Some disapointing news for Jack and the NDP

[peter12]

Originally Posted by Devils'Advocate

First off, I support the mission in Afghanistan and a couple months ago when I lived in Ottawa Centre I wrote my NDP MP (whom I voted for and would again if I still lived there) stating that I thought the NDP were doing a dis-service to the Afghan people who want and need us there.

BUT what I'm not getting here is why conservatives are bashing Jack for his "negotiate with the Taliban" comment. The Taliban are not listed as a terrorist group by any nation that I know of. They overthrew a corrupt Afghan government and instituted an efficient and strong government. Yes, it was obviously mysogynistic and oppressive, but that doesn't make it a terrorist group.

Why is it that right wingers laud negotiations with Kim Jong-Il while laughing at the notion of negotiating with the Taliban? And don't tell me one side has the bomb and the other doesn't. There appears to be a serious philosophical contradiction here that goes beyond "well it's okay to negotiate with Kim Jong-Il because we're scared less of him".

Wow... The Taliban came in after a sustained period of brutal civil war between various mujahadeen groups fighting over power in the void after the Soviet's left.

They instituted a brutal, backwards regime which led to an almost complete collapse of the Afghan economy. They definitely were not efficient.

As for being merely mysogynistic and oppressive... wow. Public executions and beatings of women, sometimes for the "offense" of showing their face or ankle in public.

The refusal to grant women any healthcare except for a single hospital in Kabul. One without any modern accoutrements, such as anasthetics or antibiotics.

These guys were sick, dumb thugs. Anything less than the total annilihation of the Taliban is unacceptable. I'm sure a lot of Afghans would agree.

[icarus]

Originally Posted by nieuwy-89

Great news. This is why the troops are there, and apparently it's working.

Imagine if the CBC picked up on even 10% of the good things that are happening in Afghanistan.

I think the CBC focuses on Kandahar and environs because that's where all the Canadian forces are, doing the most dangerous grunt work. Other countries' NATO deployments are in places where little conflict remains and where these great developmental gains are being achieved. CBC could do more stories about all the Canadian aid agencies making contributions elsewhere around the country, that would be nice. But they do report on good and bad occurrences involving Canadian forces, although when they report 20 Taliban officials were killed in a raid on a weapons cache it doesn't make the same kind of impact as when Canadian forces are killed by a roadside bomb.

[Winsor_Pilates]

Originally Posted by jolinar of malkshor

Well...it is the NDP that are demanding that the Canadian troops leave Afghanistan....it is the NDP that wants Canada to sit down with the Taliban and negotiate....it has been the NDP's position all along that Canadian troops should not be there....it was the NDP that put a motion forward to end immediatly any combat roles for Canadian troops.

Shall I go on?

If you like. But at some point can you explain why the NDP would be dissapointed with the positives in Afghanistan? becuase that's the claim and none of the things you listed explain that.

The NDP's stance is along the lines of them feeling the bad outway the good in Afghanistan and therefore they aren't in favour of being there. That however does not mean they would be dissapointed with good things happening.

[FlamesAddiction]

Originally Posted by Winsor_Pilates

The NDP's stance is along the lines of them feeling the bad outway the good in Afghanistan and therefore they aren't in favour of being there. That however does not mean they would be dissapointed with good things happening.

The NDP should be loving it. It goes further to justify a firm time line for ending the mission.

[Devils'Advocate]

Again, I'm still lost regarding Taliban/North Korean.

Yes, I said they were brutal and mysogynistic. You stating examples of their brutality is pointless. That's obviously a given. But we have equal attrocities in North Korea where people are being held in Nazi-like concentration camps. Republican Senator Sam Brownback has stated that these gulags are the worst human rights abuse on the planet today. Other US officials have said that Brownback is hugely understating the problem.

So again, why is it okay to negotiate with the North Koreans, but it's repugnant to negotiate with the Taliban?

As for Peter12s "Anything less than the total annilihation of the Taliban is unacceptable. I'm sure a lot of Afghans would agree." Wouldn't the same be true of Jong-il's government?

[jolinar of malkshor]

Originally Posted by Devils'Advocate

Again, I'm still lost regarding Taliban/North Korean.

Yes, I said they were brutal and mysogynistic. You stating examples of their brutality is pointless. That's obviously a given. But we have equal attrocities in North Korea where people are being held in Nazi-like concentration camps. Republican Senator Sam Brownback has stated that these gulags are the worst human rights abuse on the planet today. Other US officials have said that Brownback is hugely understating the problem.

So again, why is it okay to negotiate with the North Koreans, but it's repugnant to negotiate with the Taliban?

As for Peter12s "Anything less than the total annilihation of the Taliban is unacceptable. I'm sure a lot of Afghans would agree." Wouldn't the same be true of Jong-il's government?

Since N. Korea has one of the largest standing armies, you can't really compare them to the Taliban. Are they just as bad? For sure...even worse probably.....but the fact of the matter is that they are currently the ones in charge and they have a lot more army to back up their will.

When the Taliban were in power...the world community did try to negotiate with them and gave them an ultimatum....but they refused. Removing the Taliban from power was much easier than removing Kim Jong....and those are the facts.

[Aeneas]

I think the American military, as large as it is, is at or near the limit of it's ability. Also the will of the American people is likewise at or near the limit. If it is indeed correct that something needs to be done about North Korea, who is going to do it?
Only the Americans would, and I don't think they are able at this time. So I suppose they may wish to negotiate and try to control in that manner a dangerous entity like Kim Il Jong, as they do not at present have a military option.
If one did manage to topple the North Korean regime, what kind of humanitarian effort will be required to assist the impoverished people of that country. The reports that do escape tell a tale of woe.
I don't know the thinking behind negotiating with one "evil" regime and fighting another, but surely the people of the Korean peninsula would pay a severe price if there were an outbreak of conflict.

Trying to remember what American politician said that the US underestimated the resolve of the Vietnamese, and over estimated the resolve of the American people. Seems like another conflict added to the ones ongoing, would be inconcievable in this current climate.

[transplant99]

Originally Posted by Devils'Advocate

First off, I support the mission in Afghanistan and a couple months ago when I lived in Ottawa Centre I wrote my NDP MP (whom I voted for and would again if I still lived there) stating that I thought the NDP were doing a dis-service to the Afghan people who want and need us there.

BUT what I'm not getting here is why conservatives are bashing Jack for his "negotiate with the Taliban" comment. The Taliban are not listed as a terrorist group by any nation that I know of. They overthrew a corrupt Afghan government and instituted an efficient and strong government. Yes, it was obviously mysogynistic and oppressive, but that doesn't make it a terrorist group.

Why is it that right wingers laud negotiations with Kim Jong-Il while laughing at the notion of negotiating with the Taliban? And don't tell me one side has the bomb and the other doesn't. There appears to be a serious philosophical contradiction here that goes beyond "well it's okay to negotiate with Kim Jong-Il because we're scared less of him".

They are listed as connected to several terrorist orginizations....by the Government of Canada for one.

http://www.securitepublique.gc.ca/prg/ns/le/cle-en.asp

[Devils'Advocate]

Originally Posted by jolinar of malkshor

Removing the Taliban from power was much easier than removing Kim Jong....and those are the facts.

Well, pragmatism is a judgement call. "Negotiating with the Taliban" seems far less ridiculous to one who judges that the resources needed to obliterate the evil is less than the resources needed to negotiate a settlement.

Transplant: "Affiliated with" and being listed directly as a terrorist group are two different things. The Taliban are not recognized as a terrorist organization by Canada, the United States or any other industrialized nation.

[Calgaryborn]

Originally Posted by Winsor_Pilates

If you like. But at some point can you explain why the NDP would be dissapointed with the positives in Afghanistan? becuase that's the claim and none of the things you listed explain that.

The NDP's stance is along the lines of them feeling the bad outway the good in Afghanistan and therefore they aren't in favour of being there. That however does not mean they would be dissapointed with good things happening.

The NDP has no compass. They pander to the special interest groups that
oil their machine. One of those interest groups happen to be the anti-war movement. You would think that the feminist groups within their ranks would influence them toward a more pro-Afganistan view but, unfortunately as is the nature of all special interest groups their special interest is themselves.

[jolinar of malkshor]

Originally Posted by Devils'Advocate

Well, pragmatism is a judgement call. "Negotiating with the Taliban" seems far less ridiculous to one who judges that the resources needed to obliterate the evil is less than the resources needed to negotiate a settlement.

Transplant: "Affiliated with" and being listed directly as a terrorist group are two different things. The Taliban are not recognized as a terrorist organization by Canada, the United States or any other industrialized nation.

Tell me DA....what good would it do to sit down and talk to a group of murderous people? A group that kills anyone that does not believe in what they believe? Unless and until they put down their weapons, there should be no discussions with them.

[HOZ]

Originally Posted by Devils'Advocate

Well, pragmatism is a judgement call. "Negotiating with the Taliban" seems far less ridiculous to one who judges that the resources needed to obliterate the evil is less than the resources needed to negotiate a settlement.

Transplant: "Affiliated with" and being listed directly as a terrorist group are two different things. The Taliban are not recognized as a terrorist organization by Canada, the United States or any other industrialized nation.

What exactly would you be negotiating with with the Taliban? Stop the fighting? We want to stop, they don't. Peace, tranquiility, love thy neighbour? Sounds good to me but they don't want that either.

Waristan and the Red Mosque is a great example of what you get when you negotiate (surrender ; which is the only thing they accept) with the Taliban.

North Korea is a whole different ball of wax. Right to negotiate them? Nah. We just have to and there IS some actual middle ground we can come to with them. We don't want him to have nukes and he is willing to give it up if we bribe him.

If you think we should just remove him.....you cross that boarder first. I'll be right behind you. Honest.

[Devils'Advocate]

Originally Posted by jolinar of malkshor

Tell me DA....what good would it do to sit down and talk to a group of murderous people? A group that kills anyone that does not believe in what they believe? Unless and until they put down their weapons, there should be no discussions with them.

So you believe that Kim Jong-Il is negotiating in good faith?

Time magazine article:
http://www.time.com/time/asia/covers...21/nk_vpt.html

Excerpt:

We should be grateful that Kim Jong Il wants to spare us more rounds of the pointless six-party talks on North Korea's nuclear program. They might otherwise have dragged on for years as Kim doggedly extracted all the aid and guarantees he wanted in exchange for more empty promises.

The British used to say that negotiations with the IRA were pointless because they were all murderous letches that could not be trusted. In 2005, after negotiations between the British and the political wing of the the IRA, the IRA disavowed using violence and said that they would put down their weapons.

[jolinar of malkshor]

Originally Posted by Devils'Advocate

So you believe that Kim Jong-Il is negotiating in good faith?




The British used to say that negotiations with the IRA were pointless because they were all murderous letches that could not be trusted. In 2005, after negotiations between the British and the political wing of the the IRA, the IRA disavowed using violence and said that they would put down their weapons.

Where did I say Kim Jong should be trusted???

You never answered my question?

[transplant99]

"Affiliated with" and being listed directly as a terrorist group are two different things.

All depends what you believe I guess. If you support terrorism, IMO that means you are one. Not even that much of a grey area.

The Taliban are not recognized as a terrorist organization by Canada, the United States or any other industrialized nation.

They are also not regocnized as a legitimate government. I guess they are a big "nothing" then.

[Devils'Advocate]

Originally Posted by transplant99

All depends what you believe I guess. If you support terrorism, IMO that means you are one. Not even that much of a grey area.

So what you are telling me is that Harper and the Conservatives are stupid for not having them listed?

JoM: My question was - "what is the difference between negotiating with North Korea and the Taliban?". You replied by asking "what good it would do to negotiate with the Taliban"?. I assumed you were trying to distinguish a difference to help respond to my question.

As those have read the thread know, I support the mission in Afghanistan and don't think the Taliban can be negotiated with - there are too many criminal elements that have way too much to lose. What I've been trying to establish here is that it is a judgment call as to whether a group can be negotiated with or not. It's not as simple as "you just don't negotiate with evil groups".

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by Devils'Advocate

So what you are telling me is that Harper and the Conservatives are stupid for not having them listed?

JoM: My question was - "what is the difference between negotiating with North Korea and the Taliban?". You replied by asking "what good it would do to negotiate with the Taliban"?. I assumed you were trying to distinguish a difference to help respond to my question.

As those have read the thread know, I support the mission in Afghanistan and don't think the Taliban can be negotiated with - there are too many criminal elements that have way too much to lose. What I've been trying to establish here is that it is a judgment call as to whether a group can be negotiated with or not. It's not as simple as "you just don't negotiate with evil groups".

I guess my question to you is, what are you negotiating for with the Taliban? A return to power? A sharing of power? An invitation to participate in a democratic election?

Then I have to ask what the point is to any of that?

Frankly giving the Taliban any opportunity to return to power is an evil concept, they have shown what they're all about, and what they do to thier own people when they have power. Even discussing the concept of negotation with the Taliban to me is repugnant, and stupid.

The difference right now between the North Korean government and the Taliban is simple. Right now the North Korean's are in power, they can be monitored and to some extent contained. They have a massive army, huge amounts of tubed and rocket artillary and massive stores of complex binary chemical weapons and bio weapons.

The Taliban right now are a uncontrollable fringe group thats reponsible for the kidnapping and murder of civillians and the bombing of thier own people. Frankly negotiating with them gives them legitimacy, and thier only negotiating points are going to be a withdrawl of foreign troops so they can intimidate and murder thier way back to power, and recognition for thier party, so there's no point in doing anything but to continue to push them back over the Pakistan boarder.

[transplant99]

So what you are telling me is that Harper and the Conservatives are stupid for not having them listed?

Huh?

Inevitably, you have somehow dragged a shot at the Cons into all this.

The Taliban support Al-Quaeda...of that there is no question. Hence they support terrorism.

If the Taliban isn't actually listed as a terrorist orginization it may be as simple as they haven't launched aggresion against another soverign nation, therefore don't qualify for said label. I would argue however, that they certainly terrorized Afghanis, and as such are on the same rung of the ladder as those they associate with.

Seems to me you are arguing semantics in an all out attempt to convince people reading this that the Taliban and Kim Il Jong are the same thing, therefore if you negotiate with one you must negotiate with the other.

That is absurd.

[jolinar of malkshor]

Originally Posted by Devils'Advocate

As those have read the thread know, I support the mission in Afghanistan and don't think the Taliban can be negotiated with - there are too many criminal elements that have way too much to lose. What I've been trying to establish here is that it is a judgment call as to whether a group can be negotiated with or not. It's not as simple as "you just don't negotiate with evil groups".

I am confused now....I think that is what the rest of us have been saying aswell. So not sure where the arguement is coming from. That is why we are saying we have to negotiate with N. Korea.

[Resolute 14]

Originally Posted by Devils'Advocate

So what you are telling me is that Harper and the Conservatives are stupid for not having them listed?

I'm sure you meant "So what you are telling me is that Chretien and the Liberals were stupid for not having them listed?", seeing as how that was the government of the day when 9/11, etc happened.