US dealmaking with Taliban?

[jimnyc]

I thought we didn't negotiate with terrorists? Why is the Obama administration making deals with the Taliban? Is this the message Obama sends, fight with us for a long time and then we'll come to the table and deal with terrorists?

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationwo...tory?track=rss

[Kat]

Oh how times have changed. Pretty disgusting, isn't it?

[jimnyc]

I just can't imagine even this shithead Obama and Shrillary agreeing to sit down with the Taliban - but they are, and yes, it's sickening.

[maineman]

at the end of the day, it's their fucking country and not ours. If the Afghan people would prefer to live under taliban rule and are content to live in the eleventh century, who the fuck are we to demand they change?

As long as the taliban does not actively export their brand of Islamic fundamentalism, as long as they don't send their people to fly airplanes into our buildings, I am perfectly willing to let them live in whatever squalor they chose to live in.

If we can negotiate that sort of arrangement, I would applaud it. Why wouldn't ANY american applaud it?

[jimnyc]

at the end of the day, it's their fucking country and not ours. If the Afghan people would prefer to live under taliban rule and are content to live in the eleventh century, who the fuck are we to demand they change?

As long as the taliban does not actively export their brand of Islamic fundamentalism, as long as they don't send their people to fly airplanes into our buildings, I am perfectly willing to let them live in whatever squalor they chose to live in.

If we can negotiate that sort of arrangement, I would applaud it. Why wouldn't ANY american applaud it?

So, should we negotiate with Al Qaeda next? What other terrorist organizations should we negotiate with, in your pathetic little mind?

It never ceases to amaze me just how much you're willing to support the (D), whether right or wrong. It also doesn't surprise me, that as a man who "claims" to be former military, you would think it's a good idea to go to the negotiation table with terrorists.

Btw, shithead, weren't you complaining about the spelling and capitalization of other just a day ago or so? You would think former military would AT LEAST capitalize "American".

[Kat]

at the end of the day, it's their fucking country and not ours. If the Afghan people would prefer to live under taliban rule and are content to live in the eleventh century, who the fuck are we to demand they change?

As long as the taliban does not actively export their brand of Islamic fundamentalism, as long as they don't send their people to fly airplanes into our buildings, I am perfectly willing to let them live in whatever squalor they chose to live in.

If we can negotiate that sort of arrangement, I would applaud it. Why wouldn't ANY american applaud it?

The Afghan people? Where is anything said about what the Afghan people want?

[maineman]

So, should we negotiate with Al Qaeda next? What other terrorist organizations should we negotiate with, in your pathetic little mind?

It never ceases to amaze me just how much you're willing to support the (D), whether right or wrong. It also doesn't surprise me, that as a man who "claims" to be former military, you would think it's a good idea to go to the negotiation table with terrorists.

Btw, shithead, weren't you complaining about the spelling and capitalization of other just a day ago or so? You would think former military would AT LEAST capitalize "American".

I have ZERO problem with negotiating withe the taliban. they WERE, as much as we hate to admit it, the legitimately elected government before we invaded. If they agree to not export their brand of Islam beyond their borders, and if the people of afghanistan are OK with them participating in their government, I have no problem with them and wonder why you would either.

and, ASSFUCK, if you could produce ONE SINGLE SOLITARY POST from me where I EVER complained about someone's fucking CAPITALIZATION of words, that would be real fucking cool. If not, I doubt that a spineless fucking worm like you would EVER admit that you made a mistake.

I'll wait.

but I'd fucking die if I held my breath waiting, that's for sure.

[jimnyc]

I have ZERO problem with negotiating withe the taliban. they WERE, as much as we hate to admit it, the legitimately elected government before we invaded. If they agree to not export their brand of Islam beyond their borders, and if the people of afghanistan are OK with them participating in their government, I have no problem with them and wonder why you would either.

and, ASSFUCK, if you could produce ONE SINGLE SOLITARY POST from me where I EVER complained about someone's fucking CAPITALIZATION of words, that would be real fucking cool. If not, I doubt that a spineless fucking worm like you would EVER admit that you made a mistake.

I'll wait.

but I'd fucking die if I held my breath waiting, that's for sure.

Did you preach this way? Or did you learn this from your years of making believe you were in the military? Maybe just from years and years of lying?

[revelarts]

I thought we didn't negotiate with terrorists? Why is the Obama administration making deals with the Taliban? Is this the message Obama sends, fight with us for a long time and then we'll come to the table and deal with terrorists?

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationwo...tory?track=rss

Umm wait a minute

OK the taliban harbored alQudia and we Attacked Afghan to get Bin-Laden and AlQuida. No taliban ever attacked us. They just refused to give us Bin Laden. Other than that they are just fight to get back control of
THEIR COUNTRY from foreign invaders. The CIA Cheifs under Bush said Alquida left Afghan YEARS AGO.
There Are no Taliban "terrorist" ANYWHERE, except Afghanistan. If you can even call them that, We Usually call them Insurgents.

That's 1st.

2nd
Until 911 the Taliban was A-OK with GW Bush, the Taliban were special guest of the Prez In the U.S.. none of their treatment of Women or hard core Islamic laws and persecutions were a problem until 9-11.

While Bush was in power we were willingly PAYING the Taliban second hand. I posted a thread about it a year or so ago that got ZERO response. Where was the Outrage for that? no wait our friend from Ireland responded saying that it's been common knowledge in the U.K.. for years.

...The real secret to trucking in Afghanistan is security on the perilous roads, controlled by warlords, tribal militias, insurgents and Taliban commanders. The American executive I talked to was fairly specific about it: "The army is basically paying the Taliban not to shoot at them. It is Department of Defense money."

That is something everyone seems to agree on. Mike Hanna is the project manager for a trucking company called Afghan American Army Services. The company, which still operates in Afghanistan, had been trucking for the United States for years but lost out in the host nation trucking contract that NCL won. Hanna explained the security realities quite simply: "You are paying the people in the local areas – some are warlords, some are politicians in the police force – to move your trucks through."...

...Welcome to the wartime contracting bazaar in Afghanistan. It is a virtual carnival of improbable characters and shady connections, with former CIA * officials and ex–military officers joining hands with former Taliban and mujahideen to collect US government funds in the name of the war effort.

In this grotesque carnival, the US military's contractors are forced to pay suspected insurgents to protect American supply routes. It is an accepted fact of the military logistics operation in Afghanistan that the US government funds the very forces American troops are fighting. And it is a deadly irony, because these funds add up to a huge amount of money for the Taliban.

"It's a big part of their income," one of the top Afghan government security officials admits. In fact, US military officials in Kabul estimate that a minimum of 10% of the Pentagon's logistics contracts – hundreds of millions of dollars – consists of payments to insurgents. ...

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009...curity-taliban


Does anyone else see how crazy this is.
It's a farce, If we are paying the Taliban to "not shot at our supply lines", WHO IS IN CONTROL?
It Ain't us.
Obama Increase troops to stupid levels and we still are hunkerd down in a few main cities.
For What?
They are not "terrorist" and we are not winning. As harsh a blow that it is to our pride. Were in good company, starting with Rome to the USSR.

Prez Karzi Is as corrupt as they come , a drug dealer and not much better at all with women's rights.
WHY should we spend another nickel or loose another soldier there?
There's no good reason Jim.
Not one.

The 1000 AlQuida world wide have moved on. so should we Jim.

[jimnyc]

The taliban are a terrorist organization. We also had "relations" with Saddam before he went nuts on his reign of terror. Just because prior to 9/11 they did one thing doesn't mean they aren't a terror group now who also support other terrorists. We have/had a $10 million dollar reward for their leader. They supported Al Qaeda. They gave safe haven and terrorist bases/camps to Al Qaeda for training.

[Gaffer]

al qaeda consist mostly of arabs and other foreign nationals, taliban are afghans. Other than that there is no difference in their goals and politics. The taliban were not elected to office, they took control through violence. They were forced out the same way with US support. They are made up of warlords and thugs with a seventh century mentality.

karzi is a corrupt warlord they call a president. Most of the country is corrupt and not worth bothering with other than a place to practice killing al qaeda and taliban. Dealing with them is just giving them time to rebuild and attack again.

[fj1200]

The taliban are a terrorist organization.

What are there terrorist goals? How long should we continue this way against the Taliban?

[jimnyc]

What are there terrorist goals? How long should we continue this way against the Taliban?

Kill, abuse & power.

Until they are eliminated or surrender.

[fj1200]

Kill, abuse & power.

Some clarification: What are their terrorist goals against the US? Also, are you now supporting the Libya action as Qaddafi has similar goals?

Until they are eliminated or surrender.

Are they worth the effort if they are no threat to the US?

[jimnyc]

Some clarification: What are their terrorist goals against the US?

The supported Al Qeada and allowed them to train there before 9/11, and afterwards.

Also, are you now supporting the Libya action as Qaddafi has similar goals?

Not sure what one man's goal is, but he attacked his own citizens, he should see the same treatment as Saddam as far as I'm concerned.

Are they worth the effort if they are no threat to the US?

ALL terrorist organizations are a threat to all of us. You allow them to fester and they only get stronger and grow. You eliminate them or have them surrender.

If a country has an epidemic and many are getting sick and dying - are they worth our effort?