Canadians Support Talks With Taliban

[jdobbin]

http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/stor...20?hub=Politics

Canadians still think it's a good idea to negotiate with Afghanistan's Taliban insurgents as a way to end the violence there, a poll finds.

In The Strategic Counsel poll conducted for CTV and The Globe and Mail, there was almost two-to-one support for the notion:

* Net good idea: 63 per cent

* Net bad idea: 32 per cent

Guess there are a lot of Taliban Jacks out there.

[M.Dancer]

http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/stor...20?hub=Politics

Canadians still think it's a good idea to negotiate with Afghanistan's Taliban insurgents as a way to end the violence there, a poll finds.

In The Strategic Counsel poll conducted for CTV and The Globe and Mail, there was almost two-to-one support for the notion:

* Net good idea: 63 per cent

* Net bad idea: 32 per cent

Guess there are a lot of Taliban Jacks out there.

No, just a governement incapable of explaining black and white.

What common ground do you seek, if the person sitting opposite you believes in all or nothing? The question should be:

Are you willing to negotiate unconditional surrender to the Taliban

....cause that is their only demand

[jdobbin]

Are you willing to negotiate unconditional surrender to the Taliban

....cause that is their only demand

And yet Karzai supports talks and even has some former Taliban is his government.

[M.Dancer]

Are you willing to negotiate unconditional surrender to the Taliban

....cause that is their only demand

And yet Karzai supports talks and even has some former Taliban is his government.

Do you think the word, Former, might have anything to do with it?

No doubt, considering the Taliban pressed people into their service that there are numerous former Taliban out there. There has never been any obstacle from our side to trhem coming in from the cold.

Talking to former Taliban and discussing their surrender is par for the course.....

[jdobbin]

Do you think the word, Former, might have anything to do with it?

No doubt, considering the Taliban pressed people into their service that there are numerous former Taliban out there. There has never been any obstacle from our side to trhem coming in from the cold.

Talking to former Taliban and discussing their surrender is par for the course.....

I think the word former is used to make them more palatable. I don't really see a difference in how they conduct themselves though.

[noahbody]

[

And yet Karzai supports talks and even has some former Taliban is his government.

That might change when the Taliban shows up to the meeting wearing the latest in suicide bomb fashion.

[M.Dancer]

I think the word former is used to make them more palatable. I don't really see a difference in how they conduct themselves though.

If they blow up, they are current Taliban. If they sit and drink tea, they are former.

What do you suggest then? Just shoot the bastards?

Fair enough

[jdobbin]

If they blow up, they are current Taliban. If they sit and drink tea, they are former.

What do you suggest then? Just shot the bastards?

Fair enough

I'd say they are current Taliban when they go back to oppressive behaviour they used in the past, don't you?

In any event, it is up to Afghans. In the end, our main concern should be that the country is not used as a base for international terrorism. We may not control the fact that they may revert back to a hardline Islamic state.

[Black Dog]

No doubt, considering the Taliban pressed people into their service that there are numerous former Taliban out there. There has never been any obstacle from our side to trhem coming in from the cold.

So the Taliban's "all or nothing, victory or death!" attitude only holds until someone cuts up their Taliban membership card? What if they're just keeping it for now because of they're one hole punch away from the free submarine sandwich?

[M.Dancer]

We may not control the fact that they may revert back to a hardline Islamic state.

I never considered that as the goal.

[Figleaf]

Are you willing to negotiate unconditional surrender to the Taliban

....cause that is their only demand

...

Oh yeah. Sure. M.Dancer knows more about the Taliban than Karzai's government does. M.Dancer knows all about Taliban negotiation objectives, Taliban internal governance, exactly who is an isn't Taliban, and the motivations of each of them.

M.Dancer knows everything there is to know about the Taliban. Indeed, observe M.Dancer even briefly and it becomes clear ... M.Dancer knows everything about everything. Just ask M.Dancer.

[M.Dancer]

Did someone fart?

[jdobbin]

I never considered that as the goal.

Harper does.

[geoffrey]

Negotiating with terrorists gives their cause some legitimacy and it gives us more North Koreas... where the threat of escalation constantly developes in order to get some money or trade concessions ect..

Negotiating with terrorists even once gives them all the impression that violence gives 'x' benefits. Just like those that kidnap for randsom, if the government paid out a randsom each time, more people would get kidnapped.

It's a piss poor idea. Who cares if the majority of Canadians think that?? The majority of Canadian have proven to be completely braindead on a whole number of issues. Ad populum arguments are fallicious, why your attempt to deceive?

[jdobbin]

It's a piss poor idea. Who cares if the majority of Canadians think that?? The majority of Canadian have proven to be completely braindead on a whole number of issues. Ad populum arguments are fallicious, why your attempt to deceive?

I wonder if Harper can dismiss election results in Canada with the "voters are braindead" argument?

[M.Dancer]

I never considered that as the goal.

Harper does.

I'm sorry, you will have to show me where Harper has said gthe CDN mission is to stop Afghanistan frombecoming a hardline islamic state..........

[jdobbin]

I'm sorry, you will have to show me where Harper has said gthe CDN mission is to stop Afghanistan frombecoming a hardline islamic state..........

Funny. I just heard Harper on radio today saying that Canada has to stop the Afghanistan from falling into Islamic hardline hands.

Karzai also spoke on the issue today.

http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/stor...hub=CTVNewsAt11

Mission objectives

Karzai said the Afghan mission's objectives are to make sure the country no longer poses a threat, and to stabilize it so that terror-support regimes don't seize control.

The Afghan leader said the first mandate has been reached and urged Canada to follow through on supporting the second objective.

"Has the job been completely done? Have we accomplished all we are seeking? No -- if we leave half the way (Islamic militants) will re-emerge and haunt you back home whenever they want to. Let us complete it and not abandon it half the way.''

So am I wrong that Canada is trying to prevent a hardline Islamic state from re-emerging?

[Wilber]

So am I wrong that Canada is trying to prevent a hardline Islamic state from re-emerging?

What's the matter with that when it is a state that gives aid and comfort to terrorist organizations which carry out attacks on Western countries? Why should it matter if such a state is Islamic?

[jdobbin]

What's the matter with that when it is a state that gives aid and comfort to terrorist organizations which carry out attacks on Western countries? Why should it matter if such a state is Islamic?

I believe what I was suggesting is that there is little Canada can do to prevent Afghanistan from reverting to a hardline Islamic state. Unless we are prepared to interfere in the next election, Karzai might be out in favour of a government similar to the one overthrown.

[Wilber]

I believe what I was suggesting is that there is little Canada can do to prevent Afghanistan from reverting to a hardline Islamic state. Unless we are prepared to interfere in the next election, Karzai might be out in favour of a government similar to the one overthrown.

Interesting difference in philosophy, those who say something bad may happen therefore we should do something versus those who say something bad may happen therefore we should do nothing.

The ability to flip flop between the two depending on the issue seems to be human nature.

[Wilber]

Supposedly a majority of Canadians think we should negotiate with the Taliban. A majority supposedly think we should be in Darfur. To do what? Negotiate.

[M.Dancer]

Mission objectives

Karzai said the Afghan mission's objectives are to make sure the country no longer poses a threat, and to stabilize it so that terror-support regimes don't seize control.

The Afghan leader said the first mandate has been reached and urged Canada to follow through on supporting the second objective.

"Has the job been completely done? Have we accomplished all we are seeking? No -- if we leave half the way (Islamic militants) will re-emerge and haunt you back home whenever they want to. Let us complete it and not abandon it half the way.''

So am I wrong that Canada is trying to prevent a hardline Islamic state from re-emerging?

Pretty much. Given that you are unable to find anything in the copious reams of copy about the mission to back up that claim. We want Afghanistan to emerge as a stable state, a state that exists within the world community. Saudi Arabia is a hard line islamic state. So is Pakistan. They are both world citizens with international obligations. Afghanistan under the Taliban were not a "hard-line" islamic state. They were a pariah, and extremist clique......

Try to see the difference......one we can negotiate with....

[M.Dancer]

So am I wrong that Canada is trying to prevent a hardline Islamic state from re-emerging?

What's the matter with that when it is a state that gives aid and comfort to terrorist organizations which carry out attacks on Western countries? Why should it matter if such a state is Islamic?

Exactly. If in the next election they pick a fascist to run the place, it's no concern of ours unless they foster terror.

[Shakeyhands]

Where in Afghanistan or Darfur, its needed in both places. The more people talk the more understanding there is, and as far as Darfur goes, we need to step in to stop the starvation and killing of those who can't protect themselves

[Black Dog]

Negotiating with terrorists gives their cause some legitimacy and it gives us more North Koreas... where the threat of escalation constantly developes in order to get some money or trade concessions ect..

Uh. You are aware that negotiations are about give and take. One side gioves soemthing the other side wants in return for something else. If one side reneges on thei rpromise, the deal is off. Negotiation is not the same as surrender or capitulation.

Negotiating with terrorists even once gives them all the impression that violence gives 'x' benefits. Just like those that kidnap for randsom, if the government paid out a randsom each time, more people would get kidnapped.

That kinda depends on what we're giving up. But you don't know what that would be.

It's a piss poor idea. Who cares if the majority of Canadians think that?? The majority of Canadian have proven to be completely braindead on a whole number of issues. Ad populum arguments are fallicious, why your attempt to deceive?

Given that your favoured political party needs the majority of Canadians to buy what they're selling, I have to wonder if disparaging the voting public is a good way to go.