compensation. I haven't checked out the exact terms of it, because no one knows if any have gone for it yet.
Did you know that if they turn themselves in, it's highly likely their family will be killed, and they will be completely ostracised from their community?
You need to learn the definition of negotiating. Unconditional surrender and negotiation are not the same thing. Then again, Americans have never been very good at negotiating peace treaties.
Not all the Afghan people enjoy the Taliban rule. Sure, it may be better than it was before, but it's far from good.
No it's far from good, but it's not up to the US and the UK to change that. We aren't the world police, nor should we be. If we are using the 'we invaded to help the people' argument, then we there are plenty of other countries more worthy of invasion.
Also, don't forget that you Americans had no problem with training and supplying the Taliban with arms to fight the Russians, so don't act holier than thou on the issue of Afghanistan. Let's face it, humanitarian reasons aren't why you went in there.
Also, the point was that they are not rightfully running any region until the rest of the world accepts it. Yes, I know that world recognition doesn't mean anything to those who enjoy Taliban rule, but it is the measure for an official government.
No it's not the measure for official government. The US doesn't get to pick and choose who's a legitimate government to suit their strategic aims.
Until the Taliban has established a country and the necessary number of countries have recognized them, they (rightfully) run nada.
Also what is the 'necessary' number of countries? You do realise you're talking hogwash, and no such criteria exist? In the 1970s, over 40% of the UN members (almost all of Africa and Asia) voted to deprive Israel of membership. Does that mean Israel is not a true state? By your standards, quite possibly. In reality, of course it is a state.
