US-Taliban Peace Talks

Users who are viewing this thread

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-22957819

"The US is to open direct peace talks with the Taliban, senior White House officials have announced."

Funnily, I can already see where this is going to have issues.
"However, the talks are on condition that the Taliban renounce violence, break ties with al-Qaeda and respect the Afghan constitution - including the rights of women and minorities. "

And of course, the Taliban will lie and say that they will do this.

Because from what I understand of the differences between Western and Eastern mentalities for relationships of any kind, that it is soemthing like this:
West: Build relationship upon trust.
East: Build trust upon relationship.

In other words, the Taliban have no, or rather, negative relations with the US, and thus will do anything but tell the truth.
Meanwhile, the US will expect them to tell the truth in order to build a peaceable relationship from its negative state.

All that said, I don't know who really expects the Taliban to go all peaceful and quietly. As soon as the US leaves, it will be almost free reign for the insurgents.
 
Because from what I understand of the differences between Western and Eastern mentalities for relationships of any kind, that it is soemthing like this:
West: Build relationship upon trust.
East: Build trust upon relationship.

In other words, the Taliban have no, or rather, negative relations with the US, and thus will do anything but tell the truth.
Meanwhile, the US will expect them to tell the truth in order to build a peaceable relationship from its negative state.

Wow, this is almost disconcertingly naieve.
 
Rallix said:
West: Build relationship upon trust.
How do we trust someone whom we have no relationship with? I.e. it seems like you are saying trust comes before the relationship.

Not that it makes sense to split things into east and west, since the world is more complex than that.
 
You realise the US has no choice?
The war is causing significant losses and the insurgents are not only being sheltered and armed by elements in Pakistan, but funded by elements in Saudi Arabia, a US ally.

Plus, the US may shortly become embroiled in Syria, especially if Assad (and some rebels) have said that they will militarise the  recently seized UN post near Golan Heights and possibly increase tensions with Israel further.


And FYI the EvW homogeneous naivety got old decades ago.
 
Duh said:
Rallix said:
West: Build relationship upon trust.
How do we trust someone whom we have no relationship with? I.e. it seems like you are saying trust comes before the relationship.

Not that it makes sense to split things into east and west, since the world is more complex than that.
The difference comes with what each group is expecting.
It was my understanding that this view which I refer to as eastern is prevalent in the Middle-eastern nations, whereas the opposite is true of governments and people-groups in Western nations like the US.

How do we have a relationship with someone we don't trust?
Kobrag said:
You realise the US has no choice?
The war is causing significant losses and the insurgents are not only being sheltered and armed by elements in Pakistan, but funded by elements in Saudi Arabia, a US ally.

Plus, the US may shortly become embroiled in Syria, especially if Assad (and some rebels) have said that they will militarise the  the area around the Golan Heights and possibly increase tensions with Israel further.

And FYI the EvW homogeneous naivety got old decades ago.
Oh, I realize all that. I'm simply stating that any talks with the Taliban are pointless and confounded from the start.
 
Rallix said:
How do we have a relationship with someone we don't trust?
We dont trust them, because of the experiences we made in the relationship so far. A relationship is not limited to good things, people that hate each other have as much of a relationship as people that love each other.

I really dont see how you can have trust to someone that you never were in a relationship with. Oh hey stranger, i totally trust you by the way.
 
Peace is not pointless. We don't have to trust them to have peace, we just have to how that peace is in their interests.
 
Karzai gained power only because he promised the return of the king. Aragorn Khan would destroyed both taliban and soviet rebels. They didn't want to restore the kingdom only because republic was more modern without realising that the republic was just a lame invention of the king's cousin that attracted soviets, in this case attracted taliban that are the new soviets.
 
Representatives of Taliban were in Norway to see how things work here, visited a church and saw the snow
chansub-global-emoticon-f124d3a96eff228a-41x28.png
 
I don't think Rallix should start threads on politics.
The OP should not be a badly-informed opinion that instantly derails the thread, but an objective summary.
Rallix, please stop.
 
Splintert said:
The Taliban are less terroristy and more armed ex-governmenty, aren't they?
Well I heard something about connection between Bin Laden, Al-Qaeda and the Taliban but I guess it's not a big deal, they're probably decent chaps to talk to.
 
Scully said:
Representatives of Taliban were in Norway to see how things work here, visited a church and saw the snow
chansub-global-emoticon-f124d3a96eff228a-41x28.png

And you didn't waterboard ANY of them? That's it, I demand that Norway be added to the list of state sponsors of terrorism.
 
Back
Top Bottom