| Submit your comments on this article |
| -Election 2012 |
| Romney says US should not negotiate with Taliban |
| 2012-01-18 |
| [Dawn] US Republican presidential front-runner Mitt Romney ...whose real first name is actually, no kidding, Willard, was governor of Massachussetts and is currently the front-runner for president on the Publican ticket. He is the son of the former governor of Michigan, George Romney, who himself ran for president after saving American Motors from failure, though not permanently. Romney's foot is in an ideological bucket because of Romneycare, a state-level experiment that should have been a warning against Obamacare if anyone had been paying attention. Romney's charisma is best defined as soporific, which is probably why he is leading the Publican field... said on Monday the United States should not negotiate with the Taliban and he criticised the B.O. regime for efforts to broker secret talks with the Afghan bad boys. Romney, who has won the first two Republican contests in the race to pick a nominee to face Democratic President Barack Obama I've now been in 57 states -- I think one left to go... in November, strongly rejected any sort of talks with the Taliban. "The right course for America is not to negotiate with the Taliban while the Taliban are killing our soldiers," Romney said during a debate of the five Republican presidential hopefuls ahead of Saturday's South Carolina primary. "The right course is to recognise that they are the enemy of the United States." Romney said Obama had put the United States in a position of "extraordinary weakness" because he had made a decision based on a political calendar on when to pull US troops out of Afghanistan and because he has even publicly announced the date when the United States would completely withdraw from the country. "We don't negotiate from a position of weakness as we are pulling our troops out," Romney said. "We should not negotiate with the Taliban. We should defeat the Taliban." Senior US officials told Rooters last month that the United States had been involved in 10 months of secret dialogue with the Taliban. Officials had said the talks had reached a critical juncture and a Taliban prisoner transfer was possible from the Guantanamo Bay military prison into Afghan government custody. US officials had said a transfer of prisoners could be one confidence-building measure critical to making progress on a peace deal between the Taliban and the government of Afghanistan's Caped President Hamid Maybe I'll join the TalibanKarzai. ... A former Baltimore restaurateur, now 12th and current President of Afghanistan, displacing the legitimate president Rabbani in December 2004. He was installed as the dominant political figure after the removal of the Taliban regime in late 2001 in a vain attempt to put a Pashtunface on the successor state to the Taliban. After the 2004 presidential election, he was declared president regardless of what the actual vote count was. He won a second, even more dubious, five-year-term after the 2009 presidential election. His grip on reality has been slipping steadily since around 2007, probably from heavy drug use... But Romney said those negotiations sent the wrong message to the people of Afghanistan. "Think what it says to the people of Afghanistan...if they see us, their ally, turning and negotiating with the very people they are going to have to protect their nation from." If Romney wins the Republican nomination, he will face Obama on Election Day Nov 6. Obama's record on foreign policy and national security is likely to be one of his strengths, however, because he can point to the killing last year of al Qaeda leader the late Osama bin Laden ... he's rotten though not quite forgotten... as one of his victories. |
| Posted by:Fred |
| #6 FYI TOPIX > NATO: TALIBAN CHIEF [Mullah Omar] HAS LOST [all] CONTROL OF INSURGENTS, as based on MO's seeming lack of criticism agz Taliban on latest attacks which targeted andor killed local Civilians as well as Security troops instead of the US-NATO as demanded or ordered by MO. IMO, iff NATO is correct, IMO unless a truly major or decisive victory is won by the US-NATO agz the Taliban the US-NATO may have to delay their scheduled Afghan pullout. OMAR LOSING CONTROL OF THE TALIBAN FACTIONS + ALIGNED IS ACTUALLY BAD NEWS FOR THE US-NATO + KABUL + ISLAMABAD. versus * SAME > MULLAH OMAR: US PUSH FOR TALKS HERALDS TALIBAN VICTORY/SIGNALS [US-NATO] DEFEAT. * SAME > TALIBAN DECLARE VICTORY, AS FIGHTING GOES ON. |
| Posted by: JosephMendiola 2012-01-18 23:46 |
| #5 A point about negotiating with Taliban. Start from the point of view of negotiating their *surrender*. This points out that the Taliban are not a nation, nor even really an organization, just a muddled group of primitives who banded together to rule over the chaos that was Afghanistan after the Russians left. They could not surrender, because they have no real leader, nor will the vast majority follow any leader in any direction. Barbarians in a league of convenience. It also means that they cannot negotiate a peace, or even a cease fire. Add to that what passes for government in Afghanistan right now is little better than the Taliban, organizationally. The US could have given them a far better form of government, one that could have improved over time into a real government, like Iraq, for better or worse, but we chose not to. Years ago, Pakistan under Perv even offered to construct a "soft wall" between Pakistan and Afghanistan, and Karzai rejected it outright, likely because he is dependent on the support of the Pushtun whose tribes cross over the border frequently. This means that all we can do is kill some of the Taliban that cross over the border, and drone zap some of their what passes for leaders, in Pakistan. Which achieves bupkus. Our best hope is that Perv returns to rule over another military coup, and uses the military to smite the Taliban for good, or at least enough so that their survivors are effectively neutered. |
| Posted by: Anonymoose 2012-01-18 18:23 |
| #4 I found this interview interesting: Brian Lamb: : By the way, why did your father not give you any of his inheritance? Governor Mitt Romney: Well, he didnÂ’t have as much as I think some people anticipated. And I did get a check from my dad when he passed away. I shouldnÂ’t say a check, but I did inherit some funds from my dad. But I turned and gave that away to charity. In this case I gave it to a school which Brigham Young University established in his honor, the George W. Romney School of Public Management. And as an institute of public management, it helps young people learn about government and about serving in public service. And thatÂ’s where his inheritance ended up. |
| Posted by: JohnQC 2012-01-18 17:53 |
| #3 Romney's been pretty consistent on international matters. Not surprising - I've been told that Mormons serve in the military, intel services (esp. covert on the ground agents) and law enforcement (FBI, state BIs) way more than their % of the overall population. Brigham Young Univ. has an archives program called Saints at War that documents Mormon military service. There's a story in Mormon literature about the Striplings, the theme of which is that elders in one tribe kept their sacred vow not ever to fight the other tribe, which broke their similar vow and launched a war. A small cohort of the younger generation (the Striplings), not having made that vow, took on the much larger agressor army and beat the pants off of them, suffering not a single casualty. The moral being, if you're squared away in your morality national defense is an honorable and even righteous activity. Mormons tend not to preach passive resistance or "better Red than Dead" - they can be quite vigorous in the other direction. Huntsman was an anomaly in that his father's business interests made him much more interested in doing deals with China than in national security. Romney's much more representative of the Mormon community in that way. Huntsman tried to buy/lobby his way into managing the Salt Lake City Olympics. Utah leadership chose Romney instead, based on his experience and skills, and he did a very good job of it. The Huntsmans have never forgiven him for that and in general are far more transnational in their personal goals and fortune. Which is why Huntsman made a run for the candidacy - it was to draw away potential Romney supporters, not because he was really all that serious. If he had been, his multibillionaire dad would have funded the campaign all-out. |
| Posted by: lotp 2012-01-18 10:31 |
| #2 Romney says US should not negotiate with Taliban There's a difference between 'should' and 'will' as any contracting agent will tell you. |
| Posted by: Procopius2k 2012-01-18 07:31 |
| #1 of course Romney is know to say whatever he thinks you want to hear and we have no idea at all where his moral core may lie, and that is the rub whenever Romney gets one right. Is he really right on this one, or just following the latest polling on the issue. |
| Posted by: abu do you love 2012-01-18 00:29 |