mpdsnowman

Ok here we go.

One of President elect Obamas campaign statements was he will be willing and wants to sit down and talk peace with anyone who will do so. He made that statement in effect to imply that he will sit with the Taliban and Alqueda and any other terrorist on the current issues. He believes that his way will be more effective in ending the turmoile in the mid east. Now let the fun begin.

Seems the news tonight is showing reactions of the rest of the world.

Russia, the Vatican, europe and most other parts of the world are very hopefull and postive.... most other parts...

Seems the Talibans reaction is that Obama should remove all troops from Afghanistan quickly...Does that sound like they really want to sit and talk?? Does that statement(which was just on the news) indicate they or all the other terrorists or bad guys or any fucking thing you wanna call them give you the warm cozy feeling that a glass of wine, a few smokes, some laughs and maybe a little consessions from both sides will actually happen??

Again, I wanna see it. He stated it over and over that he will in fact sit and talk and try and work it out. I believe they do NOT want to talk or negotiate peace with any western leader and I believe Obama knows that.

This is not a good sign for the Taliban to state that. It indicates to me that obviously Afghanistan is the new spa and resort for the terrorists(or again whatever you people want to refer to them as) and that in fact you should never negotiate with terrorist organizations or terrorists because in reality...they dont want too.

__________________


M P D S N O W M A N

Perpetual3am

You expect the Taliban's response to be different? They believe that foreigners are illegally occupying their country, have thought that from the beginning and have pledged to expel them all, just like they did to the Soviets. They had US backing during that conflict, then the US pulled out and left them high and dry. Yeah, that builds trust . If you can't bother to read history, at least watch the Charlie Wilson movie, geebus.

Did you expect them to change their entire motivation because of an election in the US, one where it won't change hands until mid January next year? They're hardcore extremists, establishing dialogue that will eventually make strides and accomplish things on a political as opposed to militarily level will take time. This will not happen overnight, especially when neither side has any trust in the other. Fawk, if you were the leader of the Taliban for the last 8 years you're telling me your response would be full of trust and brotherly love? You've been trying to kill them, that kind of rubs people the wrong way, but your American so you don't have a conception of how others view you.

And Iraq and Afghanistan became terrorist hotbeds because of US involvement, which is a point people have made for years that the US invasion actually did the exact opposite of what it intended and INCREASED terrorism throughout the world. It's been argued that Iraq and Afghanistan are one big training facility for foreign fighters, many of which train in other countries for a few months and them come to 'train' against US forces. Gee, I wonder why their tactics are getting better and better.

__________________
"This comment brought to you by Bombay Gin"

PaoloSmythe

the dialogue Obama suggested was one that wished to promise that a march to war would not be so readily entertained and engaged in, as it has been for the last 8 years.

it is most telling that you MPD would use the idea of red wine and a pack of smokes as a metaphor for peaceful debate, when such things are considered illegal by some cultures. and here lies the crux of your misunderstanding and misgivings (and dare i say ignorances) of what the future might hold.

you are determining what should occur in the future based entirely on your own personal values.

point is, this world shares a multitude of cultural and religious beliefs, which render many of your presumptions completely irrelevent and thus not even open to debate. does this therefore invalidate Obama's claim of 'meeting with terrarists'? no.

with all things considered, it is foolish for you to highlight the taliban as an american-centric problem. the taliban pose no threat whatsever to the nation of america nor to its allies.

it is alleged however, that north korea, russia, iran, congo, pakistan even fekkin cuba do!

but you wish to dwell upon the taliban? the nasty people in afghanistan called the taliban are indeed worthy of condemnation and deposition, but this is an interntional concern which is in no way exclusive to the US.

obama would be best disposed to consider most relevent fish to fry. IMO.

__________________
Just coz you don't understand it
Doesn't mean it makes no sense!

mpdsnowman

This is my point I fully agree with both of you. I dont expect them to change their view of western culture ever...yet obi thinks he can?? He promoted this type of talk...and even he has to know they wont sit and talk...

But u cannot put this all on the bush adm. Some of the fault has to go to the other side.

Regardless. I wanna see President elect Obama actually extend a warm welcome for discussion to the taliban, alqueda and all other players involved. I wanna see a WORLD PEACE SUMMIT. Now if Obama does in fact extend that offering and they refuse it, I would sincerely give obama the credit for trying.

__________________


M P D S N O W M A N

PaoloSmythe

well that would depend upon what that view, which they have of us, actually is.

forget the bullshit, they love death, hate life, envy us propaganda. and just remember, that thru efforts of diplomacy, Gorbechev ended the Cold War. did that change russian opinions of us? yup.

and what of madman Gadhafi? Libya blow up a PanAm flight and yet a decade or so later, we love them again.

yeah, i blame the other side for daring to defend themselves, for trying to repell an invasion, and for having the audacity to fight an occupation.

if they had just rolled over and yielded to american will, it would all be over with.

and so tell me MPD, would you be so inclined to surrender when the chinese forces land on your western sea board? after all that is what you expect the 'terrarists' to do.....

again.... why the taliban? where is the unilateral interest that causes you to isolate what is a domestic afghani group?

AQ... i can see it happening. why not?

other players? like who?

foshizzle (as some might say). it would be a damned sight more than has been realised over the last decade or so!

__________________
Just coz you don't understand it
Doesn't mean it makes no sense!

slimpanzee

First off, Obama can't do anything right now... he's not the president yet. What are you expecting to happen? Wait till he actually gets in the office then start these threads.

Second off, actually listen to what he said, and not McCain's version of what he said. He never said "HE" would actually do the talking, but he wanted to open up the channels of diplomacy with anybody. However, the channels of diplomacy have already been closed with the Iraq war... war has already started. I would assume that many sit downs and talks will be done in this current war and a strategy of withdrawal will be determined based on those talks and the cooperation between all parties. But then again, Obama has to be inaugurated first.

__________________
I draw all my own stunts!

Snowolf

Now MPD, you are not being totally honest Here. Obama has said over and over and over again that AQ and Bin Ladden are the enemy and that he will increase troop strength in Afghanistan to go after those who actually attacked us. It has always been his position that going into Iraq distracted us from the primary objective and he intends to refocus on that objective. Additionally, he re affirmed his commitment in is victory speech that "those who are determined to tear the world down we will fight you" Again, you are regurgitating the talking points from the right wing radio. Give him time to actually be sworn in before demanding these talks. Sadly, George W Bush is still the President until Jan 20`th so Obama can do nothing right now.

Obama has indicated that having open dialog with friend and foe alike is something America must do. Having this dialog does not mean conceding anything as you have been brainwashed to think by the likes of Glenn Beck. If Kennedy and Kruschev not maintained open channels of communication in 1962, none of us would be hear to have this debate. Only a complete fool refuses to engage their enemy in dialog.

__________________
www.savewolves.org

PaoloSmythe

the pivotal element in this new era of open and frank exchange, is that such things are now seemingly possible.

with the Bush policy of refusing to meet and negotiate with anyone 'terraristic' , no one would even attempt to engage with the whitehouse.

now however.....

Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad yesterday congratulated Barack Obama on his election win – the first time an Iranian leader has offered such wishes to a U.S. president-elect since the 1979 Islamic revolution.

TheStar.com | World | Iranian president congratulates Obama

and

North Korea’s state-run news agency reports that the reclusive leader attended a classical music concert.

This has triggered speculation that his recent spate of appearances is intended to remind the West, specifically America, that Kim is still in control.

"I think this is a message to the United States," said Yang Moo-jin, a professor at Seoul’s University of North Korean Studies. "The message appears to be that: ‘I make decisions on relations with the United States, the nuclear standoff and everything. I’m in control and I’m ready to have direct talks with US President-elect Barack Obama’

North Korean Leader Kim Jong Il Attends Classical Music Concert - A Warning To Barack Obama? | World News | Sky News

however one slight concern which i have:

ISLAMABAD (AFP) — Pakistan's English-language press on Thursday applauded Barack Obama's US presidential election victory but amid tensions with its "war on terror" ally, questioned his policy on tackling extremism.

Leading dailies voiced concern about his support for US missile strikes against suspected Al-Qaeda and Taliban militants in Pakistan's tribal border region that have led to strong protests and warnings from Islamabad.

"Here in Pakistan, Mr Obama's earlier take on the issue of militancy was sometimes seen as short-sighted and belligerent," Dawn said in an editorial.

The News also said his belligerent tone over US missile strikes "had set alarm bells ringing in Islamabad."

"The prospect of a more bullish approach from the new US administration is obviously a disturbing one for the Pakistan leadership."

AFP: Pakistan press welcome Obama, query anti-terror policy

__________________
Just coz you don't understand it
Doesn't mean it makes no sense!

mpdsnowman

I was just watching this on CBS news:
Al Qaeda: Don't Be Fooled By Obama, Bin Laden Deputy Warns Muslims In New Audio Tape That U.S. Is "Still Full Of Hate ... Drowning In Greed" - CBS News

According to lovely katie this guy refers to obama as a "house negro"! now I dont see it here in the online article but they just showed it on tv.

Read what this guy is saying. No way in hell will they ever come to peace with us or anyone outside their ideas. Bush being an asshole and hated worldwide one would think that even Ayman Zawahri should comprehend this is the perfect time to at minimum reduce all this threat and violence with the change going on..but they dont want change and only hate. Prooves it right here! On one side we have obama who would definitely sit down and on the other we have this:

Again, if they want full troop withdrawl it starts with Zawahri and Bin Laden to sit at a neutral location and at least come to a withdrawl of attacks on both sides. I agree it wouldnt work with bush but obama it would.

And you cannot tell me Muslims DONT want this. They do, the good ones would want a negotiated settlement just to get their asses off the podeum of hate their brothers put them on!

__________________


M P D S N O W M A N

SpringheelJack

We also wouldn't have had The Cuban Missile Crisis. The Russians were flabbergasted by Kennedy's willingness to talk and, being Russians, thought it was a sign of weakness. Kruschev decided to see how far he could push him. Thankfully it wasn't (I'm no fan of JFK, but he did handle the Crisis admirably, even if he inadvertently caused it) and JFK was smart enough to realize that the Russians have to respect you before they'll talk to you.

Nixon did a much better job of it by employing what he termed 'The Madman Theory'. Basically he wanted the Russians and China to think that he was always one misstep away from pushing the red button, and had to be handled with kid gloves. He was able to work this into opening our relations with Russia and China more so than they had been in decades, and in doing so, turn their attention on each other instead of the US, since he made both of them afraid that the other would be able to ally with the US to destroy them. This is amongst other fun moves like convincing the Russians that we had plans for a missile umbrella defense system, and getting them to reduce their nuclear stockpile in exchange for us not building it. (We did have plans, they were just garbage, and Nixon was just stalling them through Congress long enough to bribe the Russians with it before Congress told him to go to hell)

My point is basically: true open dialogue rarely works with nutjobs who thrive in cultures of violence. You have to have leverage, otherwise they'll attempt to walk all over you. Hopefully Obama is smart enough to realize this, because if he makes the Muslim extremists think the US is coming to them with hat in hand, we're in for trouble.