Layton and talks with the enemy

[nothinarian]

http://ca.news.yahoo.com/s/capress/080503/...n_cda_taliban_3

Layton and senior military officers say chat

McKay says no

Are disucssions with enemy giving them credence or the right course to a negotiated peace?

[margrace]

You can't continue your private war if people start communicating It just isn't Kosher, so I hope Mr. McKay finds this out.

[nothinarian]

You can't continue your private war if people start communicating It just isn't Kosher, so I hope Mr. McKay finds this out.

But then again should we give Taliban credence and are we setting precedent if we negotiate with terrorists and terrorist friendly organizations

Slippery slope, no?

[Kitchener]

But then again should we give Taliban credence and are we setting precedent if we negotiate with terrorists and terrorist friendly organizations

Slippery slope, no?

We talk with the Taliban all the time, as does the current government in Afghanistan -- just not formally.

You should find out just what and who the Taliban are, before deciding whether we should talk with them.

Oh, and be prepared for a loud and bitter chorus of complaints about your use of the term "Taliban Jack". Some members of this board have a totally non-partisan opposition to such labels; and their use is against board policy, I believe.

[Michael Bluth]

Oh, and be prepared for a loud and bitter chorus of complaints about your use of the term "Taliban Jack". Some members of this board have a totally non-partisan opposition to such labels; and their use is against board policy, I believe.

Non-partisan or not it is board policy.

HarperCons

Lieberals/Libranos

Taliban Jack

We can use demeaning names for all the parties and/or leaders. None of them really have a place here.

[nothinarian]

We talk with the Taliban all the time, as does the current government in Afghanistan -- just not formally.

You should find out just what and who the Taliban are, before deciding whether we should talk with them.

Oh, and be prepared for a loud and bitter chorus of complaints about your use of the term "Taliban Jack". Some members of this board have a totally non-partisan opposition to such labels; and their use is against board policy, I believe.

Tried to make Taliban Jack a hook to catch those fish and debate so hopefully it will work but point taken - first time on any web forum so will try to be less controversial

What about slipery slope issue and credence to those that harbour terrorists

see link for relationship between Bin laden and taliban just in case you do not understand the history. It will make you aware of their checkered history, their human rights records especially against women, and their association with Bin Laden

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taliban#Relat...Osama_bin_Laden

[eyeball]

http://ca.news.yahoo.com/s/capress/080503/...n_cda_taliban_3

Layton and senior military officers say chat

McKay says no

Are disucssions with enemy giving them credence or the right course to a negotiated peace?

I'd say the smackdown that people like Maxine Bernier received is the "enemy's" greatest source of credibility. Our officials look the other way while Afghani officials and warlords squirrel away hundreds of millions of dollars against the day when the West finally surrenders and goes home with its ass in its hands.

We're losing

There is a poll in the paper edition of the story I linked to that says 60% of Afghani's believe the Karzai regime we are supporting and defending is more corrupt than the Taliban, the mujhedeen, or the Communists. 81% believe sharia law would be an effective deterrent to corruption.

[nothinarian]

There is a poll in the paper edition of the story I linked to that says 60% of Afghani's believe the Karzai regime we are supporting and defending is more corrupt than the Taliban, the mujhedeen, or the Communists. 81% believe sharia law would be an effective deterrent to corruption.

For clarification purposes - Are you are agreeing with the 81% that sharia law would be an acceptable alternative and that democracyis a failed experiment that should not be pursued

[BC_chick]

For clarification purposes - Are you are agreeing with the 81% that sharia law would be an acceptable alternative and that democracyis a failed experiment that should not be pursued

So, since we know what's better for the Afghanis than 81% of them do, we're going to force democracy down their throats while completely ignoring the will of the (vast) majority.

Nice democracy.

[Kitchener]

see link for relationship between Bin laden and taliban just in case you do not understand the history.

The history of the former Taliban regime is not in question; and I think I understand it fairly well in any case.

The Taliban as it exists now is a loose conglomeration of people, somewhat organized and coordinated at the centre, but at the fringes manned in part by farmers, herdsmen, and general part-timers who are Taliban when they can be galvanized, and plain old folks hoping for the best on alternate days.

Almost every hearts-and-minds NATO mission to the countryside therefore involves "talking to the Taliban" to some degree. And at least back-channel communication with more overt Taliban elements must be a reality for any competent force in the position Canada's forces are in.

These are people and movements that have significant popular support among Afghans; any nation-building approach that denies them a voice would be inherently unrepresentative and anti-democratic. Running around in small circles screaming "Terrorists! No talking to terrorists!" is approximately the least informed and most useless thing conceivable at this point.

[nothinarian]

So, since we know what's better for the Afghanis than 81% of them do, we're going to force democracy down their throats while completely ignoring the will of the (vast) majority.

Nice democracy.

Is that confirming your support of sharia law as an alternative and deep-sixing democracy and seperation of church and state

[nothinarian]

The history of the former Taliban regime is not in question; and I think I understand it fairly well in any case.

The Taliban as it exists now is a loose conglomeration of people, somewhat organized and coordinated at the centre, but at the fringes manned in part by farmers, herdsmen, and general part-timers who are Taliban when they can be galvanized, and plain old folks hoping for the best on alternate days.

Almost every hearts-and-minds NATO mission to the countryside therefore involves "talking to the Taliban" to some degree. And at least back-channel communication with more overt Taliban elements must be a reality for any competent force in the position Canada's forces are in.

These are people and movements that have significant popular support among Afghans; any nation-building approach that denies them a voice would be inherently unrepresentative and anti-democratic. Running around in small circles screaming "Terrorists! No talking to terrorists!" is approximately the least informed and most useless thing conceivable at this point.

Do you agree that true democracy and seperation of church and state is required or should we embrace sharia law - that is the question IMHO

I do get your point on problem with nation building but can true democracy be a long term fit or will we revert

[BC_chick]

Is that confirming your support of sharia law as an alternative and deep-sixing democracy and seperation of church and state

It's not about what you or I want.

[Fortunata]

It's possible that the 81% that believe Sharia law will end corruption sees that as the only way out. Democracy is new concept; one that people are not fully informed of and are not aware that this type of system brings alternatives other than strictly black or white (either corruption or a return to oppressive Sharia law).

Maybe Afghanis are forgetting the corruption (and oppression) under the Taliban (who imposed Sharia Law). Taliban officials lived in luxury, took from less well to do to fund their lifestyle, enjoyed depravities that were forbidden (and punished non-Talibans who might have done the same).

[nothinarian]

It's possible that the 81% that believe Sharia law will end corruption sees that as the only way out. Democracy is new concept; one that people are not fully informed of and are not aware that this type of system brings alternatives other than strictly black or white (either corruption or a return to oppressive Sharia law).

Maybe Afghanis are forgetting the corruption (and oppression) under the Taliban (who imposed Sharia Law). Taliban officials lived in luxury, took from less well to do to fund their lifestyle, enjoyed depravities that were forbidden (and punished non-Talibans who might have done the same).

Human rights need to rejected by those being de-humanized - if they are willing to go back to taliban rule then what does this say about the futility of our efforts

Sad scenario

[gc1765]

Layton and senior military officers say chat

McKay says no

Are disucssions with enemy giving them credence or the right course to a negotiated peace?

Karzai wants to, and has, talked to the Taliban. If we want Afghanistan to be a democracy, shouldn't we respect the wishes of their democratically elected government?

[eyeball]

For clarification purposes - Are you are agreeing with the 81% that sharia law would be an acceptable alternative and that democracyis a failed experiment that should not be pursued

No, I don't like theocracy but since that's what we're going to end up with anyway I think its a little more realistic to negotiate with it than pretend its not there. I definitely think using Canada's military to try and force democratic reforms is a failed experiment.

From the article I posted.

“Unfortunately, the corruption now has reached even the highest-ranking elected officials, and that is becoming a constant problem. … What I see in Afghanistan is a weak and corrupt government, and the Afghan people have to deal with this, not the international community,” said Yunus Quanooni, the Speaker of Afghanistan's parliament and a potential presidential challenger. “The President sees them as an instrument for re-election himself, so he doesn't dare touch them.”

As painful as it may be to watch we have to accept the fact that democracy will either evolve in Afghanistan on its own or it won't. Military engineering is just as useless as social or moral engineering, for the very same reasons. As painful as its going to be, we need to face the reality that every Canadian who has died in this conflict has probably died in vain. Canadians will just have to deal with that the best they can, but they shouldn't expect Peter McKay or our government to because it is after all is said and done, corrupt.

Edited May 4, 2008 by eyeball

[Kitchener]

Do you agree that true democracy and seperation of church and state is required or should we embrace sharia law - that is the question IMHO

Well, "true democracy" can be many, many, many different things. Separation of church and state is hardly essential to it. The dichotomy with embracing sharia law is an obvious false dilemma.

More to the point, though, -- that is absolutely not the question.

Not. The. Question.

The question, recall, was whether Jack Layton (inter alia) was wrong to say that the Taliban should included in official dialogue: "Are discussions with enemy giving them credence or the right course to a negotiated peace?"

My point was quite simply that he was not wrong; he's suggesting something that is not only basic political pragmatism, but is also something Karzai is doing officially, and which NATO is doing informally. Even if the aim is a militarily compelled peace, as opposed to a purely negotiated one, discussions with the Taliban are essential. Indeed, you might conclude that your question is ill-formed, since it alludes to the Taliban as "the enemy", without any qualification, suggests that those ambivalent farmers, who periodically dig up weapons at the call of a local leader who counts as Taliban, are the enemy that we're there to destroy, and are not Afghan citizens with legitimate concerns, whose lives we are presumably there to improve.

[nothinarian]

No, I don't like theocracy but since that's what we're going to end up with anyway I think its a little more realistic to negotiate with it than pretend its not there. I definitely think using Canada's military to try and force democratic reforms is a failed experiment.

From the article I posted.

As painful as it may be to watch we have to accept the fact that democracy will either evolve in Afghanistan on its own or it won't. Military engineering is just as useless as social or moral engineering, for the very same reasons. As painful as its going to be, we need to face the reality that every Canadian who has died in this conflict has probably died in vain. Canadians will just have to deal with that the best they can, but they shouldn't expect Peter McKay or our government to because it is after all is said and done, corrupt.

Ouch but I tend to agree

I do think the experiment needs a little more time to actually assess the results .I say that until I see the body bags then think as a parent.So do we pull out and allow a return to sharia law or sacrifice further lives in attempt to forestall the inevitable

Talk with the Taliban - - if the inevitable is coming we need to try and influence the process to make the most of a bad situation and lobby for human rights - it may eventually make sense

[gc1765]

As painful as it may be to watch we have to accept the fact that democracy will either evolve in Afghanistan on its own or it won't.

What if the majority of Afghans WANT democracy, but the minority with the machine guns won't let them have it. And what if Canadians with machine guns might, just maybe, prevent the afghans with machine guns from oppressing the rest of Afghanistan. Shouldn't we at least TRY to help those Afghans?

[Jerry J. Fortin]

What if the majority of Afghans WANT democracy, but the minority with the machine guns won't let them have it. And what if Canadians with machine guns might, just maybe, prevent the afghans with machine guns from oppressing the rest of Afghanistan. Shouldn't we at least TRY to help those Afghans?

I wonder how Canadians would feel if we were invaded by another nation and told what was best for us? I wonder how many citizens would stand up for this nation? What if the United States decided that we should become a vassal state of America and have all of what we knew before they came determined by them to be false and against our best interests?

Leave the Afganies to determine their own fate in political terms. I agree that we could and should help them to achieve their goals, but only because we helped to destroy their country and are now responsible for trying to make things right. Canada should stay away from matters of international intrigue, at least until such time as we find a set of representatives and leaders that have sufficient discernment to avoid causing harm to the citizens of another country at the expense of the lives of citizens in this country. It is that kind of lose / lose scenario that we need to avoid. The cost / benefit formula was never applied to this scenario we now find ourselves in. It was a knee jerk reaction that we undertook.

[nothinarian]

The cost / benefit formula was never applied to this scenario we now find ourselves in. It was a knee jerk reaction that we undertook.

Hard to apply a cost benefit analysis to military action in general, and specifically Afghanistan. How would we place a price on improvements to human rights, empowering women, and helping on the security/safety front.

I with you on the inevirability of return to taliban rule and sharia law - unfortunate and we should give it a little more time then assess but floomy outlook - if it not wanted by the people then how can you force it upon the people-regardless of how honourable be the intentions

[gc1765]

I wonder how Canadians would feel if we were invaded by another nation and told what was best for us?

The difference of course is that the vast majority of afghans WANT us in their country, as does their democratically elected government. The afghans have decided for themselves that us staying there is what is best for the country. I don't blame them either. If I had the choice between an oppressive domestic government, and a much less oppressive foreign government, I'd choose the foreign government, wouldn't you??

[Kitchener]

the vast majority of afghans WANT us in their country

I wasn't aware that this had been demonstrated. Could you cite the evidence for it?

[BC_chick]

It's possible that the 81% that believe Sharia law will end corruption sees that as the only way out. Democracy is new concept; one that people are not fully informed of and are not aware that this type of system brings alternatives other than strictly black or white (either corruption or a return to oppressive Sharia law).

Maybe Afghanis are forgetting the corruption (and oppression) under the Taliban (who imposed Sharia Law). Taliban officials lived in luxury, took from less well to do to fund their lifestyle, enjoyed depravities that were forbidden (and punished non-Talibans who might have done the same).

I remember a conversation with a young Muslim woman who staunchly defended many Islamic beliefs which I consider blatantly misogynist. I was shocked by the things I heard, but I learned a valuable lesson about ethnocentrism and the arrogance of believing that everyone out there, given a chance, would think and behave like we do.

Not to trail too far off my earlier point though - I still think it's amazingly hypocritical to bring democracy somewhere, yet only respect the wishes of the people if it's what we would like to see of them. After all democracy is a philosophy in which the fundamental tenet is the will of the people, no?

Edited May 4, 2008 by BC_chick