Uncle Phil Posted 18 June 2011 Posted 18 June 2011 http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-south-asia-13821452 The US is engaged in talks with the Taliban, Afghan President Hamid Karzai has said, in the first high-level confirmation of US involvement. Mr Karzai said that "foreign military and especially the US itself" were involved in peace talks with the group. Earlier this month, US Defence Secretary Robert Gates said there could be political talks with the Taliban by the end of this year. The US is due to start withdrawing its 97,000 troops from Afghanistan in July. It aims to gradually hand over all security operations to Afghan security forces by 2014. The Taliban ruled Afghanistan before being driven from power by US-backed forces in 2001. Summer of fighting Mr Karzai gave no details as to whether the discussions involved Taliban officials with US authorities, or a go-between, when he raised the subject in a Kabul press conference on Saturday. The official Taliban position is that international forces must leave Afghanistan before it will get involved in peace talks, and then only with the Afghan government. Diplomats have previously spoken of preliminary talks being held by both sides in the continuing conflict. Despite Mr Karzai's comments, the prediction from all sides is of another summer of hard fighting in Afghanistan, says the BBC's Paul Wood in Kabul, adding that it may not be the last summer like that.
Thracian Posted 18 June 2011 Posted 18 June 2011 http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-south-asia-13821452 The US is engaged in talks with the Taliban, Afghan President Hamid Karzai has said, in the first high-level confirmation of US involvement. Mr Karzai said that "foreign military and especially the US itself" were involved in peace talks with the group. Earlier this month, US Defence Secretary Robert Gates said there could be political talks with the Taliban by the end of this year. The US is due to start withdrawing its 97,000 troops from Afghanistan in July. It aims to gradually hand over all security operations to Afghan security forces by 2014. The Taliban ruled Afghanistan before being driven from power by US-backed forces in 2001. Summer of fighting Mr Karzai gave no details as to whether the discussions involved Taliban officials with US authorities, or a go-between, when he raised the subject in a Kabul press conference on Saturday. The official Taliban position is that international forces must leave Afghanistan before it will get involved in peace talks, and then only with the Afghan government. Diplomats have previously spoken of preliminary talks being held by both sides in the continuing conflict. Despite Mr Karzai's comments, the prediction from all sides is of another summer of hard fighting in Afghanistan, says the BBC's Paul Wood in Kabul, adding that it may not be the last summer like that. And what exactly are they going to agree? To the Taliban changing their philosophy? I don't think so. People really should take the trouble to read up about fundamentalist Islam. The only government the Taliban will acknowledge is one which furthers the cause of Islam. They will recognise no other kind of Government not there, not here, not anywhere. What they can do is notionally support such a government if they believe that, in the end, it will further the cause of Islam. In fact they can agree to go along with absolutely anything that will further their cause in the long run. People have celebrated the supposed "uprisings for freedom" that have spread across the arab world, many of them not having the faintest idea of what the existing regimes would be replaced by and exactly what so-called freedoms would be won. Many people, particularly in Tunisia, have rallied in favour of secularism (emphasising the considerable presence of genuinely moderate Muslims in a country where 98% of the population is Muslim) but the fundamentalists seek power at every opportunity and by whatever means and will only truly recognise any Constitution that has Islam as its guiding philosophy. How do you negotiate with an organisation that accepts no obligation to anything other than it's own ends and beliefs? The problem is that while we might understand the concept of compromise, they do not.
wattolcfc Posted 18 June 2011 Posted 18 June 2011 So much for the US never negotiating with terrorists..
purpleronnie Posted 18 June 2011 Posted 18 June 2011 So much for the US never negotiating with terrorists.. We used to say that.
Zingari Posted 18 June 2011 Posted 18 June 2011 Chevron must think the pipeline is safe and secure now then .
ajthefox Posted 18 June 2011 Posted 18 June 2011 what a joke, I mean do they really think that "peace talks" will convince Islamic extremists to change how they act in any way?
Bellend Sebastian Posted 18 June 2011 Posted 18 June 2011 So much for the US never negotiating with terrorists.. They only say that when they think they're going to win. It's not really surprising, is it? Ten years in and no end in sight, you can't blame them for exploring other alternatives
The Year Of The Fox Posted 18 June 2011 Posted 18 June 2011 You can never beat someone who doesn't mind dying for their cause- not without a war against them drawn out over generations, to slowly eradicate the extremism. Having said that, its very disrespectfull to the soldiers who have died, and their families.
Bellend Sebastian Posted 18 June 2011 Posted 18 June 2011 Having said that, its very disrespectfull to the soldiers who have died, and their families. Do you really think so? I could understand it if they were turning round and saying, it's all been a massive waste of time, but they're not. Without the military campaign, we may have never got to the position where people are talking to each other. I don't think it devalues the contribution of those that have fought, and I don't really think it's an admission of failure - it's just a realistic response to a difficult situation that could drag on for another ten years, and for what? Personally, I think it would be more disrespectful to keep putting our armed forces in harm's way with no obvious end in sight. Who's to say it will get anywhere anyway. There's no harm in trying though
purpleronnie Posted 18 June 2011 Posted 18 June 2011 I agree, surely the chance to stop more soldiers from being killed, or for that matter innocent civilians, even if that means negotiating can't be all bad. Look at Northern Ireland, few thought peace was possible, yes it might no be perfect now but compared to how it used to be its very peaceful. And that meant our government negotiating with terrorists too, I doubt many would object to that given the outcome.
The Year Of The Fox Posted 19 June 2011 Posted 19 June 2011 Good point bellend sebastian. Maybe I am wrong! Not sure what they're negotiating on- to abolish the world wide threat of muslim extremist attacks, or simply a cease fire in afghan
Jordan Posted 20 June 2011 Posted 20 June 2011 So much for the US never negotiating with terrorists.. If Taliban operatives were about to blow up a building but were demanding a large ransom from the U.S. government in order to call off the attack, the U.S. would not negotiate. This is a completely different scenario.
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.