Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Too Hot for Swamp Gas' started by MichaelJoeWilliamson, Jun 19, 2013.
why not talk to the Taliban?
Because it legitimizes them as people with authority and credibility to be talked to. Something which isn't in our interests, and certainly isn't in the interests of anybody who will be subjected to the results of the Taliban ever controlling outright again. I mean, I get that our interests are always the least priority, since we are the bully imperialists that need to be brought down to size, but lending our credibility to the Taliban isn't good news for anybody who has ever been uncomfortable with the totalitarianism, misogyny, and outright barbarity of the Taliban on the people around them.
I've certainly read that before, but I'm not sure it means anything. What does this alleged credibility do? Banks going to give them loans? "Well, we were going to turn you down, but I see on your application that you met with the U.S. ... How much would you like?"
Will other countries really change their opinions of the Taliban because we talked to them?
Akin to pointing out a shiny new quarter and watching his mind drift off the subject...
Yes, I'm prone to contemplation and adverse to proclamation. It's true.
Now, who's fault is it that the quarter is so darn shiny, anyway?
Leaving aside that you are challenging a self-evident fact that has governed diplomacy for at least a millennium or so, let me answer your question with another question -- why does a President give an interview to one journalist but not another? I honestly am coming up with too many parallels in human behavior to try to list, but the point is that you lend your credibility to the people you treat with, true in socialization and definitely true in diplomacy. You seriously don't get that a photo-op with a US President or Secretary of State has value to motivate one's supporters and demoralize one's rivals? It's cache. It is proof that you are the mover and shaker, the one that all roads flow through. It is why diplomatic recognition to a state is a big deal. These are pretty basic concepts, to be honest.
What does this accomplish exactly?
Are we still free? Are we part of America? Do we follow radical muslim principals?
We are technically free, we are America and America will not completely convert to be a muslim nation, so nothing will be accomplished by any talks with these terrorists.
Furthermore, it's quite sickening that people are actually behind talking to the Taliban as if they are a credible government that we can have a civilized discussion with. If there is any "talks" with Taliban leaders, we should just use it as a trap to arrest them and execute their sorry asses.
Negotiate with Taliban? Unreal.
It's the appeasement mentality. ALL Hussein's supporters follow this mindset.
I agree....totally unreal that negotiating with them is even being discussed at all.
Karzai of Afghanistan does not agree with your and it's his country.
This is part of Obama's agenda of declaring "victory" and then capitulating to the Taliban. Some of us remember the "peace talks" with the North Viet Namese in Paris. We saw how that worked out. If there is any kind of deal with these murderers expect to see Afghanistan fall to the Taliban thereafter. Then the slaughter and oppression of innocent Afgans will resume with a vengeance.
So you want Karzai to determine who we can and can't talk to?
Kinda hard to figure as W was the one who spoke the words going in, then diverted our war to Iraq.
So at best, Obama would be breaking W's word and W himself did that.
I started bitching about W at that moment in time as my great nephew was in Afghanistan when we went to Iraq to make it the peaceful nation it now is without Saddam.
Since you also don't want to pay for the war, why not get the hell out and let them get back to shooting at one another.