Karzai offers Taliban government office

[TacticalPeek]

Source: AP-MSNBC

Afghan president say he is willing to meet with Mullah Omar for peace talks

Updated: 9:10 a.m. CT Sept 29, 2007

KABUL, Afghanistan - President Hamid Karzai offered Saturday to meet personally with Taliban leader Mullah Omar for peace talks and give the militants a high position in a government ministry as a way to end the rising insurgency in Afghanistan.

Reiterating a call for negotiations he has made with increasing frequency over the last several weeks, Karzai also said he was willing to meet with factional warlord leader and former Prime Minister Gulbuddin Hekmatyar.

"If I find their address, there is no need for them to come to me, I'll personally go there and get in touch with them," Karzai said. "Esteemed Mullah, sir, and esteemed Hekmatyar, sir, why are you destroying the country?"

...

"If a group of Taliban or a number of Taliban come to me and say, 'President, we want a department in this or in that ministry or we want a position as deputy minister ... and we don't want to fight anymore ... If there will be a demand and a request like that to me, I will accept it because I want conflicts and fighting to end in Afghanistan," Karzai said.

Read more: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21045198/

---

-------

http://mccarthy.vg/articles/07/09/29/1431249.shtml

http://atrios.blogspot.com/2007_09_23_archive.html#1366031086980832470

[acmavm]

1. Meet with Mullah Omar to discuss WHAT? Becoming part of the

government?

Isn't that lovely?? :sarcasm:

Does his two best buddies bush** and Dick know about this?

[Baby Snooks]

3. Part of the liberation...

We did the same thing in Iraq. Removed the Baath Party. And now of course we are trying to lure the Baath Party back. So why should it surprise anyone that we would try to lure the Taliban back?

Liberate the people from the oppressive regime and then put the oppressive regime back in place. Part of the negotiation process that goes along with liberation. It's part of the liberation.

Hey, as long as they sign the oil/gas/pipeline contracts, it works, you know?

Well, it works if your name is Bush. Doesn't work for too many other people. But, hey, well, this is a dynasty here. Complete with yapping little lapdogs. Waiting for their little doggie treats.

Congress should cut off all funding for both Afghanistan and Iraq. As of yesterday.

[tekisui]

2. If the Taliban are given legitimacy in an Afgan government

that war is lost, as well.

[Baby Snooks]

4. War?

What war? The word war is used in terms of Afghanistan and Iraq. And yet neither attacked us. Why would we be at war with two countries that didn't attack us?

In reality we declared war on the people of two countries in order to liberate them - does anyone stop to think about the word war in the context it is used and the context in which it is defended? We declared war on people in order to liberate them.

Anyone who believes there is anything moral or good about that is as immoral and evil as the Bushes and the Bakers and the Candlestickmakers who are also known, generically-speaking, as the military-industrial complex. They make the rockets and the weapons of mass destruction that the Bushes and the Bakers enrich themselves off of.

It is not a war. It is an occupation. A colonization. That may not be working too well. For the people anyway. Including us.

It works well sometimes. Primarily in Central and South America. For some reason, it doesn't seem to work that well in the the Muslim world.

Maybe the Muslims aren't really in need of liberation. A lesson none of us has learned.

[tekisui]

6. Yeah, I was being sarcastic.

I agree that the US are nothing but occupiers. I know there is no war to be won, only Occupations to end.

[Vogon_Glory]

5. No-Win Wars and Our Fathers' GOP Talking Points

Do other DU'ers remember Republican rhetoric from the Vietnam era and just afterwards when the right-winger of your choice would pop up on the podium or step up to the radio microphone and trash Democrats for supposedly "getting us into no-win wars" or for "not fighting the war to win"? I sure do. Here we have Hamid Karzai calling for a coalition government with al Qaeda's siamese twin the Afghan Taliban because Team Shrub couldn't be bothered to follow up rousting the Taliban from Afghanistan with binding the many wounds of a devastated Afghanistan to be sure that the Taliban never came back.

Whatever else you could say of LBJ and his shortcomings, LBJ fought the Vietnam War to win, which is more than George HW's and Barbara Mater's beamish boy seems to be willing to do against an enemy that attacked us on our home soil.

:argh: :nuke: