A cultist is....

[J-Luck]

J-Luck,
No, there is absolutely nothing malicious in my discussions. I'm seriously just asking because I don't know as much as you do about it. And when I ask about the existence of Christ, I am not referring to the notion that he walked the Earth. I admit there's plenty of proof about that. My request if for proof that he was indeed divine - that he walked on water, turned water to wine, fed masses with one bushel of fish, and healed the sick. That's the stuff that's lacking independent source confirmation. And with the so-called gnostic gospels and their exclusion from the Bible, one has to wonder.

Something else you said sticks with me as a little bothersome as well. You said "carry that to its logical conclusion." What is logical in the leap from discovering that someone existed in history to then deciding that because He existed, He must have been a walking God? That leap redefines logic, as far as I am concerned, since it would be a singular event, unprecedented and absolutely never repeated. It doesn't seem logical in the least.

Aside fromt the fact that the gospels are accurate histoical documents, I told you there is plenty of evidence, both historical and archeological.

Nope, I never said that, you're misunderstanding my statement. I referred to the case for Christ. Once you aknowledge his existence, you must find it he really did the things the Bible said he did. Then, you must find if he really appeared to people after his supposed death. Then, finally you must conclude whether or not he truly died; if he didnt, then his appearance after the supposed death is nothing big, if he did, then it goes a long way towards proving whether or not he really is the Christ. It's a good book, you should check it out.

[J-Luck]

Garland,
You're right. Except on the Libya topic. Way, way off base there. At any rate, this goes somewhat to my point about the Taliban and al-Qaeda. Boar asked me what relevance the body count of Americans had on the discussion? My point was (and is) that if you totalled the entire sum of casualties - injuries and deaths together, civilian and military combined - you'd likely find that as depressing a number as it might be, it's a damned site less than we'd have had to face if the Soviets had won in Afghanistan. They would have had the power to cripple entire economies, destroy shipping and power infrastructures, and launch more nuclear, biological, and chemical weaponry than any other nation in world history. The statement has bearing because while we have suffered horrible losses of life in the War on Terror, those losses are likely very small in scale compared with the alternatives we might have faced. Look back at some of your Cold War history. Look at how far the Soviets were willing to go to get rid of capitalism and democracy.

Now, am I speculating as to those deaths? Yes I am. But by BoarSpear's logic, that's what should govern foreign policy, right? People in office during those years should have speculated that Osama would come along and form al-Qaeda, and then they should have speculated that the Taliban would help him attack us. And then they should have speculated that those attacks would have been far worse than any possible attack by the USSR. Finally, they should have speculated that we should not help the Afghanis defeat the Soviets because one day, all that might come back and cause us 50,000 deaths instead of the tens or maybe hundreds of millions of deaths that nuclear war would have caused. I hate to be the bearer of bad news, but war is a natural state of affairs. It sucks - sucks bad - but it is true anywhere you look in animal or human history. Animals fight over territory and kill one another - they even kill their own young - to reduce the level of competition for space and food. People are no different. There is no way to end war unless you can end literally all human conflict. Refusing to face that fact is dealing in theories that will never apply to real life. And recognizing it means at some point, you have to start playing to be the top of the food chain. Another hard but pragmatic truth.

Mike, I think they won't give up thier points, no matter how logical your argument. I completly agree with you, but I'm not sure they ever will.

[J-Luck]

Then what did this mean:



It seems you're telling me that the only "logical" thing to do is to look to the one source that is trying to "sell" me on the idea to find out whether it is true or not. That doesn't make sense to me. The Bible wasn't put together during Christ's life, and I am sure there were plenty of other books and sources one could look toward. In fact, since you've said all kinds of archaeological evidence exists, why doesn't it talk about the miracles in factual terms?

Finally for the evening, the thing to which I was referring in Christ's aying "the only way is through me" is the apparent contradiction between his words and his actions. If the only way was through Jesus, why, then, would Jesus bother with baptisms and other ceremonies of a religion that was no longer "the way" or "through him?" He went a long way to be seen as a rabbi, and to be baptized into that faith, did he not? Well, then how could the "way" be both through Him and through the faith to which he subscribed? Were people supposed to be Jewish, as he chose to be seen? Or were they supposed to part with the Jewish faith and follow him? Is the division between Jews and Christians really so insignificant as to be traced back to the actions of a few greedy souls in Jerusalem? And who do I believe nowadays? If Christ said that I must follow him to be saved, doesn't that mean I should also be a Jew? My difficulty comes from statements such as, "We are the true church," and "Good Christianity." I guess I just can't reconcile for myself how it is that anyone two millenia after His death can be so absolutely certain that they - and ONLY they - have it right. You've seen it here. We can't even agree on what single words meant back then, let alone what the overall message might have been. I guess my problem is that it always comes back to faith. And if simple faith is what your religion is built upon, then the faith of others must be equally valid, for none of you have any definitive proof.

Lol how am I doing that? I think you're taking everything out of context in this weird single minded rant. Why would it talk in factual terms because of archeological evidence... you're not making any sense. The purpose of the Bible is etification of the audience. It wasn't the purpose of the writers to have to explain everything, that would take away the faith aspect of it.

And no, I said Joesephus was another example of documentation of Christ. I think you should look at the Bible as a historically accurate set of documents with heavy evidence surrounding their authenticity. Once you do that, and it's fairly simple to do, you can come to the reasonable assumption that Jesus was the Christ. But I wasn't even saying that! I just said that a couple of things needed to be verified, such as the death, the burial, and the ressurection, and you have proof or near proof.

He didn't see it in terms of different faiths. WE have put those titles and categoriztions there, not Christ. He was a reformer of the faith, and the baptism was through his father God, so it only makes sense he would be baptised in the name of his father. And again, he was a reformer, he didn't necessarily start a new faith, though thats the title we've given it. In all honesty, Christians are Jews for Jesus, but without the old traditions and cultural implications. When Christ came to preach, the ideal situation would have been after his death for all the Jews to follow him and finally atone for their sins. That was the Purpose of Chirst. Eternal atonement(fogiveness). Instead of transferring their sins to an unblemished lamb, they could now just ask God with a sincere, willing heart for forgiveness. All of the sins of the world went to Christ, and since a sinner can't be allowed in heaven, he had to die. Being the Son of God, he came back, and then entered heaven, giving anyone who wanted it, a "get out of heaven free" card.

We have strong proof. I've already stated this. It's a leap of faith yes... but that's the logical conclusion based on the evidence. And no, Christ wasn't greedy if that's what you're trying to say. Other religions are not equally valid, they lack the internal and external consistency in their religious text that the Bible has.

[J-Luck]

Also Mike, Christianity is the only faith that is not works based. Look at any religion and you have a set of rules to follow, and a set of prayers to say, and a set of obligations to get into salvation. You know the requirements of Christianity? Admit you're a sinner, incapable of heaven, accept Christ's sacrifice, and him as your Lord. That's it! The hope is that your heart will be so changed that you will live your life in a more righteous way inherently, being a new creation under Christ, and dead to your old, sinful nature.

[J-Luck]

Symbolically I've heard of Christ as the ultimate lawyer with God being the judge... and thought the analogy is nice... I'd like to think of it a little differently.

I like to think of Christ as a friend, your best friend. You get in trouble with the law(God's commandments and requirements). He takes the heat for you, unquestioningly, and without any complaint. He is fully persecuted for your sake and is fully punished. Now, in this case, you would feel indebted to your friend, would you not? I feel the same way with Jesus, though I slip up often. I guess that's what the whole personal relationship is all about.

Mike, what I'm about to tell you, will not make sese, and it may defy logic or whatever, but I actually don't care lol. Once you've experienced Christ in your life, there is something that changes, and it's difficult to supress. If, by some chance, all the evidence I've discovered for the Bible through research proved to be flawed, I would still believe. There is something so distint when you have the experience that I'm talking about, that it isn't reasonable. And with that I will always belive, because my life has been so irrevocably altered, that I can't go back to disbelief(which is what I was subscribed to before). It goes beyond faith, because to me, it's solid, it's irrefutable.

I've seen lots of healings and miracles also(no fire from heaven, but some of the simpler things in life that to me are more relavant anyway). I've seen plenty of people at church who were supposed to die, no if, ands, or buts about it, yet they made it. And some, multiple times. The specific example in my head is this guy who has had cancer over and over, and I can't even remember which death he should be at now, but he's made it. And I'm not talking a 50/50, I'm saying the docs everytime saying that they were wrong last time, but this time it's it. And that's just one example. I've seen changes in peoples lives. Drug addicts and criminals turned youth group leader and examples to others who struggle.

I'm not sure if that had any relevance, but thought I'd let ya know where I'm coming from when I post, and why this is so real to me.

[J-Luck]

I lied. One more.

J-Luck, I'm concerned that you'd call that a nonsensical rant. TRy and stay with me on the following points:



You have explained that he was a reformer, so I guess that covers part of it. But does that mean that the Jews are still "wrong" somehow? Why or why not?



Pretty self-explanatory. Yes or no. Why or why not?



The "Good Christianity" statement came directly from you. It insinuates that there is also "Bad Christianity." Who decides which is which? Why or why not?



You have been talking out both sides of your mouth. On the one hand you say that there's plenty of proof. On the other hand, you say that proof takes away the faith of it. I can accept that the Bible wasn't written as proof, but you keep referring to it as "a historically accurate document." I fail to see how it can be determined as accurate. Authentic, yes. But that isn't even close to the same thing. If it is "accurate," then there must be some source for comparison, and some source that fills the gaps in proof left by the Bible for the sake of faith. What I am asking is very simple. What proof exists of the works that Jesus performed? And by your own comments, you cannot cite the Bible, since proof can neither come from the source one is trying to prove, nor was it intended to (according to you) as that proof would somehow diminish the "faith aspect of it."

Next:


I've covered what I see as the logical faults here. Now I'll cover the obvious argumentative faults. Based on what you said (find evidence of the death, burial, and resurrection, and you have proof or near proof), I have to presume that if Jesus died and was buried, and then was not found in the cave in the morning that he simply rose from the dead? How is that reasonable or logical? Can you show me anything - anything at all - that suggests that suchj an act is even within the realm of possibility (without citing faith, I mean)? And even then, can you convince me that a simpler answer was not at hand? Something as simple, perhaps, as the guards merely opening the tomb and carrying away the corpse? Occam's Razor, right?

Please don't dismiss questions as a rant with no purpose. I'm asking honestly. Now either tell me something besides "The Bible is Authentic and historically accurate" and "While it is proof, it doesn't need ot be proof as that would diminish the faith aspect." Give me something concrete, or simply say "I don't know." I'll respect you either way, but please, knock of the dismissive chastising.

The Jews are wrong, if they don't accept his gift as their savior. The ones who do are not wrong, for he came for them, and for all of us, those who don't accept that are wrong.

No, you should not be a Jew, becuase that would entail taking on certian traditions and cultural traits that are not part of your heritage. Spiritually, yes, you can be a Jew, meaning you are one of God's chosen people, accept you also must accept his Son's sacrifice.

The Bible decides, becuase it is the written word of God. It can be taken out of context, and it can be taken in context. I tend to think I take the most logical approach to reading it and take it in context. I don't think there are any secret meanings in the Bible, though somtimes there is some looking into the text. I read it just as I would any other text.

There needs to be faith... I know it seems that I am talking out of both sides, but without faith there is nothing behind all of this. If Christianity had no aspect of faith, then it would be easy, and everyone would be a Christian. I think it is also accurate and authentic. Archeological evidence supports it's accuracy. You don't necessarily need outside sources. Many well accpeted events in history are based on documents with no corroborative evidence. I think maybe I mispoke on this before. I didn't mean to say that proof was unecessary, nor that the Bible isn't proof. I think the Bible is a reliable, accurate set of documents, that should be taken for what they are, accurate, reliable documents. Is there any DNA evidence that Christ died and rose again, no. Any video proof, no. It's an audacious claim, I admit. But, that's where faith comes in. Are you willing, based on strong evidence, to beleive that Jesus died, was buried, and then rose from the dead? It's a big leap, but my point is it's not an insurmountable or even a rediculous one.

I know you think you have covered the logical faults there... but I simply don't agree. I'm going to have to re-research all of this information so I can site specific examples of the Bible in comparison to other documents and the acceptance of what the say as truth, and how the Bible matches up. I'm also going to have to look at the corroborative evidence such as archeology and such, I realise what you're sayin, and you are correct. Though I understand and have seen information I'm telling you about, I'm only doing just that, telling you about it. I'm not presenting it to you. And I appologise for that.

And unknowingly, I think I have answered this 2 paragraphs up. The guards carrying him away are also addressed in my research. Jewish Guards(not Roman) were posted to protect Jesus. They realised how unlawful it would be to touch a dead body(unclean) and it would have (at least culturaly speaking) disgusted them. They would also have no reason to. Also, if the guards stole him, how would he have reappeared(over 500 witnesses to his reappearance after his death.

[Garland]

where is he now?

Face it...we are a cosmic accident...and there is no meaning, purpose, or rhyme or reason to life nor existence in general.

We are born, we die...game over. Th-th-that's all folks...he he he....
And I'm happy, because I'm fucked up in the head.

[Sagacious Lu]

where is he now?

Face it...we are a cosmic accident...and there is no meaning, purpose, or rhyme or reason to life nor existence in general.

We are born, we die...game over. Th-th-that's all folks...he he he....
And I'm happy, because I'm fucked up in the head.

............42

[kingoftheforest]

where is he now?

Face it...we are a cosmic accident...and there is no meaning, purpose, or rhyme or reason to life nor existence in general.

We are born, we die...game over. Th-th-that's all folks...he he he....
And I'm happy, because I'm fucked up in the head.

I have seen your pix Garland and yes you are an accident of cosmic proportions.

[kingoftheforest]

Mr. Brewski

I'm gonna say this one more time. You've have so much invested in the bullshit you got fed your whole life that you missed my points.

I'll agree I'd rather not fight any of these options. But we knew where the soviets where and what their abilities in warfare were. We can't even tell the good guys from the fuking bad guys in this war because they all look the fuking same.

I also want to point out that I didn't say anything about World Peace I'm not some tree hugging hippie fag!!!!! People who are to short sighted to see that things can be changed somewhat for the better don't seem to exist. Your crap about things "Things have always been this way" would have kept people in the trees picking lice and throwing feces.

Get a grip it's obvious we create enimies to keep the military industrial complex rooling. No war no money. So all your rich leaders who did dirty shit to get to the top find out that's the easy way and keeping doing it.

How can you type such long posts when you have to keep grabbing you ankles so damn much. You have so much invested in your "America F#ck yeah!!" attitude that your scared to admit that maybe we aren't as great as we think.

And don't tell me that industryu hasn't brain washed and propagated people into being fat and lazy. Before comercialization people actually knew what it was like to live. Before money people only had to worry about surviving not keeping up with the Jones'. Keep 'em busy make the slaves think they are happy and then bend 'em over and pump away. That's called American business. Dr.'s perscribe more and more drugs to people evryday. What did people do before these drugs. Half the problems people have now are caused by decades of over medication. WTF

And for the last god damned time answer MY question

Who has succesfully invaded Afgahnastan and suddued the population ever???????


It's a little ebrassive but I just got home from work. lol.

And as for where the soviet union is. Now its about 30 countries we have to keep an eye on with all the chemical and biological and nuclear weapons spread all over god knows where. So how does that make it better for us?

Now we need even more resources we don't have to keep an eye on numerous possible threats?


And the Afghans and Iranians are the least of our problems. China hold 71% of our national debt. They can dump that at any time and screw us??? But well argue over Taiwan with them???

There's too many whoops and damn we messed up coming from the administrations of the U.S. in the past 40 years or so. You can explain those away to yourself if you want, maybe it will help you sleep at night.

Your also missing the point that the Soviets were no fanatics like the insurgents are. Life is less important to them they don't care if they die as long as they take our monkey asses with them.

BTW some world leaders that appear to have missed your studies. The Dali Lama, Gahndi (sp), Mother Teresa, Buddah. All these real historical people some in our century that influenced nations through peaceful means not slaughter graft and corruption.

Thanks for your time and input,

KOTF

[kingoftheforest]

Good got your attention

Got ya to sink down to my level or so to speak. Nice fit. Is that how your leaders would do it.

On to the subject at hand.

First why do the Afgahn people need our help to sudue a "Small" crossection of thier country. We defeated the British with a very few amount of soldiers and less technology?

And why haven't you answered my question about who has subdued Afgahnastan in history. I understand we are not trying to subjagate the whole populace to bow to our leaders....but answer my question cause that's what the Ruskies were trying to do. So what makes you think they could ever have without nuking the Afgahns???? Nobody else could.

And if nobody else could subdue the whole populace what makes you think we can weed out a "Small" crossection of them and defeat them when they all look the same.???? If you have a barrel of poisoned apples and they all look the same how do you find it? You volunteer to bite them all?

With the U.S.S.R we knew it was all the people between certain borders.


I never claimed I could fix the world. My suggestion for a better world was to stop putting ignorant assanine self-involved leaders, who only have thier own intrests in mind.

You don't like my rants then stop using massive amounts of info to boogle people minds to hide the failings of your points.

You type long hypnotic posts that most people can't even make it to the end of just to make one point. This is that psy-ops training kicking in I'm sure. But I didn't think that rant went along with it. Check yourself too Sir you started hte name calling earlier than I did, call me a crybaby, did you see your last post????


And where do you get your news from? I have friends in the theater of combat military and otherwise. If you don't get yours from CNN or fox or ABC clue me in on this special media source. Is it yahoo????

Tell us about the rioting and shelling and airstrikes in Afghanastan yesterday. That aint on CNN or ABC!!!!

I'll acknowledge AGAIN that I don't have an answer to solve the wolrds problems but your answers seem to hurt more than help.

And lots of people died when the Dali Lama left yes. Good thing he didn't have a bunch of people who knew would be slaughtered to protect him commit suicide against the Chinese. You wanna take the U.S. army over there and get Tibet back after they clean up the middle east???

And as for not having facts...who has defeated Afghanastan, who were the Iraqies fighting before we showed up, why is it Bush's ratings are 29% and explain to me why the terrorist are putting out tapes claiming 911 wasn't there doing. Our leaders give you proof everyday that they are criminals.

But I bet that's just more mudslinging right. Kinda like accusing someone of having W.M.D's and never finding any? I bet alot of people are still wondering too.



War in Iraq- billions of dollars
Covering up your mistakes- Millions of dollars thousands of lives.
Getting away with it scott free- priceless.

[kingoftheforest]

Wtf

The subjagation of Afgahnastan is relevant. You said you would not want to fight a unified USSR that would include Afghanastan. Explain to me how if no one could sudue the populace that you think the USSR could. That is waaaayyyy relevant buddy. So who in history has. If no one has then well assume since you seem to be able to du that alot that the USSR couldn't so where's your unified USSR????

I think thats a hell of alot relevant. Because if you can't prove the Soviets could win then you sunk your argument at the begining. Cause you would never have had to fight a unified USSR.

BTW where did the Taliban get it weapons from?? The break up of the Soviets perhaps and the U.S. aid they got????

Ouch I bet it hurts putting your own foot in your mouth.

And as for the name calling, you lost your cool MR. COOL ICE so looks like I won that one. Everybodies used to me calling names. Keep it together man your losing this argument by going off like that.

BTW how are we doing in Iraq and Afghanastan weren't we supposed to be pulling out like a year ago.

How is it that the people don't want the Taliban? How come they didn't just squash that small cross section you keep talking about. The blacks were more than a small cross section of the souther community and they were kept down for a loonnng time.

And your hero Dubbyah doesn't give a rats ass about the U.S. he's lining his pockets with bribes from his coporate buddies who are making a killing (literaly) right now.



U.S. support by day, Taliban support by night. Go look it up.

[BoarSpear]

So the afghan people have been succesfully invaded tons of times huh? Exactly when did a single government impose rule on the entire peoples of the land? Name ONE succesful occupation sure people got bits n pieces but the land has always been warlords

[kingoftheforest]

????

Ummm you keep up the name calling and insults more than I do. Are you doing this in order to draw people's attention away from the subjects at hand???

Is that "your" tactic Sir? Deny, Evade, Counteraccuse? Works for our leaders doesn't it?

The entire country as was pointed out above by BS who knows a thing or two, has never been completley enthralled by anyone.

That brings us back to no unified USSR.

So name call and drone all you want. Know Mr. Brewer than in no way has my respect for you diminished. I can see you stick to your guns and that's admirable.But sometimes we are blinded by blatant facts because we have too much investment tied up in a cause?

[BoarSpear]

Reports of the demise of the Afghan insurgency have been greatly exaggerated.

TIRIN KOT, Afghanistan, April 27 — Building on a winter campaign of suicide bombings and assassinations and the knowledge that American troops are leaving, the Taliban appear to be moving their insurgency into a new phase, flooding the rural areas of southern Afghanistan with weapons and men.

Each spring with the arrival of warmer weather, the fighting season here starts up, but the scale of the militants' presence and their sheer brazenness have alarmed Afghans and foreign officials far more than in previous years.

"The Taliban and Al Qaeda are everywhere," a shopkeeper, Haji Saifullah, told the commander of American forces in Afghanistan, Lt. Gen. Karl Eikenberry, as the general strolled through the bazaar of this town to talk to people. "It is all right in the city, but if you go outside the city, they are everywhere, and the people have to support them. They have no choice."

The fact that American troops are pulling out of southern Afghanistan in the coming months, and handing matters over to NATO peacekeepers, who have repeatedly stated that they are not going to fight terrorists, has given a lift to the insurgents, and increased the fears of Afghans.

General Eikenberry appealed for patience and support. "There has not been enough attention paid to Uruzgan," he said in a speech to the elders of Uruzgan Province gathered at the governor's house in Tirin Kot, the provincial capital. "I think the leaders, the Afghan government and the international community recognize this. There is reform coming and this year you will see it."

The arrival of large numbers of Taliban in the villages, flush with money and weapons, has dealt a blow to public confidence in the Afghan government, already undermined by lack of tangible progress and frustration with corrupt and ineffective leaders.

This small one-street town is in the Taliban heartland, and the message from the townspeople was bleak.

Uruzgan, the province where President Hamid Karzai first rallied support against the Taliban in the months after the Sept. 11 attacks, is now, four years later, in the thrall of the Islamic militants once more, and the provincial capital is increasingly surrounded by areas in Taliban control, local and American officials acknowledge. A recent report by a member of the United Nations mission in Afghanistan shown to The New York Times detailed similar fears.

The new governor, Maulavi Abdul Hakim Munib, 35, who took up his position just a month ago, controls only a "bubble" around Tirin Kot, an American military officer said. The rest of the province is so thick with insurgents that all the districts are colored amber or red to indicate that on military maps in the nearby American base. Uruzgan has always been troublesome, yet the map marks a deterioration since last year, when at least one central district had been colored green, the officer said.

"The security situation is not good," Governor Munib told General Eikenberry and a group of cabinet ministers at a meeting with tribal elders. "The number of Taliban and enemy is several times more than that of the police and Afghan National Army in this province," he said.

Uruzgan is not the only province teetering out of control. Helmand and Kandahar to the south have been increasingly overrun by militants this year, as large groups of Taliban are reportedly moving through the countryside, intimidating villagers, ambushing vehicles, and spoiling for a fight with coalition or Afghan forces.

Insurgents also have the run of parts of Zabul, Ghazni and Paktika Provinces to the southeast, and have increased ambushes on the main Kabul-Kandahar highway.

The Bush administration is alarmed, according to a Western intelligence official close to the administration. He said that while senior members of the administration consider the situation in Iraq to be not as bad as portrayed in the press, in Afghanistan the situation is worse than it has been generally portrayed.

Asked about the surge in Taliban activity in southern Afghanistan, a Pentagon spokesman, Bryan Whitman, said: "We have seen Taliban activity fluctuate from time to time." The British-led NATO force taking over from the American troops in the south "has well-equipped, well-led and fully prepared forces to operate in this challenging environment and deal with any threats," he added.

He noted that the United States would continue to be the largest contributor of troops to Afghanistan, and would continue to have primary responsibility for counterterrorism operations and for training Afghan Army units, even with NATO taking over in the south.

In one of the most serious developments, some 200 Taliban have moved into the district of Panjwai, only a 20-minute drive from the capital of the south, Kandahar, Mr. Karzai's home city. The police and coalition forces clashed with them two weeks ago, yet the Taliban returned, walking in the villages openly with their weapons, and sitting under the trees eating mulberries, according to a resident of the district.

The resident, who asked not to be named for fear of reprisals, said the Taliban had been demanding food, lodging and the Muslim tithing, zakat, from villagers. Their brazenness and the failure of the United States-led coalition to deter them is turning public opinion about the effectiveness of the government.

For the first time the Afghan government has sent 500 men of the newly trained Afghan National Army to the neglected province. The official police force of Uruzgan is 347 strong, with 45 men deployed in each of the five districts, but far fewer actually turn up for work. American officials estimated armed Taliban in the province numbered from 300 to 1,000 men. The governor estimated there were 300 armed insurgents in each district.

The Taliban are warning the people to expect more attacks, the shopkeeper, Mr. Saifullah, told General Eikenberry. "During the day the people, the police, and the army are with the government, but during the night, the people, the police, and the army are all with the Taliban and Al Qaeda," he said.

Another man, Rahmatullah, told the general that his brother had been arrested by American forces and the raids and house searches had made the young men take to the hills to join the militants. "Release my brother and the tribal elders will persuade the young men to come back home and stop fighting," he said.

"The unemployment rate is very high and the people of Uruzgan are very poor," said Mullah Hamdullah, the elected head of the provincial council.

Unsure of the strength and commitment to fight of the incoming NATO forces — with British, Canadian, Dutch and Australian contingents — Afghan provincial officials, who stand first in the Taliban's firing line, have demanded that Mr. Karzai provide them with hundreds more police officers and weapons.

The governors of Uruzgan and Kandahar both said in interviews that they have lobbied the president for a force of 200 police officers for every district — four times current numbers — and to provide more resources to equip and supply them properly.

In a recent strategy review, Mr. Karzai agreed to increase the government presence in the frontline provinces, his chief of staff, Jawed Ludin, said. "We are increasingly hearing this, that there only 40 officers per district, and half of them are protecting the district chief as bodyguards, and the other half are on leave," he said.

A deputy minister of the interior, Abdul Malik Siddiqi, told the gathering that the government had a plan to send 200 to 250 police officers to each district of Uruzgan, and to find resources to equip them and pay their salaries.

General Eikenberry expressed caution about the idea, warning that there were not enough trained officers to send to the area, and more important, a lack of good leaders to control those police forces.

Uruzgan has suffered from a lingering Taliban presence and its forbidding terrain, which has made security and governing extremely difficult, resulting in neglect from the central government, he said. There has been no police reform or training here, no presence of the Afghan National Army and virtually no development, he said.

General Eikenberry is hoping to turn things around this year with new and better local leaders. "Now we see a lot of those conditions changing," he said, in an interview in the cockpit of the C130 military plane on the way to Uruzgan. Replacing the governor, and police and intelligence chiefs, should allow for reform and better governance, he said. Some 500 men of the national army have been deployed in the province and the police should receive better resources.

Hopes are pinned on Maulavi Munib, an educated, religious man from eastern Afghanistan, who was deputy minister of tribal affairs of the Taliban government. He is starting from scratch since the former governor sold all his vehicles, including police vehicles, and all the arms and ammunition owned by the province.

Governor Munib's past brings an added complication, since he remains listed by the United Nations Security Council sanctions committee as a wanted member of the Taliban leadership, which technically bars any government from providing financial, technical or military assistance to his province.

The Afghan government has formally requested that he, and three other former Taliban officials, including two members of Afghanistan's new Parliament, be removed from the list, a process that demands the agreement of all Security Council members, but Afghan officials said Russia remained opposed to the proposal.