Do you have adblock enabled?
 
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(This Is Local London)   British PM Gordon Brown announces he will negotiate with Taliban to end war in Afghanistan   (thisislondon.co.uk ) divider line
    More: Asinine  
•       •       •

5045 clicks; posted to Main » on 12 Dec 2007 at 3:30 AM (8 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



334 Comments     (+0 »)
 


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | » | Newest | Show all

 
2007-12-12 03:09:32 AM  
img145.imageshack.us


"Peace for our time."
 
2007-12-12 03:17:28 AM  
Negotiate = Buy off local chiefs?
 
2007-12-12 03:20:26 AM  
He just wants a share of their drug trade.
 
2007-12-12 03:34:24 AM  
fark.. diplomacy... (american heads shake and explode)...
but we can just nuke them....?
 
2007-12-12 03:35:31 AM  
WTF? This should end well.
 
2007-12-12 03:36:52 AM  
There's a war in Afghanistan?
 
2007-12-12 03:39:53 AM  
And I'll eat my hat.
 
2007-12-12 03:40:55 AM  
NewportBarGuy: "Peace for our time."

win.
 
2007-12-12 03:42:55 AM  
Great. Glad that's settled.
 
2007-12-12 03:43:13 AM  
Pfft, if it was that easy, don't you think George Bush would have done this from the start?


DUH.

/George Bush is the greatest president to ever exist.
//no really, i really do believe that.
 
2007-12-12 03:45:33 AM  
Problem is, Gordon Brown doesn't understand that you CAN NOT appease a fanatic. And that is exactly what the Taliban are.
 
2007-12-12 03:48:13 AM  
Good luck negotiating with terrorists.
 
2007-12-12 03:51:36 AM  
I can't believe the sentiments in this thread. A bunch of farking tribal militiamen in Afghanistan is not comparable to Hitler's Germany. There is no reason to continue occupying Afghanistan and there is no way we will ever eradicate the threat of terrorism from Afghanistan. Even if we sent a huge number of troops there, a group of guys could still conspire to hijack airplanes or send a militant to the US or Europe. It's easy to get all weepy about the poor people in Kabul who don't support the Taliban, but remember: you aren't doing jack shiat about the poor people in Burma, Sudan, the Ivory Coast, North Korea, the Central African Republic, etc. And one of the main reasons Afghanistan is so farked up is becuase the US and Russia used it as their proxy battleground in the 80s. Can continuing that trend make things better? The myth that we can transform these nations into stable democracies without using brutality worse than anything the Taliban can inflict is dangerous. It's turning the US into an empire. We need to leave Afghanistan now.
 
2007-12-12 03:51:58 AM  
When I first read the headline I thought there was a joke in there. After reading TFA I am shockingly disappointed in Brown.
 
2007-12-12 03:56:49 AM  
Closed_Minded_Bastage: Problem is, Gordon Brown doesn't understand that you CAN NOT appease a fanatic. And that is exactly what the TalibanNeocons are.

There we go. All better.
 
2007-12-12 03:57:30 AM  
Might as well talk to them, there's no harm in it. It isn't like you have to bend over and accept whatever they say.

Honestly, it's not like military options are achieving much at the moment is it?
 
2007-12-12 03:58:06 AM  
Five Minute Standup: Good luck negotiating with terrorists.

Good luck imposing your will on Afghanistan. After all, you've only been trying for six years. What's another decade of war if it will...uh...I don't know...fark up Afghanistan some more? Really, what do you think will happen? If you send enough men to shoot up the place and bribe enough tribal chiefs, eventually it'll be like France or Canada over there? Give me a break.
 
2007-12-12 04:00:03 AM  
Closed_Minded_Bastage: Problem is, Gordon Brown doesn't understand that you CAN NOT appease a fanatic. And that is exactly what the Taliban are.

Isn't that precisely what the US tried to do with the Mujahideen (later formed into the Taliban) in the 1980s? I mean sure, we hated the Soviets but it was essentially a proxy war. The Mujahideen were getting picked off by HiNDs, so we armed them with Stinger missiles.

Gee...
 
2007-12-12 04:00:59 AM  
Is it me or is British PM Gordon Brown just a little bit redundant? Like we don't know who the British PM is.

Oh wait. It's not Maggie anymore?

hmm
 
2007-12-12 04:02:01 AM  
Perhaps that will be the one good thing that will come for the war on T, is that we can now invade england.
 
2007-12-12 04:02:57 AM  
It's time to stop thinking "how can we use brute force to change the Middle East?" and start thinking "maybe terrorism against America wouldn't be so popular if America wasn't playing such an oppressive role in the region?"
 
2007-12-12 04:03:29 AM  
testbenchdude: Is it me or is British PM Gordon Brown just a little bit redundant? Like we don't know who the British PM is.

Oh wait. It's not Maggie anymore?

hmm


"PM would have my head if he found out we were investigating Carter."

/anyone?
 
2007-12-12 04:04:04 AM  
andrew131: Carter Carver.
 
2007-12-12 04:05:06 AM  
Executive Monkey: It's time to stop thinking "how can we use brute force to change the Middle East?" and start thinking "maybe terrorism against America wouldn't be so popular if America wasn't playing such an oppressive role in the region?"

I get the point, but the US was essentially no where near Afghanistan in 2001 except for maybe propping up Pakistan.
 
2007-12-12 04:06:28 AM  
Hmmm...this will end well...

PM: Lets all put down our guns and get along
Taliban: No.
PM: Please?
Taliban: No.
PM: I shall retire to England until you come to your senses and behave civilily.
Taliban: Bwahahhahah
 
2007-12-12 04:06:31 AM  
And of course US forces aren't having any dialogue with insurgents in Iraq. None at all.
 
2007-12-12 04:06:42 AM  
Closed_Minded_Bastage: Problem is, Gordon Brown doesn't understand that you CAN NOT appease a fanatic. And that is exactly what the Taliban are.

Problem is, there is no way to defeat the Taliban with the force levels we have there currently. So what do you suggest?
 
2007-12-12 04:09:30 AM  
FTFA: The aim of the new policy is one of divide and rule - to separate Afghan Taliban fighters form Pakistan-based militants linked to Al Qaeda.

Since when did negotiation == appeasement?

/Oh wait, I forgot that subtlety, nuance and the ability to adapt to changing circumstances are completely foreign to american politics
//STAY THE COURSE!!!
 
2007-12-12 04:13:06 AM  
Closed_Minded_Bastage: Problem is, Gordon Brown doesn't understand that you CAN NOT appease a fanatic. And that is exactly what the Taliban are.


The commanders on the ground are telling Mr Brown something different, so perhaps you should get on the phone and let him know they're wrong...
Commanders on the ground speak of 'tier 1' and 'tier 2' Taliban, and the need to separate the two.

'Tier 1' consist of religious extremists and hard-core idealists, fully committed to a state governed by their own interpretation of Sharia law.

It is thought there may be only a few hundred such fighters left in Afghanistan, although there is little hope of constructive dialogue with them.

The 'tier 2' Taliban are those who could be persuaded to give up the struggle. Many are thought to fight against coalition forces under duress, or because they have no other means of making a living but to fight for money, at the going rate of around $10 a day.

Many of these 'reconcilable' Taliban could be won over, according to the UK military, particularly if the tribal leaders who command their loyalty decide that the coalition and the Afghan national government in Kabul represent a better bet for the future.

It is these local tribal leaders, sometimes described as 'floating voters' in the struggle against the Taliban, whom senior British officials believe it is worth holding talks with.
 
2007-12-12 04:14:08 AM  
Executive Monkey: Five Minute Standup: Good luck negotiating with terrorists.

Good luck imposing your will on Afghanistan. After all, you've only been trying for six years. What's another decade of war if it will...uh...I don't know...fark up Afghanistan some more? Really, what do you think will happen? If you send enough men to shoot up the place and bribe enough tribal chiefs, eventually it'll be like France or Canada over there? Give me a break.


You're right, we should go for a diplomatic solution, like the one we reached in the Israel-Palestine conflict! Obviously Muslim extremists understand something other than force, and don't have a long history of manipulating the diplomatic process!

/When all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail
//And when all you have is a watering can, everything looks like a flower
///Also, if you're looking for oppressive roles in the Middle East, you should look to England and France, not the US.
 
2007-12-12 04:16:32 AM  
Aside from being ridiculous in so many other ways, the Neville Chamberlain / Hitler analogy doesn't work because we already fought a war and won. What we have there now is an occupation. At some point we have to negotiate with the locals, just as the Allies did at the end of WWII.
 
2007-12-12 04:16:57 AM  
Shatner's Bassoon: So what do you suggest?

Re-deploy all Marine Expeditionary Units from Iraq to the 'Stan. Total victory in 18 months. Seriously.
 
2007-12-12 04:17:09 AM  
ManOfTheEarth: Pfft, if it was that easy, don't you think George Bush would have done this from the start?

There's no money in Peace.
 
2007-12-12 04:18:29 AM  
Blair:Bush::Brown:Obama?
 
2007-12-12 04:19:29 AM  
superdude72:

Aside from being ridiculous in so many other ways, the Neville Chamberlain / Hitler analogy doesn't work

Let the dribbling morons have their fun, and be grateful that they aren't the ones creating foreign policy.

Wait...
 
2007-12-12 04:21:13 AM  
superdude72: we already fought a war and won.


Really? What planet do you live on that you don't understand insurgency? Because, you are failing totally. They are still a military threat. Do think we exchange flags and sip brandy? There is no victory in A'stan until the Taliban in routed. Simple as that.
 
2007-12-12 04:24:51 AM  
NewportBarGuy. Read TFA. Military commanders on the ground have no intention of dialogue with the hardcore Taliban.
 
2007-12-12 04:27:21 AM  
Yeah... You get right on that.

Worthless farkwit.

/prays the awe-inspiring meddle that biatch-slapped the Nazis and saved the world in 1940 is still alive on that pretty isle somewhere.
 
2007-12-12 04:27:32 AM  
andrew131: testbenchdude: Is it me or is British PM Gordon Brown just a little bit redundant? Like we don't know who the British PM is.

Oh wait. It's not Maggie anymore?

hmm

"PM would have my head if he found out we were investigating Carter."

/anyone?


Do you still sleep with a gun under your pillow?
 
2007-12-12 04:27:33 AM  
Five Minute Standup: Good luck negotiating with terrorists.

Seemed to go ok for them in Northern Ireland.
 
2007-12-12 04:27:34 AM  
Same story different Tory.
 
2007-12-12 04:28:25 AM  
Nobody has ever held Afghanistan, particularly the British.
 
2007-12-12 04:29:49 AM  
Cormee:

Five Minute Standup: Good luck negotiating with terrorists.

Seemed to go ok for them in Northern Ireland.


Owned.
 
2007-12-12 04:30:19 AM  
Meh,

It's been about six years and we are still no closer to controlling Afghanistan than when we started. Maybe it's time for a differet approach. Think about it:

We didn't capture the guys we blamed for everything.

The Taliban still have free rein in that country. Proof? Can that Karzai guy go anywhere he wants in that country, to meet people, tend to their needs, basically do what every leader in charge of his country can do? Hell no. Imagine if the US president was a guy who never left Washington DC, not even to frickin' campaign for the job.

When you can't defeat your enemy outright, you co-opt them. Of course this means you have to be able to admit you can't win'em all through brute force, which some people just cannot bring themselves to admit.
 
2007-12-12 04:34:03 AM  
Brits named Gordon have had many successes dealing with Islamic extremists.
 
2007-12-12 04:39:27 AM  
Iron Chef Scottish: Read TFA.

I read it... I submitted it with an Asinine tag, it was changed. Since when is a PM bound by words from their field commanders? Right.
 
2007-12-12 04:47:48 AM  
Although an egregious prospect, there might be some sense in pursuing this path. We've been in Afghanistan for pretty much six years now fighting the Taliban. Not a week goes by I don't read in the paper or online about UK or UK troops being killed or seriously injured out there. But, from what I hear from Soldiers out there, we have made progress.

The strength of feeling among the majority (tier 2 Taliban mentioned above) is diminishing. Of course you'll always have the hardcore extremists - but like all extremists, they're in the minority - more and more in Afghanistan I understand. The situation in Northern Ireland is a good example of what can be achieved so when diplomacy is done right. So far, the agreement seems to be working and long may it continue.

However, whether Gordon brown is the man to sort things out in Afghanistan is debatable. Personally I think he's incompetent and will only fark up the situation further. But then he's a rotten prime minister who's screwed up the economy, taken short term cover-ups at the expense of long-term stability and utterly exacerbated the growing pensions crisis. In short, Gordon brown has sold us down the river and will continue to do so.

/Won't even start on the whole nanny state / big brother situation.
 
2007-12-12 04:55:55 AM  
Sun God: Same story different Tory.

Golden Brown is Labour.

You Bufoon.
 
2007-12-12 05:00:51 AM  
Jonny17: However, whether Gordon brown is the man to sort things out in Afghanistan is debatable. Personally I think he's incompetent and will only fark up the situation further

If Gordon brown in your book qualifies as "incompetent", I'd like you to name one person in any field of human endeavour whatsoever that you would actually classify as "competent." No, really, anything.
 
2007-12-12 05:03:35 AM  
andrew131: Executive Monkey: It's time to stop thinking "how can we use brute force to change the Middle East?" and start thinking "maybe terrorism against America wouldn't be so popular if America wasn't playing such an oppressive role in the region?"

I get the point, but the US was essentially no where near Afghanistan in 2001 except for maybe propping up Pakistan.


Please tell me that was ironic.

/Israel
 
Displayed 50 of 334 comments


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | » | Newest | Show all



This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter






In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report