I just can’t resist kicking this guy! I don’t know if it’s because of some “laytont” childhood need, or if it’s because he reminds me of those annoying bobble-heads people used to place in the back windows of their cars. With the advent of the hatchback, we don’t see many of those any more … unless that is if you’re unfortunate enough to turn on the Teli and watch another intellectually brilliant pronouncement from his eminence about sitting at the table of love and kisses to negotiate with the Taliban.
Update: Chuck Adler takes a kick at Layton’s Cat
one can only conclude that taliban jack isnt quite all there. yet the MSM continues to cover him and his pronouncements.
That is how he earned the enearment Jack “Laydown”.
I don’t think you’d get a manly response from the “man” if you groped his ole lady. Violence or confrontation just isn’t his way. He’d sooner rollover and let you scratch his belly.Hopefully followed by going outside and playing fetch…
Well, I hate to say it, but it appears the last laugh is on you, Cjunk:
This just in today:
“Afghan President Hamid Karzai on Saturday said he would personally meet the Taliban’s leader and the chief of another insurgent group for peace talks… Karzai said he would allocate some government posts to the Taliban and if Hekmatyar and Omar wanted power, both could stand in the elections, due to be held in 2009.
http://www.canada.com/topics/news/world/story.html?id=485cbdc7-25fe-441d-b1e2-1677d60004ee&k=15540
This is quite telling about the perceived lack of confidence Karzai has in this conflict being ended by force. Who do you suppose understands the dynamics of Afghanistan better? Us or an actual citizen?
“he reminds me of those annoying bobble-heads people used to place in the back windows of their cars. ”
Love it!!!
More comments. First, Karzai: “It should be very clear until all our roads are paved, until we have good electricity and good water, and also until we have a better Afghan national army and national police, I don’t want any foreigners to leave Afghanistan.”
Also, Peter MacKay: “Mr. MacKay said he’s comfortable with anyone who is prepared to move away from activities on the ground that put Canadian soldiers, and others who are part of the NATO mission, at risk.
“He added, “if that involves having the (Taliban) leadership accept those conditions and renounce the violence, then it’s moving towards what we all want to see, and that is a stable, peaceful society in Afghanistan.””
So, Karzai wants to negotiate an end to open hostilities, but wants foreign support for humanitarian and reconstruction efforts — i.e., basically what Layton was advocating all along. MacKay also seems amenable to talks with the Taliban. Does that make Karzai and MacKay just another pair of freedom-hating surrender-monkeys?
Just asking…
Steve the difference between what President Karzai wants to do and what Jack Layton wants is Karzai wants to negotiate from a position of strength and Layton wants to negotiate from a postition of weakness. Karzai wants the NATO forces in theatre as the negotiation take place. Layton wants NATO troops withdrawn before beginning the negotiations. Should NATO withdraw its forces prior to the talks the Taliban would have no need to negotiate because their objective would already be achieved. If the Taliban keep losing 165 warriors for every NATO troop killed they are more likely to enter meaningful discussions.
Gee, Steve, seems to me Karzai is offering them an invitation to democracy. You know. To do things differently this time.
Steve and Amanda,
I have to ask, just what are you 2 gloating about? Is it some kind of leftie “I told you so” where its ideologically important to feel that your ceaseless braying about “negotiating” with the Taliban actually offer some minute sliver of sense?
As other commentators have pointed out, negotiating from a position of strength is all Karzai and McKay are implying, and isn’t that what everyone, left and right wants in the 1st place?
You really have to retire the old “kumbaya” mentality…no one’s buying what you’re selling.
Steve and Amanda:
When did the U.S. negotiate with Japan? After Pearl Harbour, or after Nagasaki and Hiroshima?
When did the Allied Powers negotiate with Germany? After the invasion of France and Poland, or after the Battle of Berlin?
Taliban Jack wanted us to play a hand of poker holding only nine-high. Thank gawd that bozo will never lead anything other than protest march.
“Negotiating from a position of strength”? If it were such a position of strength, would negotiations be required? Prior to either of these two musing about the possibilities of negotiations nearly everyone on the right had said it was impossible to sit down with these people. Now all of a sudden its “an invitation to democracy”. Ok fine, what ever you guys want to call it, but I don’t think anyone on the left was suggesting that Karzai return Afghanistan to an autocratic theocracy. I agree that there should be a presence in the country while negotiations are undertaken. I’m not gloating, the author of the post was vilifying Layton for suggesting you could negotiate with these people. I was just simply pointing out that the very president of the country now supports an idea that many people used to brand Layton as “Taliban Jack”. How about Taliban Karzai now?
And to help frame where I coming from, I should mention that I’m not a fan of Layton generally. Actually I’m rather apathetic with regards to all of the party leaders. My mentality is far from “Kumbaya”. I support negotiations with the Taliban not because I can’t stomach people dying in a war zone (although that’s obviously aweful). I support it because I honestly believe its the best option for peace within the country.
Please show your support for the reservists by e-mailing Blackburn.J@parl.gc.ca
http://www.thestar.com/article/261684
“Negotiate with the taliban”!!! That’s just priceless….Does anyone actually know who the ‘taliban’ are? (like-these flakes are all members of the same organization, that they are all led by the same people, and that one or two spokesflunkies speak for all of them? )What if the intention is to just keep outsiders there, so they can KILL them?
Negotiations have always been a part of settling conflicts, but negotiations from a position of weakness, or even parity, where the ideological differences are as great as in this case will cause failure or simply forestall more violence. Layton is a disingenuous fraud; either that, or he has never read the history of human conflict.
Karzai has offered to negotiate with the Taliban on and off for several years, this is nothing new, and is just part of the political process. Just last winter the Taliban declared that anyone negotiating with the Karzai government will be killed.
So, Karzai is making an international statement, demonstrating his reasonableness, and ensuring that the large socialist utopian populations in Europe and N.A. are satisfied that he’s trying. The day will come though, when the Taliban will negotiate, simply because they’ve lost virtually all indigenous support and have been bled dry … it’s simply the way most conflicts without borders must end. The flip side is, we’ll leave and the Taliban will turn the tables, causing Karzai to negotiate from a position of weakness … and that is exactly what would make Jack Layton smile.
Paul, those “negotiations” will fail. The Taliban have already made their position clear. Even though they are being defeated in the field, have lost power, they think they can dictate that their medieval, brutal Sharia law (you know where you are free to say what they think), be imposed for peace. This will end up like Pakistan’s “negotiation” with AQ on border – perceived as sign of weakness that can be exploited. On the other hand, maybe Hezcoderre can parlay a peace.
Well, from a soldier’s point of view, I can only see two options.
1. The Korean model, where the “war” was never truly finished, and it has been a clusterf@#$ ever since.
2. WW2 model, where you completely destroy the enemy, so that they have no choice but to negotiate with honor and truth.
No mamby, pamby middle ground here folks. We either kill the majority of them, and the remainder humbly come to the table, or we allow the women hating, clitoris circumcising, infidel beheading madmen(cuz they don’t allow women in their club) taliban murder a few more million innocent civilians.
Take your pick moonbats!
Karzai has been consistent since 2001 in calling for the Taliban to join the political process. The Taliban have been just as consistent in refusing. The only way the Taliban will negotiate is if they believe they cannot win using force.
Using blunt force to “kill ’em all” will just drive more Afghans to support them. The correct strategy is to employ modern counterinsurgency methods, as has been happening in Iraq over the past year. A major component of this will always be political.
Withdrawing NATO forces will have the opposite effect, telling the Taliban their strategy is working. It’s the quickest way to ensure failure.
I have just one thing to give to this thread, and that’s what I’ve heard from my old man about Layton.
You see, my old man has worked in the media for the last couple of decades and has gotten to know ol’Jack. My old man also has first hand knowledge of what communism really means, and what ol’Jack’s plan’s would mean for you, me and him.
With that said, my old man likes ol’Jack. He’s apparently an easy guy to get along with, cordial and all that. He’s also, according to my old man, completely sincere in his insanity. That’s according to my old man, who knows an apparitchnik when he sees one. And even though it’s taken a while, the MSM generally holds that same view.
So why does the MSM continue to cover him? Because they like him as people. NO other reason. They’ve covered him for decades, he remembers their names, remembers things about their families (the guy is sharp — afterall, he’s stupid in way a that only those of true intellect can get), is charming, etc. His wife is also charming and gracious to the media. Most MSM vets consider Layton and Chow either good acquaintances or friends.
So when he says something, they naturally feel the need to cover him. They don’t judge whether what he’s saying is sane or not, justifying it by saying that they’re covering all the angles on a story and being all objective.
That’s really one of the things you need to know about the MSM — objectivity is in the eye of the beholder.
The other is that political functions usually have a great spread and the media always gets their share — at least if you want to be treated objectively. It’s the difference between getting your friends pizza and beer when they help you move and getting them a couple bottles of water.
Guess what it takes for them to be there next time for you?
Jack Chow and Olivia Laydown were fools when they were on TO council, and they haven’t changed,’cept for their address
Shamrock: I do agree with you, the Taliban are made up of some very disparate groups, so it is possible to carve them up into groups which do come to the table with good intention. But, there will always be a core which will fight, long after we are gone.
i almost wish i lived in laytons riding so i could sic the dog on him when he knocked on my door at election time.
I just don’t get it. Some people here think the “Taliban” are just like us, and after we show them the way to peace all will be OK. But…..the Taliban believe in suppression of women as much as we belive in free speech.
Turn it around…if they had bigger guns and were forcing you to cloak your women and worship their God, what would you rather have? A chance to negotiate to buy time and cause grief and terror amonst their elit, or have them destroy you into succombing to their way of life.
I think…….as a country able, willing and capable of helping, we OWE it to the women and children to help. By fixing Afganistan, the whole world will be a better place. Maybe, in 30 or 40 years(think the 1970’s and 80’s) Afganistan will be as rich and as powerful as Japan.
Our way is better. We get rid of the bad guys and let the country live free.
It is so entertaining to see right winger’s heads explode while trying to deny that Layton’s approach is starting to look like the correct one…or at least the one that Karzai wants to pursue. Guess what? He’s the leader of the country our soldiers are dying for, and he’s not saying anything about waiting for the Taliban to be defeated before negotiating with them.
And WW2 is as stupid a comparison as can be found, since both the Japs and the Germans did not negotiate anything: their surrender terms were dictated to them after they were defeated. It doesn’t look like the Taliban will ever be defeated using the current tactics.
BTW Kingstonlad, you haven’t been a soldier for 20 years, if ever, so get over yourself and get some help for your mental problem.
Peace came in the second world war in Japan and Berlin with unconditional surender,thats when you negotiate with what’s left,and hang the guilty.The Marshall plan then re-built those countries into the functional democracies we see today. god bless the men an women in our milatary who put their lives on the line to make this a reality. This is what the left will never get they are so phony.
Bubba Brown
Ed Morrisey at Captain’s Quarters has an intelligent perspective on this offer to negotiate with the Taliban
http://www.captainsquartersblog.com/mt/archives/013965.php
Notice how Iberia assumes negotiations will go well, that Taliban would act in good faith. Yeah right, they’ve wanted to negotiate from day one, and now that they’re winning (right Ib), they want to have a peace agreement. And he says Kingstonlad has mental problems.
BTW, Iberia, your understanding of history is scant at best. There were overtures from both Germany and Japan, but they were told unconditional surrender was the only acceptable option, you know the one where the enemy is getting their a** kicked. Kingstonlad could be out of the military 100 years and still have more credibility. (insert lberia’s cries of “prove it, prove it” here.)
lberia, Layton wants to negotiate from a position of weakness. IE we are going to withdraw forces no matter what. I don’t think that is what the “right-wingers” or Karzai have in mind.
Karzai demonstrates far better thinking than Taliban Jack. Karzai knows his opponents and is being very shrewd. Taliban Jack illustrates his thinking by his acceptance of the word of one woman in the Karzai government to form NDP policy, as what she says falls in line with his thinking. He does not want to believe what is actually happening on the ground or what is said by Karzai.
Yesterday Taliban Jack hoisted himself on his own petard when he criticised PM Harper for making decisions “eventhough he doesn’t represent the majority of people in Canada”, yet Taliban Jack, who represents far less, continues to talk as if he does.
shamrock:
I’m not assuming negotiations will go well…I’m mocking the right wing position of “we will never negotiate with terrorists.”
It’s quite obvious that the Taliban isn’t getting it’s ass kicked, and Karzai wants to negotiate anyway. I guess he doesn’t want any more buses full of soldiers blown up. It’s Karzai who wants to negotiate from a position of weakness.
Tell me again why our soldiers are dying over there.
Yes, we must negotiate from a position of strength. “When you stop blowing up people, we’ll talk. You keep blowing up schools, hospitals and busses, we’ll keep stalking you scumbags like the first day of hunting season.” The west never has wanted to turn the middle east into a parking lot, although it has been sarcastically suggested.
The look of absolute terror on Stephanie Dijon’s face when he was asked if he would visit Afghanistan was priceless. The stammering continues after days. Taliban Jack Laydown? Next question please. Why people continue to fawn over their dogmatic and condescending rhetoric is baffling to say the least. But then I guess that’s what happens when one becomes intellctually lazy.
The only way to deal with a bully is to bitch slap them until they quit hitting back and then you can start using sweet reason. If simple dialogue and negotiation were all it takes, we would not have had a war in the last 500 years. But then that’s just my never to be too humble opinion.
“Negotiation” is jargon, and has very different contextual meanings. There are two primary uses (dichotomies, actually) to “negotiation”. One is to achieve an acceptable compromise because each position is being drained of resources it would rather not commit.
The other is to ascertain the strengths, weaknesses, positions and power structures within the other side, in order to best use your own resources to achieve your goals against them.
You don’t “negotiate” from a position of strength. You simply use a passive technique to drive the action in your direction while minimizing a drain on your resources. For the loser, it is not “negotiation”, it is capitulation. Calling it “negotiation” is simply face-saving.
As every battlefield commander knows, success comes with being able to get the other guy to commit and deplete his resources before you do. Passive “negotiation” with concomitant aggressive action may be resource management, counter-intelligence, or simply a multifaceted attack strategy that causes the other side to distribute its resources beyond their effectiveness.
Or, both sides have played to a draw. And while its always seen as a gentlemanly approach to problem solving, its never about problem solving because “its the right thing to do”. Jack doesn’t understand that. Its ALWAYS about power distribution.
Our soldiers are dying over there because, unlike Iberia and Taliban Jack, they don’t want women executed in stadiums for “adultery” (or most likely, for being raped), they like to see young girls in school, they think women should be allowed to work and leave their houses, they don’t want another petri-dish for future 9/11s (i.e.: defending Canada and the West) and they believe in fulfilling promises and commitments like the ones our country made with NATO.
Negotiate? Karzai wants to negotiate when he is in the position to lay out the terms. Taliban Jack never wanted to fight to have that position in the first place.
The left: “As long as you’re anti-American, you’re my friend, even if you keep women locked in their homes, kill homosexuals, and commit “honour” killings. Oh, and no culture is better than any other, so you Afghanis should just be happy under the Taliban culture, and I’ll just be happy under my free culture (upheld and defended by – ugh – Western military power, but let’s not get into that . . . ) Oh, you Afghanis would like to have the same freedoms I do? No, no, you don’t really want to be like us. We here in the West are just as oppressed as you — we’re under the jackboot of -‘cough’-Big Business and BushCo and Christian fascists and Bad Capitalists and NeoCons. Why am I not in jail for spouting my trendy and “brave” anti-Establishment views? Um . . because . . . um . . . Never mind. Don’t forget, all cultures are equal.”
Hey, I’d negotiate. Bring the entire leadership of the Taliban to the negotiating table and then exterminate them.
Afterall, as old Mo said, “War is deception.”
Once again, the problem with leftards is, beyond not having the faculties for rational thought, they have absolutely no understanding of history.
To all global warming hysterics, this question:
Do you want it colder?
Hey, Iberia:
http://www.cbc.ca/world/story/2007/09/30/afghanistan-taliban.html
Tell me again why anyone should care what you say about this issue? I told you so, ya rube.
Good link Shamrock. This has been the story every year since 2001. Karzai extends the olive branch and the Taliban knock it away. They have no interest in negotiating when they think they can win militarily. People like Layton that call for withdrawal before negotiation just encourage this belief.
shamrock:
Karzai wants to negotiate; the Taliban tell him to get lost. Karzai is the one who looks weak.
And yet you applaud Layton for wanting to negotiate with people who have made it very clear they won’t negotiate?
Very acute reasoning on display here, Iberia.
I’m not applauding Layton…I’m mocking right wingers who criticise Layton for suggesting that negotiations take place with the Taliban, yet not criticising Karzai for wanting to do the same.
Does it please you to consider that Canadian soldiers are dying to get rid of the Taliban while Karzai wants to collaborate with them?
Read my earlier posts, lberia, where I said it was folly to negotiate with Taliban, who would interpret that oveture as sign of weakness; not because it is wrong to seek negotiated peace, but because it is worthless to try to negotiate with that bunch. Karzai is the leader of Afghanistan, so that is his right. Likely he has received overture from some more moderate Pashtun that some Taliban could be hived away from the Omar idiots. I would never be in favour of negotiating with that nutbar.
BTW, lberia, make up your mind. You say we can’t win and therefore there is no use in getting involved in Afghan (counterpoint, they didn’t exactly give us a choice), but then the leader of Afghanistan making overtures to hasten our departure is also wrong.
I believe negotiation is wrong and we should be there to get the job done, to help create conditions (training soldiers and police, redevelopment, hearts and minds, etc) for Afghan to not be a failed state that terrorists use for their own nefarious ends, with a major war following a major attack, as the inevitable result.
lberia, you’re simply a nattering nabob of negativism. Every time, no matter what happens. You offer nothing constructive, but to coin a Trudeau phrase, you can offer something of value, or you can shut up, your choice.
lberia, you have no credibility – it’s apparently OK for Jack Layton, a Canadian who’s against mission period, to offer negotiation, but not the leadership of Afghanistan reading the situation on the ground.
lberia, I have to wonder if Stephane Dion has adopted a pseudonym for this blog (you I mean), flip flopping around, changing positions by the minute, but still managing to be negative, and wrong, every time.
So, what now Jack and Gilles:
Darfur attack kills peacekeepers
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/7020596.stm
Read what I posted 1 minute before you, Shamrock. I’m not making a judgement on Layton or Karzai, only on right wingers.
BTW, I have stated my position quite clearly in the past: there are not enough troops in Afghanistan to do much of anything. They need to get big or get out. So don’t be so upset if I mock anything else.
“I’m mocking right wingers who criticise Layton for suggesting that negotiations take place with the Taliban, yet not criticising Karzai for wanting to do the same.”
We criticise Layton because his idea of negotiating is surrender, and his reasons for negotiating are suspect: he thinks of the stone-age, brutal, anti-democratic Taliban as equal to any democratic leader, he’s catering to his anti-American base, and he would believe using military force is wrong even as the barbarians were beating down his door.
Karzai wants improvement for his country, the Taliban know this, and they won’t negotiate with him. They would, however, negotiate with someone like Layton who would just hand the country back to them.
You’ll never get it, and you’ll continue your ineffectual mockery, but we right-wingers see the obvious difference between the two men, their grasp of the situation, and their desires for Afghanistan.
So mock away. You can continue to feel self-righteous, and if Layton has his way, Afghanis will be back under the Taliban and you can say “I told you so” as much as you want. People like you . . . practically rejoicing at each suicide bomb as it proves your world-view is right . . . you need to sit down with a few Afghanis, I think.
Go big or go home? Sure, bud. Exactly what Harper would love to do. Give him a majority, OK?
Iberia said “It is so entertaining to see right winger’s heads explode while trying to deny that Layton’s approach is starting to look like the correct one.”
So, you did make judgement on Layton’s “plan.”
Try to keep up lberia. Layton wants the troops withdrawn immediately, so what’s to negotiate? That’s the difference with Karzai, who is actually on the ground, knows the players, and wants our troops to stay. Do you get it now? Didn’t think so.
As for your “go big or stay at home” argument, yes you have made it in the past. IMHO, you’re not being sincere, it’s just cover for “go home.” You have been negative on this issue. Nobody is upset with you, though, you’re just a moonbat without credibility, so don’t worry about us.
There is a significant difference between the way Karzai and Layton want to negotiate. Layton seems to think that by withdrawing its troops, Canada would be seen by the Taliban as an “honest broker” and that we could facilitate negotiations. In reality of course, what would transpire is that the Taliban would use our withdrawal for propaganda purposes and claim they had driven us out. They would continue to refuse to negotiate.
Karzai, on the other hand, has been consistent since 2001 in seeking to get the Taliban to lay down arms and join the nascent political process in Afghanistan. These efforts have been supported by all NATO countries. To date, the Taliban have refused. Their strategy is clearly to inflict enough casualties on forces from NATO countries to cause their publics to demand withdrawal. It’s a good strategy, and plays on the west’s intolerance for even small numbers of casualties.
Yes, Belisarius and Ann, Layton has no place in negotations that may or may not happen. What amazes me also is how people see the West (after a NATO ally was attacked which is defined as act of war against all members) as interfering in Afghanistan, but dutifully ignore the fact that the Taliban are a minority of the Pashtun, who are are a minority of Afghans, and seized power (no election, get it) with assistance of Pakistan, Saudi Arabia and China.
ann:
What’s Harper going to do? Bring in conscription to get more troops over there?
shamrock:
Nice try. You left out “…or at least the one that Karzai wants to pursue.” I was pointing out the hypocrisy of saying that Layton is wrong but not criticising Karzai. But you and your kind just don’t get it. Your blind support of the ever shifting Conservative policy on Afghanistan (not to mention other issues) leaves YOU with no credibility.
Yes, I have been negative on this issue. So what? It’s been handled poorly and now there is virtually no chance of establishing a successful, secular democracy. I assume approve of how Afghanistan has been handled to date.
Oh, neither Afghanistan or the Taliban attacked the US, but don’t let the facts get in the way of a good war.
iberia:
The United Nations disagrees with your viewpoint.
lberia, you don’t even know what your own position is, so don’t criticize others. Your point about Taliban or Afghanistan not attacking US is truly juvenile, and quite boring.
Sorry the UN, NATO, USA, Canada and many others’ performance doesn’t meet with your approval. Ahh, now don’t cry. Here’s a thought, offer some constructive criticism instead of jumping from one fallacious hole to another, over, and over, and over, again. Offer a single idea of how lberia would do it better. Have you even one idea to share? Let’s go over your checklist one more time.
Who do you think you are, the next coming of Conky? (OK I just finished watching TPB, and it was hilarious!)
You can sense the desperation when right wingers use the UN to justify starting a war.
Shamrock, I know what my position is and I am consistent…you are not, especially since you seem to be taking your directions from the CPC. Since you are obviously a little slow, let me go through it again so that you can attempt to understand:
Before going to war, make sure you have the numbers on your side to actually win. If you can’t do that, then don’t go to war.
Very simple, isn’t it? Now, I ask you again, do you approve of the way Afghanistan has been handled to date?