Skip navigation

 Login or Register | Member Centre

Canada reaches out to Taliban

GRAEME SMITH

From Thursday's Globe and Mail

Latest comment posted at 5:15 PM EDT 15/05/08

After years of refusing to negotiate with insurgents, soldiers in Kandahar put word out they want to talk ...Read the full article

This conversation is closed

  1. dan vanman from vancouver, Canada writes: Don't do it...as soon as I read that that psycho Mullah Omar wants control of ten southern provinces, I say no.

    They are murderers and terrorists. They are stuck in a 12th century way of thinking. They treat women like slaves. They will only lie and obfuscate to get their real objective, which is to poison Muslims to any contact with the West.

    These are dangerous people.

    Unless they are negoitiating with some local man about say...not growing poppies, thats it.

    Anything else is ridiculous. Why give away all the gains since we got there, to put the Taliban in control again, even if it is ten provinces.

    Most definitely NO...no negoitiations.
  2. jack sprat from Canada writes: So we will not negotiate with terrorists? And we will not touch income trusts? and we will not make side deals on the Atlantic accord? And we will not go into a deficit. And we have changed since we made homophobic videos, ....and, and and.......

    I guess the Cons have a new magic 8 Ball.
  3. hossein hajiagha from Victoria, Canada writes: Is good ideas, same as talking to the drug dealers , now are free in Afghanistan.
    I born in Iran and be in war I know the only one way to peace in Afghanistan or in Iraq...
    1- help then to build own country, they need food, school, hospital, road, ......They do not care about stupid religion or Islam, I be in in revolutionary guard and I watch the porn with others members with Ayatollahs ,,,,,,they fight because they do not like to see stranger in own city or home walking with gun and shooting children, helping them with food, and kindly boy...this is key...do not threat them like stupid Bush...
  4. Jimmy K from Toronto, Canada writes: Hm.. maybe Taliban Jack wasn't so crazy, afterall?

    Nah, he's still crazy.
  5. Ricky for a Centrist Canada from Canada writes:
    Can't wait to hear the spin from the Harpercrites on this one.
  6. hossein hajiagha from Victoria, Canada writes: Mr, dan vanman from vancouver here is answer I can be excellent reference for this because I be 2 years in revolutionary guard watching Video and brainwashed by Mullahs, every day...There is 2 life we have Islamic life and western life far as I know my problems with western life such as gay married, porn in TV or free drugs or hashish and free crime or so much freedom are going to harm the society and are family, at same times I do not care about religion or God or Islam... This is key are Mullahs all the times I remembers they trying to brainwashing me , American are haveing dirty life? and bring Islam as ideas to speack , like in Isalm they punish the women if she go and have sex illegal ( not married) with others man. but in western life this is legal and also became as pride to go and sleep with many women as wish we saw on are TV show... They do not drink alcohol... we do every night we get home we forget to buy toy's or milk for are children but we do not forget to buy are beer.... They do not lies or they do not stolen... what about us? they care about family and children not so much about money or DVD.... we are not for us is more important to have brand new home or BMW, or Dogs in are home and if any things left we share with are children...and why are children out like gangs... some ideas like this make separate between muslims and you are, not a relagion or Islam. I did not read Koran or not believe any relagion, but I like to live in place with respect to children women, healthy life....but unfortunately we go so far...I never saw any Moslem's guy go and have porn in TV or internet any things bad came from a white man not moslems...or not relagion guy...any things...and here I am 12 years looking and I can not date any women to get married.....we get wild...
  7. Tim Bryson from Claresholm, AB., Canada writes: Given that the reasons one might have for joining the Taliban are varied and complex, of course it makes sense to talk to them. Of course its always easier to just shut one's brain off, stamp your feet and scream NO. If the troops on the ground think it might help, who are the armchair warriors to say no?
  8. LJ Brody from Canada writes: This has to be the first worthwhile thing we have done over there....but soldiers are still the wrong ones for the job.
  9. Paul Thompson from Canada writes: Of course, the chickenhawks wouldn't dare call the soldiers 'Taliban this or Taliban that' the way they endlessly and tiresomely used the epithet on these boards. They would be too cowardly for that, even though they love to accuse others of cowardice.
  10. Proud to Be Canadian from Canada writes: So when are all the Conservatives going to roll in here Screaming CUT AND RUN!! Taliban Steve from the Tea and Bun set wants to surrender.
    All though conservatives are Lying Hypocrites they will try to spin this as well... Hang on to your seats this might get bumpy.
  11. Richard Roskell from Canada writes: 'Taliban Corbould?' Doesn't have quite the same ring to it as Taliban Jack. But seriously, after the spectacle of the attack in Kabul and now this, it's been quite a week.
  12. dan vanman from vancouver, Canada writes: People...negoitate is a good thing? Do so at your peril. These guys only understand and respect power, and who has the biggest gun. They will only try to get what they can from negoitiating, and then break agreements, kill women for showing an ankle, or, god forbid, speaking there mind.

    Look, I understand its a big and varied world, and once upon a time I would have agreed that negotiating might bear fruit.

    But , seeing their actions, albeit through the Western media, makes my hair stand on end.

    I think we should stick to our principles for once, remember that we got into this to help those that can't help themselves ( the women and those that don't agree with them).

    Until they ALL lay down their arms, forget it.

    This is only a ploy to divide the Western powers.
  13. Jake Richardson from Kingston, Canada writes: Most wars end with a peace accord. talks are a necessary eventuality, but are we really at a stage where its appropriate? Most wars are pushed to the end game because one side has established military dominance over the theatre
  14. REV eighteenseventeen from Canada writes: Maybe the Taliban will ask that the infidels stop the opium trade they have allowed to flourish. What a refreshing twist.

    dan vanman I am surprised you as a Canadian know so much about the Taliban. I would venture to say that Afghanistan is not in any better of a situation now than in 2001. And if we would factor in the innocent civilians killed (which most people on this side of the universe would not do) it is in a worst state.

    Please all you out there put yourself in others shoes when considering where you stand on issues.
  15. F.T. Ward from Canada writes: The negotiations will be about how much it will cost for the guerrillas to lay off. The same system as western Iraq and the 'Sunni Awakening'. It costs more to kill them than to bribe them. So we pay them off for a few years while we quietly get out of Dodge and wash our hands of the whole mess. In the meantime they train, stock pile arms and grow poppies getting ready for the next round after NATO has thinned out.
  16. Ricky for a Centrist Canada from Canada writes:
    Nice try Tim Bryson.

    Fact: the Cons and their Harpercrite supporters basically labelled anyone who proposed anything except throwing more troops at A-stan a terrorist sympathizer who didn't support the troops.

    Fact: the Cons coined the slur 'Taliban Jack' after Jack Layton proposed the very thing the Cons are now proposing.

    Fact: Cons and their sheep are hypocrites. You just proved that with your 'armchair warriors' slur.

    Spin, spin, spin.
  17. Expert Eel from OttaPettaOshawawawawa, Canada writes: we don't negotiate with terrorists.
  18. Expert Eel from OttaPettaOshawawawawa, Canada writes: so the taliban must not be terrorists.

    why are we in afghanistan again?

    to fight terrorists?
  19. REV eighteenseventeen from Canada writes: dan vanman- you say it is a ploy to divide the Western powers.

    I say GOOD!
    I personally do not want to be yoked together with the USA and their corrupt military machine. What did my fore fathers fight for. I like the border and prefer my country over the US. You couldn't pay me to live there.

    I voted Conservative last election but one thing I appreciated about Jean Cretien is that he did not cozy up to the US. Yeah to politicians that don't bow down to the money gods or bow to the globalist pressures. All the rest are wimps.
  20. Marc S from Canada writes: REV eighteenseventeen from Canada writes:I voted Conservative last election
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Don't feel too bad, everyone is allowed at least one mistake.......lolol.....now if you did it again , that would bring up a whole new set of issue's !! lolol
  21. The Iconoclast from Canada writes: dan vanman from vancouver, Canada writes: Why give away all the gains since we got there..

    What gain? We wouldn't be talking if we were doing so well. Get out of Afghanistan now.
  22. Roop Misir from Toronto, Canada writes:
    Is Canada now engaged in what its has been doing all along--talking to the Taliban? There are some who say that many in the Afghan government and armed forces wear two hats-- officially pro-West during the day, but actually anti-West (Taliban) at other times.
  23. aging oldtool from Canada writes: Better late than never.

    Of course had we followed Jack Layton's call to do just this a year ago we might well be far down the road to an accord that brings peace.

    Maybe one means of finding common ground with the Taliban is to stop referring to them as 'terrorists.'

    You may not like their fundamentalist ways, their harsh treatment of those who break harsh laws, but most of the world has come to conclude the so-called Taliban are essentially a bunch of Afghanis enraged at how fellow Iraqis are suffering and dying.

    They are insurgents, fighting against invaders, a tradition that pretty much supercedes written history in that region.

    'Terrorists' are those who want to export fear and terror, to bring chaos to order rather than defend their own country.

    Start the talks, bring our troops home, Now.
  24. Chris Young from Newfoundland, Canada writes: NBC news is reporting that the U.S. is considering ' re-americanizing' the Afghanistan war. They are considering taking control of the south of the country again. Maybe that is why the Canadians want to show some progress. It certainly would look bad for NATO if it lost control of the fighting in the south like in provinces like Kandahar and Helmund to the Americans.
  25. 4Cryin Outloud from Canada writes: In my opinion there are 'other extremists' in any country and when the Liberals were taking us into Afghanistan and saying it was for our own protection I found cause to see them as a threat to my safety and 'extreme' in their propagandizing of the 'War on Terror'.

    There will be war as long as the US uses the military industrial complex as an economic foreign policy and for them to do this there will always be an 'enemy' found. Today we are told it is the terrorist that is the enemy.

    End wars by killing the weapons industry. They are the only enemy we have ever had along with the politicians that support their existence. Without weapons we would all be taught or interested in learning the art of negotiation.
  26. Duncan Munro from Canada writes:
    Why don't we just pull the plug on this whole fiasco, and get the heck out of Afghanistan? If the Taliban want to talk, it should be to Karzai, not the Cdn Army.
  27. Tal Moody from Canada writes: This 'strategy' is highly reminiscent of similar jaw jabs around the world.

    For example, Israel talking to Hamas, or to Syria, or to Fatah, etc... while they continue to bomb nuclear installions and absorb Qassam misslies from Gaza.

    The best strategy for a country with our resources and currently sliding down the economic tubes, and unable to even get new equipment to our troops (like helicopters), is to get out of Afghanistan altogether.
  28. Globefollower From Canada from Canada writes: This is their country. If the Afghan government we are trying to support wants us to do it, we do it. And it has to be done some time. No post-WWII populist insurgency has been successfully ended by force of arms alone.
  29. Geoffrey May from Canada writes: This situation is another classic example of why the Canadian military should not be in Afghanistan.Karzai has one position, and each of his Nato allies another .Clearly it is not workable .The General makes it clear that talking with the Taliban is a 'tactic' ,not negotiation .
    The enemy in war is always demonized ,educated people know this .Wars are rarely fought on the issues that started the war.
  30. A good Canadian from Canada writes: How many times do you have to kick a guys butt before you finally say, 'why don't you just stop fighting back, and give up?'

    The Taliban have been defeated AGAIN as a military force. Thier leaders are running scared of being killed in the middle of the night by special forces. The ANA is now crushing any groups of fighters stupid enough to gather....

    Offering your enemy a chance at surrender before thier detruction is the honourable thing to do.
  31. Paul Jay from Canada writes: Taliban Jack - a prophet in his own time.
  32. REV eighteenseventeen from Canada writes: A good Canadian- Do you really think this will end it? If I had an invading people attack my land and family I would have a hard time just forgetting it and letting it go.
  33. Jessica Adams from Canada writes: We should have listened to Jack Layton, perhaps some lives could have been saved, and Canadian mothers and fathers would not have to attend funerals for their young daughters and sons.
  34. RickinToronto Canada from Toronto, Canada writes: Before we "make peace" in the present with the Taliban, are we forgetting:

    a) The past where the Taliban allowed Al-Queda to base their operations and from where the commands were issued for 9/11;
    b) The future given that human and women's rights will be so horribly abused under the Taliban's errant interpretation of Islam and Sharia?

    War is appauling... but the Taliban are appauling.

    Let us not forget what the fight is about.
  35. Brendan Caron from vancouver, Canada writes: Some people will want to get out of this miasma by talking to and reassuring themselves that they are not going to be killed if they leave their guns behind. The more they see they aren't going to be killed, the more they will be inclined to seek the benefits of peace. There is an election coming up soon isn't there?
  36. Pepper Gee from Toronto, Canada writes: Hmmm.... talking out the issues. Communicating to try to resolve problems... what a novel idea.
  37. Kenneth Yurchuk from Toronto, Canada writes: True courage, sometimes, is standing against the current of popular opinion when blood lust is all around, and taking a principled position and sticking to it. To be called traitor, coward, and any number of foul sobriquets.

    And finally to be vindicated.

    You stood tall Jack Layton. Well Done.
  38. C J from Canada writes: Should have done the talking first soon as we went in, rather than letting our ego take hold, or listening to that dumb dude in oval office
  39. R. Carriere from Maritimes, Canada writes:

    Sorry if I am NOT buying into this story. Perhaps some propaganda to show we are the good guys, or they finally realize this is a no win situation and major miscalculation by the ISIF.

    Quote: "The United States is said to want to maintain an ability to continue military operations in Afghanistan. "

    Of course it does, because there is a bigger picture here. It's called surrounding Iran.

    The Americans already have permanent bases in both Iraq and Afghanistan.....that they don't really want to talk about...one in Iraq being the "Embassy" that covers 104 acres at a cost of $730 MILLION. Right "Embassy!" Largest American one in the world!

    In the NeoCon playbook, and certainly its Doctrine called, "Rebuilding America's Defences," it clearly states neutralizing Iran (one way or the other) then on to Russia and finally China to uphold its belief to maintain its sole superpower status.

    While only a US change at the top "might" change this philosophy, I am not convinced that either Clinton (bomb Iran) or Obama are not bought and paid for (closet Neocon ) by special interests AKA MI complex.

    Sorry, I believe that is the bigger picture!
    .
  40. The Oracle from Caiman Islands, Canada writes: Even if this means admitting a mistake get on with it!
  41. J. Weatherman from Richmond Hill, Canada writes: Odd. Isn't this what a Mr. Jack Layton was the first to suggest would be necessary back in the fall of 2006? Indeed, it was.

    But others, including MacKay and then-defence minister Gordon O'Connor as well as many Liberals dismissed the voice of reason from the NDP.

    How much blood-shed and Taliban recruitment could have been stopped if this tactic had been tried earlier? Sadly, history doesn't let us do that.

    (Also, how could this article have been written without mentioning Layton's role and the heat he took from many of its new advocates? Honestly.)
  42. Kenneth Yurchuk from Toronto, Canada writes: Morning RC. It is probably much too little, much too late. With the USMC cavalry charge into Helmand already under way (interesting that they chose the province closer to Iran than Kandahar) it is unlikely that any talks will bear much fruit.

    As you know I have long held the view that the whole ISAF mission was really securing the eastern flank in preparation for an expanded thrust against Iran.

    I also concur that neither Clinton nor Obama is going to change the ultimate direction of American foreign policy.
  43. Winston Churchill from London, Canada writes: I think the thing to keep in mind is that all insurgencies end with talk. You can't 'war' an opinion into oblivion. Well, I guess you can, but that's sort of like shooting the cat to get it out of the tree. Issue isn't should we be talking, but should we be talking now?
  44. The Conservator from Canada writes: Hello? Johhny Canuck/Conservatives Steal form.../Laytons Moustache (wow that nickname got shelved by the Reformacons)/Bill Harrison/etc etc etc where are you?
  45. R Hopkins from Edmonton, Canada writes: To all the critics:Do you have any better ideas? Because what we are doing isn't working. Is it?

    Hey, if someone hates me, I might as well find out why.
  46. Seb D from Ottawa, Canada writes: That's funny, because when Jack Layton suggested it, he was ridiculed.

    What's next? Are the Cons planning to borrow something from the Rhinoceros Party too?
  47. The Conservator from Canada writes: Seb D from Ottawa, Canada writes: That's funny, because when Jack Layton suggested it, he was ridiculed.

    What's next? Are the Cons planning to borrow something from the Rhinoceros Party too?

    Posted 01/05/08 at 7:49 AM EDT
    ---

    Well they did kind of adopt the free beer idea, but replace beer with money and replace free with over-spending in an election and then throw in defrauding the taxpayer...errr sure that'll do.
  48. Shawn Bull from Canada writes: Ricky for a Centrist Canada from Canada writes:
    Can't wait to hear the spin from the Harpercrites on this one.
    ------------------
    Spin? What is there to spin? The Canadian Forces want to negotiate with the Taliban...this is a good thing isn't it? Oh that's right, we are Conservativees and we love war. Another day, same old stereotype.
  49. Bob Steele from Chateauguay, Quebec, Canada writes: Negotiate with the Taliban? Chamberlain tried a similar tactic in the '30's with German Leader Hitler. Alas, it didn't work. His successor, Winston Churchill, understood his opponent much better than Chamberlain did. And, to quote Churchill, "An appeaser feeds the crocodile, hoping it will eat him last." There's no negotiating with these animals - if they were human, that maybe would be a different story...
  50. Mary Smith from United States writes:

    I see all the Neville Chamberlains are out. How many tens of millions died because 'there will be peace in our time'? Sayyid Qutb; there's the father of radical Islam, the premise of radical Islam and the West.

    And why did Saddam invade Kuwait? Why did Iran and Iraq go to war? Yeah, right; it's all because of the US.

    What a bunch of idiots so many of you are.
  51. The Conservator from Canada writes: Shawn Bull from Canada writes:

    Posted 01/05/08 at 7:57 AM EDT
    -=====

    bwahahahahaha
  52. Kenneth Yurchuk from Toronto, Canada writes: Morning Shawn Bull. Not all Conservatives love war. But you have to admit that the most bellicose comments over the years we have been in A'stan have come from Conservative supporters. I'm glad that you and many others support reason over blind faith in a failed policy.

    Now if only we could get the Liberal hawks to join in we might reach a national consensus on where we want to go with this mission.
  53. Leslie Tobias from Toronto, Canada writes: Lets talk to the Taliban. Lets talk to AlQeuda. Lets talk to Hamas, Lets talk to Hezballah, Lets talk to all world terrorist. Have some cake & coffee. Hitler, Stalin, All the Axis of Evil nations. We are fooling ourselfs to believe talking to these kinds of people is a good thing. Wars are won by talking to Evil leaders. Wars are won by fighting the enemy. Talking only prolongs the war. If free nations spoke with Hitler, Do you really believe he would have stopped the war?
  54. The Conservator from Canada writes: Mary Smith from United States writes:
    Sayyid Qutb; there's the father of radical Islam, the premise of radical Islam and the West.
    What a bunch of idiots so many of you are.
    Posted 01/05/08 at 8:02 AM EDT
    -----

    Mary, watch Adam Curtis' The Power of Nightmares to see the rise of radical Islam and Qutb and how the neo-con rise mirrored theirs exactly, very interesting documentary....actually all of his are.
  55. Paul Thompson from Canada writes: It should be a compliment to be called an idiot by the likes of you, Mary Smith.
  56. Kenneth Yurchuk from Toronto, Canada writes: To those who have compares "talking to the Taliban" to Chamberlainesque appeasement: Hitler was a clear and present danger to Europe and the west. The Taliban are not.

    In regards to Churchill, he was rather verbose and said many things. He also said "Jaw Jaw is better than War, War"
  57. Shawn Bull from Canada writes: Kenneth Yurchuk: Without any doubt support for the Afghan War is highest amoung Conservatives however, no war is ever won by killing the last soldier on the other side. Negotiations are a necessity.

    My hope is that the Canadian Forces can negotiate with the Taliban leaders that don't appear to be as radical as the Omar's were. The Taliban that want representation in the Afghan government and not just an extreme Taliban government.
  58. D K from Canada writes: Come out come out we just want to talk...really! We promise not to shoot :)
  59. W_UP 2008 from Canada from Canada writes: The way I see it, they should try this approach because what Canadian soldiers are doing right now isn't working. Perhaps, the outcomes will be much better than they are now. I think it's a good move.
  60. Kenneth Yurchuk from Toronto, Canada writes: Shawn, It seems to me that the Taliban is not a monolithic organization with a fixed ideology or policy. Therefore I agree it is possible to find "moderates" with whom fruitful discussions can be held.

    In fact many within Karzai's government hold similar views to the Taliban. Tribalism still trumps all in A'stan. Pashtuns will talk to Pashtuns, regardless of labels.
  61. Emma Hawthorne from Canada writes: This is why we need women at the head of governments, military operations and NATO. Women would have negotiated from the get go, seven years ago. War and violence are simply a confluence of social and economic conditions. Change the conditions, end the violence. Below the belt testosterone thinking has no place here.
  62. P Jones from NB, Canada writes: This is a waist of time. The Taliban have made it very clear in the past that they do not want coalition troops in A'stan. They cannot be trusted ... they should not be trusted. They have no concept of democracy or the provision of freedoms.
  63. Wall Flower from Canada writes: Sounds to me like quite a few people owe Jack Layton, a.k.a. Taliban Jack an apology, eh?
  64. Allan Eizinas from Simcoe, Canada writes: .
    There is no military solution for Canada in Afghanistan.

    Not understanding your enemy is the greatest mistake that any country can make.

    Talk to your enemy.

    Take the time to study your enemy. Study his history, his weaknesses and his strengths.

    Learn about his needs and his wants.

    Only when you understand your enemy will you then be able to destroy him - or make him your friend.

    As Winston once said; “To jaw-jaw is always better than to war-war.&8221;
  65. Wall Flower from Canada writes: No wonder Rick Hillier went into hiding! It would have been quite hard for him to go from "kill the scumbags" to "some sugar with your tea, Mr. Scumbags?"

    What a farce!!!
  66. Cyrus Of Persia from Canada writes: Emma Hawthorne, you may have a point, but I'm not sure. Margaret Thatcher, Golda Meir...

    And the notion of a woman negotiating with a load of misogyinists like the Taliban?
  67. Cheap Skate from Vancouver, Canada writes: After thirty years of bombing, murder, and mayhem a certain British Prime Minister decided to open negitiations with those involved. Those direct talks reversed years of repressive acts instigated by his predeceesors and in one stroke, removed much of the support for the para-military groups.

    I wonder why, of all the so called political actions around the world, Northern Irland is the only place where those involved in the strife are now part of the political solution? Could it be that talking has a bigger impact than shooting?

    Why to go CF! We should have listened to Jack years ago.
  68. Syed Abbas from Toronto, Canada writes:

    Had Canada taken this step a few years ago, many of the 80 dead possibly may not have died.

    Who has the blood of these soldiers on his hands?
  69. Kenneth Yurchuk from Toronto, Canada writes: Emma, There have been some great men of peace: Ghandi, Desmond Tutu, Martin Luther King, and thee have been some wickedly warlike women: Golda Meir, Margaret Thatcher, Jiang Quing(Lady Mao).

    Gender isn't the issue.
  70. L.B. MURRAY from Canada L.B. MURRAY from Canada from Canada writes: The Conservator from Canada writes: Hello? Johhny Canuck/Conservatives Steal form.../Laytons Moustache (wow that nickname got shelved by the Reformacons)/Bill Harrison/etc etc etc where are you?
    ________________________________________________

    Where are they?? Waiting for their ''talking points'' and changing their monikers...

    They'll come back.... The paid shills and attack dogs always come back...

    -
  71. Watercooler Pundit from Regina, Canada writes: I guess "Crazy Jack" ain't so crazy after all. The Neocons sure jumped on him when he suggested that we talk to the Taliban.

    Typical.
  72. Bob Steele from Chateauguay, Quebec, Canada writes: I rather enjoyed Kenneth Yurchuk's "Revisionist History" Churchill was verbose, truly. But do you think that the west would have been better off with Neville Chamberlain? And that the Taliban are a warm and fuzzy bunch of Boy Scouts who are harmless and present no "clear and present danger" to the west?

    Man, I was WAY off! ....
  73. P Jones from NB, Canada writes: Wall Flower from Canada writes: Sounds to me like quite a few people owe Jack Layton, a.k.a. Taliban Jack an apology, eh?
    __________________

    Don't hold your breath.
  74. Paul Thompson from Canada writes: The interesting thing about Golda Meir is that while she didn't hesitate to use force for what she saw as the defence of Israel she was also dead set against the expansion of Israeli settlements into the West Bank. I don't think it is fair to call her "wickedly warlike"; had her views been heeded a whole trainload of misery might have been avoided.
  75. P Jones from NB, Canada writes: Syed Abbas from Toronto, Canada writes: Had Canada taken this step a few years ago, many of the 80 dead possibly may not have died.
    _______________________

    Is that a fact? So the Taliban have always been eager to talk? Are they ready to talk now? There is no indication of that.
  76. Peter Bailey from Canada writes: It's about time. This notion of not negotiating with people you disagree with and are at war with makes no sense (of course, it comes from the failed policy of the declining imperialistic power to our south).

    We need to talk to all parties and get all the issues on the table and discuss them. Otherwise this war may never end. Remember there were almost half a million Soviet soldiers there for years, and they LOST. I don't understand our arrogance in thinking we can win with so many less assets.

    Talking to your adversaries is always the first step to understanding and hopefully eventual agreement and cessation of fighting. Canada should be there to build and help to unify the country.
  77. P Jones from NB, Canada writes: L.B. MURRAY from Canada L.B. MURRAY from Canada from Canada writes: ... Where are they?? Waiting for their ''talking points'' and changing their monikers...

    They'll come back.... The paid shills and attack dogs always come back...
    ____________________

    Uh-huh ... and it's just the conservative posters that are paid shills, right?
  78. P Jones from NB, Canada writes: To all of the people saying that it's about time that WE try to talk to the Taliban ... why is it the West that is at fault for the lack of negotiations? When have the Taliban ever been interested in a dioplomatic resolution? When have the Taliban expressed ANY interest in talking?
  79. snow crash from Canada writes: So now we agree to talk? So all the soldiers killed up to now have been completely wasted? Spin it any way you want. These were wasted lives. Prime young lives.
  80. Mark Orr from Toronto, Canada writes: I don't understand this sheer arrogance of not talking to these people. These people have a more legitimate claim then WE do, it is THEIR COUNTRY. We MUST negotiate. We will leave, and it is almost impossible that we will do so completely on our terms, so it is the only way.
  81. Might makes right? from Toronto, Canada writes: Ahh, common sense is finally prevailing? Perhaps it is time to be sensible and stop getting drunk on the media hype. After all, we love the good 'ol 'cowboys and Indians' scenarios.
  82. Ricky for a Centrist Canada from Canada writes:
    Bull - you were among the many Cons who railed against Jack Layton when he suggested discussions with the Taliban, no?

    Now you're all for it.

    Harpercrite to the end.

    LOL
  83. Bob Smitherman from Canada writes: Talk is good, war is bad. You will never anihilate them. Even if we stay 10 or 20 years, as soon as we leave the Taliban will be back. But they are not terrorists. Most are peasants with a different way of life. We can not force them to change their beliefs, and we can not destroy them. So the best solution is to talk things through and negotiate an end to this stupid occupation.

    (by the way, the terrorists who were training in Afghanistan have long since moved to Pakistan, so we should be aiming our guns in that direction)
  84. Peter Bailey from Canada writes: " Mary Smith from United States writes:

    I see all the Neville Chamberlains are out. How many tens of millions died because 'there will be peace in our time'? Sayyid Qutb; there's the father of radical Islam, the premise of radical Islam and the West.

    And why did Saddam invade Kuwait? Why did Iran and Iraq go to war? Yeah, right; it's all because of the US.

    What a bunch of idiots so many of you are."

    Well, The US got rid of the democratic government in Iran and inserted the shaw, armed Saddam for years with many types of weapons, lied to the UN about WMD and the reason for starting an illegal war, and has caused much chaos in the region for many years. And you call us idiots - that's pretty ironic (and typically arrogant). If you are really from the US - go read Fox News - that will be more to your liking (and it's good for brain washing too)!
  85. Bob Smitherman from Canada writes: Peter Bailey from Canada writes: Well, The US got rid of the democratic government in Iran and inserted the shaw, armed Saddam for years with many types of weapons, lied to the UN about WMD and the reason for starting an illegal war, and has caused much chaos in the region for many years. And you call us idiots - that's pretty ironic (and typically arrogant). If you are really from the US - go read Fox News - that will be more to your liking (and it's good for brain washing too)! ---------------------------------------------------- Don't forget that the CIA armed the mujahedeen who became the Taliban.
  86. Dean The Machine from Winnipeg, Canada writes: If you watch the videos talking with the Taliban, they all say the same thing, they do not want non Muslims in thier country. They are still fighting tribal wars and the insurgents are made up of mostly two outsider tribes. I'm all for talk and peace negotiations as long as it is what the Afghan government wishes. We are there mostly for them, to help establish a legitimate government to maintain stability for the Afghan people.
  87. Ed Lewis from Sanityville, Canada writes: Yes, its a good idea to get the Taliban to talk. In fact, lets get as many of them together as possible and promise them what they ask for....then drop a 5000 pound bomb on their heads.

    These are RADICAL fundamentalists. They approach everything as "their way or the highway (to hell)". Getting them to agree on anything would be tantamount to convincing the Pope that abortion is a good thing and perfectly acceptable.

    The only point that will get through to these guys is that found at the end of a bullet.
  88. Bob Smitherman from Canada writes: P Jones from NB, Canada writes: To all of the people saying that it's about time that WE try to talk to the Taliban ... why is it the West that is at fault for the lack of negotiations? When have the Taliban ever been interested in a dioplomatic resolution? When have the Taliban expressed ANY interest in talking? ---------------------------------------------------- Your comments are irrelevant. It takes two to tango.
  89. W_UP 2008 from Canada from Canada writes: Cyrus Of Persia from Canada: I completely agree with Emma on this one. You mentioned Margaret Thatcher. This is what happens often when women are out numbered by men, they are subjected to the overpowering of men or are influenced by them. You see this in police organizations often as well. This is why we need MORE women in government. Also, you mentioned women negotiating with misogynists, even if they are misogynists, women can look past things that men can not, only one of the many things that makes us great negotiators.
  90. Comments closed, censored, deleted or made to disappear from Mini Bushland, Canada writes: "Do you think the Taliban would ever talk with us?" --- A white-bearded man in grubby brown clothes squinted up at the Canadian soldier skeptically. --- "No Taliban here! No Taliban here!" the old man shouted. --- "Yes, but next time the Taliban visit you, maybe you could ask them," the sergeant said. "Our real brothers in the Taliban will be willing to sit down and talk, instead of fighting." $$$ No genuine peace initiative is ever without some positive effect. However, this scene is so surrealistic that only the white-bearded man's skepticism remains understandable... Just imagine one second YOU are one of the Taliban "brothers" coming to "visit, next time"!... $$$ Generally, such micro initiatives are likely to produce far-reaching results only if they are part of a general truce, and supported by institutionalized talks among all leading authorities concerned in the country, and preferably in the whole region as well. Above all, those micro initiatives come very late in the day, for some obscure reason... At a time when the Americans "surge" with their very own typical fiery way to intervene in conflict (witness in Iraq, as per the testimony of innumerable US Iraq veterans themselves!), how can one expect those micro initiatives will soon lead to the peace our soldiers say they are seeking... through "talking with the Taliban"... Bombing villages, killing innocent civilians, levelling people's property to the ground, leaving survivors resourceless and without genuine means of support.... all that can only leave the white-bearded man very sceptical indeed!...
  91. Derek Lambert from Edmonton, Canada writes: I think that negotiating with Taliban willing to talk is far more productive than hunting them down. I don't condone terror but I'm sure that by talking to them at least a few will understand we that everyone in Afganistan benifits from peace and stability. If anyone in Afganistan from the Globe actually reads this and is speaking to Taliban members please convey the following message:

    As a Canadian and wolrd citizen, I want to see future generations of Afgans have the opportunities we enjoy in Canada. Please let your own people have the peace and stability they need. I think most Canadians agree with me.

    As cheesy as that sounds, I really hope at least one Taliban figures out that individual Canadians care.
  92. Bubbles McBubbles from Trawna, Canada writes: Why are we there again? To prop up corrupt government officials and warlords? To defend a pipeline? To increase the opium trade? To make sure women are still forced to wear the burka? To defend the right to watch dogs kill each other in a ring? To defend a legal system that is currently trying to sentence a man to death for converting to Christianity? Is that why we are there?
  93. Bob Smitherman from Canada writes: Trying to inflict democracy on these peoples is unnatural. They have a tribal system of government that started centuries ago. They don't want democracy, what they want is for us filthy westerners to leave them alone. Look how decadent our society must appear to them? Are we really ones to tell them how to lead their lives? What is it with the arrogance that somehow we are better than them therefore we should impose our ways upon them? Are there not more pressing human catastrophes that should garner our attention and our military involvement?
  94. W_UP 2008 from Canada from Canada writes: Ed Lewis from Sanityville, Canada says: Yes, its a good idea to get the Taliban to talk. In fact, lets get as many of them together as possible and promise them what they ask for....then drop a 5000 pound bomb on their heads........The only point that will get through to these guys is that found at the end of a bullet....... These are RADICAL fundamentalists..........................ED, Who's a radical fundamentalist?
  95. Ken DeLuca from Arnprior, Canada writes: Talking to the Taliban.. Didn't I see this a month ago in the Mop & Pail? Could it be Cnada's new government has stopped taking its cue from the Toronto Sun?
  96. R. Carriere from Maritimes, Canada writes:

    Mary Smith from United States writes: And why did Saddam invade Kuwait? Why did Iran and Iraq go to war? Yeah, right; it's all because of the US.

    Ah...I hate to break the news to you but it was because of the US.

    1) Iran/Iraq war: The US was still upset with the Ayatollah for toppling the Shah of Iran (who had toppled with the CIA, the democratically elected Mossadegh) The US armed Iraq with weapons, chemical weapons that were used on the Iranians, and satellite photography. When the war was going "too well" the US MI complex also started helpin Iran...better known as the "Tilt" philiosophy....perhaps you forget Donald Rumsfeld shaking hands with that dastardly Saddam.

    http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB82/

    2) Invasion of Kuwait: Saddam received the go ahead from April Gilespie acting on orders from James Baker vis GHW Bush

    "But we have no opinion on the Arab-Arab conflicts, like your border disagreement with Kuwait.
    "I was in the American Embassy in Kuwait during the late 60's. The instruction we had during this period was that we should express no opinion on this issue and that the issue is not associated with America.

    What a set-up!
  97. B.C. Expat from Ottawa-Hull, NCR, Canada writes: I'm not averse to talking with anyone, but let's not pretend that we don't know what the Taliban wants. They ran the freaking country for a decade and turned it into hell on earth.

    The very article states: Taliban: Last year, a spokesman for the Taliban said leader Mullah Mohammed Omar has approved demands for negotiations, including control of 10 southern provinces, a timetable for withdrawal of all foreign troops, and the release of all Taliban prisoners in six months. Not all the fighters are on board, however, with some saying they'll never negotiate.

    Talk with them, sure. Give them anything they want, and you have enabled an organized murder ring.
  98. Khalid Rahim from Canada writes: Lets have a mutual exchange program with the Taliban; Invite four of them to live in the west for thirty days with no restrictions of movement.
    They on the other hand will allow four from here to live in their territory
    without being harassed for their believe and actions. At the end of thirty days, both parties will tell each other with great honesty what is wrong with each other's system of living and can adjust with each other.
  99. No Name Formerly JTS from Canada writes: Pretty quite on the conservative front around here. I guess crow is hard to swallow.

    I wonder what they will have to negotiate. What could possible be on the table seeing that this is a war against radical Islam and the taliban are one of its faces.

    It's kind of hard to say that we are there to fight the brutallity and the oppression of the taliban out one side of your mouth while potentially negotiating their return to a position of promenance in Afghanistan from the other side of your mouth.

    For the record I support the original premise of this NATO mission, "an attack on one is an attack on all". If the conservatives would have just stuck to that premise then they wouldn't be eating crow right now. But no, they used all the sinister attack criticism and debate tools in their arsenal, the three pronged attack of patriotism (last refuge of a scoundral), bravado (cut and run) and heartstring tugs (oppression of woman).

    They made their own beds on this one.
  100. Shawn Bull from Canada writes: Ricky for a Centrist Canada from Canada writes:
    Bull - you we