Political Forums
Page 1 of 2 1 2
Show 40 post(s) from this thread on one page

Political Forums (http://www.politicalchat.org/index.php)
-   Politics (http://www.politicalchat.org/forumdisplay.php?f=25)
-   -   Negotiating with the Taliban (http://www.politicalchat.org/showthread.php?t=7658)

whell 06-09-2014 08:17 AM
Negotiating with the Taliban
 
No, I'm not drawing a direct line between the release of Bergdahl and the events this weekend in Pakistan. However, I think its work reminding ourselves exactly who we negotiated with, and have now by extension recognized as an international entity. 23 dead, and the Taliban have claimed responsibility.

http://www.hometownlife.com/usatoday/article/10220535

BlueStreak 06-09-2014 08:32 AM
Almost as many as our lax gun laws are responsible for at Virginia Tech alone. Dang, that is bad.

http://www.cnn.com/2013/09/16/us/20-...ry-fast-facts/

;)

Love,
Dave

MikeG22 06-09-2014 08:43 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by BlueStreak (Post 223546)
Almost as many as our lax gun laws are responsible for at Virginia Tech alone. Dang, that is bad.

http://www.cnn.com/2013/09/16/us/20-...ry-fast-facts/

;)

Love,
Dave
And these two things are related how?

BlueStreak 06-09-2014 08:52 AM
The same way every incident involving American deaths abroad are related to Benghazi. Only from my view point.

:p

Dave

icenine 06-09-2014 09:09 AM
I am pretty sure we negotiated with the North Vietnamese too during that war.

finnbow 06-09-2014 09:19 AM
Ending a non-decisive war such as this one always involves negotiating with the enemy and you unfortunately don't have the luxury of picking your enemy. From the Taliban's perspective, we are just as bad as we think they are with the number of innocents killed in drone attacks. FWIW, any negotiating we are doing there pales in comparison with the Iran-Contra affair. Truth be told, the Taliban has never launched a terrorist attack on American soil (though the did indeed provide a safe (for a while) harbor for OBL and his boys).

Dondilion 06-09-2014 09:28 AM
A good read by Peter R. Neumann in Foreign Affairs - NEGOTIATING WITH TERRORISTS.

http://www.foreignaffairs.com/articl...ith-terrorists

whell 06-09-2014 09:29 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by finnbow (Post 223561)
FWIW, any negotiating we are doing there pales in comparison with the Iran-Contra affair.
BS. This is completely different. Iran is a nation. The Taliban is an Islamic fundamentalist political movement that we have now legitimized.

whell 06-09-2014 09:31 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by icenine (Post 223556)
I am pretty sure we negotiated with the North Vietnamese too during that war.
North Vietnam is was a nation that we were at war with...sort of No comparison.

finnbow 06-09-2014 09:42 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by whell (Post 223566)
BS. This is completely different. Iran is a nation. The Taliban is an Islamic fundamentalist political movement that we have now legitimized.
Iran is the world's biggest state sponsor of terrorism and the Contras were not a nation. And yes, the Taliban were the leaders of a nation when we went to war with them. In fact, that was the reason we went to war with them (their nation, Afghanistan, was a safe haven for OBL).

icenine 06-09-2014 09:50 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by whell (Post 223566)
BS. This is completely different. Iran is a nation. The Taliban is an Islamic fundamentalist political movement that we have now legitimized.
you are crazy;) joke


you think they care about a concept such as legitimization?

icenine 06-09-2014 09:53 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by whell (Post 223567)
North Vietnam is was a nation that we were at war with...sort of No comparison.
Actually North Vietnam is Vietnam. They won the war remember?
And now they sort of need us to counter Chinese influence.

merrylander 06-09-2014 09:56 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by finnbow (Post 223568)
Iran is the world's biggest state sponsor of terrorism and the Contras were not a nation. And yes, the Taliban were the leaders of a nation when we went to war with them. In fact, that was the reason we went to war with them (their nation, Afghanistan, was a safe haven for OBL).
Aging does sometimes cause a short term memory problem.:rolleyes:

icenine 06-09-2014 09:56 AM
Leave the geo-political discussion to such intellectual and General Schedule heavyweights such as Finnbow and myself Whelly.

Just run along to your false debt crisis...hey I think Tom Coburn is on MSNBC look!;)

BlueStreak 06-09-2014 10:09 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by whell (Post 223567)
North Vietnam is was a nation that we were at war with...sort of No comparison.
Communists in Vietnam who kill people or Radical Islamists In Afghanistan who kill people;

What's the difference?

Dave

BlueStreak 06-09-2014 10:18 AM
We negotiated with Soviet Communists too. Didn't we invite Khrushchev to Disneyland?

Ike Bana 06-09-2014 10:23 AM
Whenever there's a mention about our war with the evil N. Vietnamese commies, I'm pretty much obliged to note the following:

Quote:
1944-1947: Ho Chi Minh Reaches out to US; US Diplomats Note He Has No Direct Ties to Soviet Union
Edit event

Ho Chi Minh is leading the Vietminh—a popular movement of Catholics, Buddhists, small businessmen, communists and farmers—in their fight for Vietnam’s independence from the French. He makes a dozen appeals to US President Roosevelt, Secretary of State Cordell Hull, and the Senate Foreign Affairs Committee for help, insisting he is not a communist and suggesting that Indochina could be a “fertile field for American capital and enterprise.” He even mentions the possibility of allowing a US base in Camranh Bay. Likewise, US diplomats in Vietnam in their communications to Washington note that he has no direct ties to the Soviet Union and that he is a “symbol of nationalism and the struggle for freedom to the overwhelming majority of the population.” Major Archimedes L. A. Patti of the Office of Strategic Services (OSS) later writes that Ho “pleaded not for military or economic aid,… but for understanding, for moral support, for a voice in the forum of western democracies. But the United States would not read his mail because, as I was informed, the DRV Government was not recognized by the United States and it would be ‘improper’ for the president or anyone in authority to acknowledge such correspondence.” Instead, the US will help the French—even offering them two atomic bombs. Ho Chi Minh is eventually forced in 1950 to look to the USSR and China for support. [Herring, 1986, pp. 10; Pilger,1986, pp. 188]
The man asked this country for help and got buttfucked. As with most of our other braindead geopolitical decision making since the end of WWII...this country ends up with the nightmare it created.

Rajoo 06-09-2014 10:39 AM
This is either to create a new controversy with a lose interpretation of the facts (Benghazi anyone?), or yet another basis for justification of an impeachment.

http://townhall.com/columnists/johnhawkins/2014/06/07/5-high-crimes-and-misdemeanors-for-which-obama-deserves-to-be-impeached-n1848801"]http://townhall.com/columnists/johnh...ached-n1848801[/URL]

bobabode 06-09-2014 10:57 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by finnbow (Post 223568)
Iran is the world's biggest state sponsor of terrorism and the Contras were not a nation. And yes, the Taliban were the leaders of a nation when we went to war with them. In fact, that was the reason we went to war with them (their nation, Afghanistan, was a safe haven for OBL).
Weren't elements of the Taliban part of the Mujahidin that we armed under Reagan to fight the Soviets?

Suggested reading for Whell. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taliban

donquixote99 06-09-2014 11:19 AM
In a perfect world (from the American nationalistic point-of-view) we would never have to negotiate with anyone. We would just express our wishes and all others would rush to obey. Alas, we in fact do not enjoy that level of cooperation from foreigners.

So, in this imperfect world, we must make hard choices. In this case, we could negotiate with the Taliban, thus according them some level of legitimacy, but getting our soldier returned. Or we could withhold that increment of legitimacy, dealing either a slight or a great blow to their cause (who can say?), but leaving our soldier to his fate.

Why do I have the feeling that whichever course the President had followed, Whell would be on here claiming it was blatantly the wrong thing to do?

Ike Bana 06-09-2014 11:43 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by donquixote99 (Post 223588)
In a perfect world (from the American nationalistic point-of-view) we would never have to negotiate with anyone. We would just express our wishes and all others would rush to obey. Alas, we in fact do not enjoy that level of cooperation from foreigners.

So, in this imperfect world, we must make hard choices. In this case, we could negotiate with the Taliban, thus according them some level of legitimacy, but getting our soldier returned. Or we could withhold that increment of legitimacy, dealing either a slight or a great blow to their cause (who can say?), but leaving our soldier to his fate.

Why do I have the feeling that whichever course the President had followed, Whell would be on here claiming it was blatantly the wrong thing to do?
Reckon he would also be the one to suggest that we did all the right things in Iran, Cuba, El Salvador, Guatemala, Panama, Chile, The Philippines and Vietnam. Even though history has shown that virtually all of the geopolitical trouble we've had over the last 50 years has been our own doing.

Tom Joad 06-09-2014 12:53 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by whell (Post 223544)
No, I'm not drawing a direct line between the release of Bergdahl and the events this weekend in Pakistan. However, I think its work reminding ourselves exactly who we negotiated with, and have now by extension recognized as an international entity. 23 dead, and the Taliban have claimed responsibility.

http://www.hometownlife.com/usatoday/article/10220535
You can fool some of the people some of the time whell, but you can't fool me.

This is just another one of your "any excuse to take a cheap shot at Obama" threads.

icenine 06-09-2014 01:25 PM
Actually are we at war with Pakistan? The OP has his countries confused mayhap.

whell 06-09-2014 06:15 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by icenine (Post 223569)
you are crazy;) joke


you think they care about a concept such as legitimization?
Yes. They do.

http://time.com/2826534/bowe-bergdahl-taliban-captors/

"This is a historic moment for us. Today our enemy for the first time officially recognized our status.”

whell 06-09-2014 06:18 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by icenine (Post 223570)
Actually North Vietnam is Vietnam. They won the war remember?
Uh, no. It was a negotiated peace that North Vietnam wanted as much as we did, especially after we demonstrated that we could bomb Hanoi and Haiphong whenever we wanted.

whell 06-09-2014 06:23 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by finnbow (Post 223568)
Iran is the world's biggest state sponsor of terrorism and the Contras were not a nation. And yes, the Taliban were the leaders of a nation when we went to war with them. In fact, that was the reason we went to war with them (their nation, Afghanistan, was a safe haven for OBL).
They WERE the leadership of Afghanistan before they were forcibly removed. They are NOW a fundamentalist political movement in Afghanistan, and as this weekend's activity demonstrates, still very much interested in terrorism.

While Iran maybe a STATE sponsor of terrorism, they are still a STATE.

whell 06-09-2014 06:24 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tom Joad (Post 223609)
You can fool some of the people some of the time whell, but you can't fool me.

This is just another one of your "any excuse to take a cheap shot at Obama" threads.
Right. Whenever terrorists below up an airport in Pakistan, it must be about Obama.

What a maroon. :rolleyes:

bobabode 06-09-2014 06:39 PM
Wanna borrow a No.2 shovel Mike? That snow shovel that you're using is woefully inadequate to the task at hand. :D

4-2-7 06-09-2014 06:42 PM
I think Obama is wonderful and should be able to do anything he wants. It's his country and he's the President after all.

icenine 06-09-2014 08:47 PM
what part of Ho Chi Minh City do you not understand?

donquixote99 06-09-2014 10:24 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by whell (Post 223645)
They WERE the leadership of Afghanistan before they were forcibly removed. They are NOW a fundamentalist political movement in Afghanistan, and as this weekend's activity demonstrates, still very much interested in terrorism.

While Iran maybe a STATE sponsor of terrorism, they are still a STATE.

Anyone who quibbles about definitions this compulsively is either 1) schizophrenic, or 2) ridiculously PARTISAN.

Dondilion 06-09-2014 10:42 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by whell (Post 223544)
No, I'm not drawing a direct line between the release of Bergdahl and the events this weekend in Pakistan. However, I think its work reminding ourselves exactly who we negotiated with, and have now by extension recognized as an international entity. 23 dead, and the Taliban have claimed responsibility.

http://www.hometownlife.com/usatoday/article/10220535
According to BBC news the Taliban claims it is a reprisal for a drone attack.

Dondilion 06-09-2014 10:51 PM
A look at drone strikes in Pakistan.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drone_attacks_in_Pakistan

merrylander 06-10-2014 06:44 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dondilion (Post 223712)
According to BBC news the Taliban claims it is a reprisal for a drone attack.
Also according to BBC news the Taliban in Pakistan is not affiliated with the Taliban in Afghanistan.

finnbow 06-10-2014 06:54 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by whell (Post 223645)
They WERE the leadership of Afghanistan before they were forcibly removed. They are NOW a fundamentalist political movement in Afghanistan, and as this weekend's activity demonstrates, still very much interested in terrorism.

While Iran maybe a STATE sponsor of terrorism, they are still a STATE.
The fact remains that we went to war against Afghanistan ruled by the Taliban. Another factoid - these 5 bad guys were held for 10 years and never charged or prosecuted for any crime. They were POW's.

Ike Bana 06-10-2014 09:16 AM
And I suppose the question might arise that who TF are we to invade a sovereign nation because we don't like who it's government chooses for it's friends? Who it gives aid and comfort to? Lots of countries give aid and comfort to enemies of this country. If we were to believe the propaganda we were fed by our government, every sovereign communist bloc country (including Cuba) provided aid and comfort to enemies of this country for over 40 years.

But all of a sudden because a pack of fanatics, most of whom were Saudi's (otherwise our long-term trusted allies), managed to pull off 9/11 under the noses of the CIA, FBI, NSA, and AFLCIO...we go marching in to a shithole like Afghanistan. Why didn't we invade Saudi Arabia...oh no, can't do that, we need cheap gas for our POS Chevy Suburbans.

Perhaps we should have gone marching into Russia in 1955 or 1965 or 1975 for giving aid and comfort to enemies of this country, and had our asses handed to us on a plate. Nah let's go for some of that low hanging political fruit...let's invade Iraq, Afghanistan, Panama and Grenada.:rolleyes: We even got our asses handed to us on a plate by the Vietnamese for christ's sake.

Pio1980 06-10-2014 09:22 AM
Also why Saddam was to be the example to other bad actors like Iran and North Korea, and we see how well that went.

Sent from my SM-N900V using Tapatalk

4-2-7 06-10-2014 09:30 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ike Bana (Post 223748)
And I suppose the question might arise that who TF are we to invade a sovereign nation because we don't like who it's government chooses for it's friends? Who it gives aid and comfort to? Lots of countries give aid and comfort to enemies of this country. If we were to believe the propaganda we were fed by our government for, every sovereign communist bloc country (including Cuba) provided aid and comfort to enemies of this country for over 40 years.

But all of a sudden because a pack of fanatics, most of whom were Saudi's (otherwise our long-term trusted allies), managed to pull off 9/11 under the noses of the CIA, FBI, NSA, and AFLCIO...we go marching in to a shithole like Afghanistan. Why didn't we invade Saudi Arabia...oh no, can't do that, we need cheap gas for our POS Chevy Suburbans.

Perhaps we should have gone marching into Russia in 1955 or 1965 or 1975 for giving aid and comfort to enemies of this country, and had our asses handed to us on a plate. Nah let's go for some of that low hanging political fruit...let's invade Iraq, Afghanistan, Panama and Grenada.:rolleyes: We even got our asses handed to us on a plate by the Vietnamese for christ's sake.

http://i2.wp.com/listverse.com/wp-co...size=276%2C350

Ike Bana 06-10-2014 10:49 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by 4-2-7 (Post 223750)
Nice to finally know what you look like. That said...what? You disagree?

donquixote99 06-10-2014 11:50 AM
Someone told 427 that with his writing skill, he's better off sticking to pure pictures.


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 06:22 PM.
Page 1 of 2 1 2
Show 40 post(s) from this thread on one page

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.6
Copyright ©2000 - 2026, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.