NATO backs Taliban talks: Sign of a shift in Afghanistan war?

The Christian Science Monitor ^ | October 14, 2010 | Howard LaFranchi

[GeronL]

It does matter who the President is when he wants to tear our country down.

[Deagle]

Absolutely! And of course that means both parties are at fault! We have long been too partisan when it comes to voting...it’s time to hold all parties to task!

Yes, maybe that means a third party should arise...A party that is for the people again instead of themselves...

[munin]

Yes, maybe that means a third party should arise...A party that is for the people again instead of themselves...

Resurect the Union Party of Andew Johnson?

[Deagle]

It’s coming... Tea Party (sounds like a great name for a third party doesn’t it?)... If things continue for the next few year with no accounting to the public - it WILL happen!

[Talf]

we should have left in 2002

[screaminsunshine]

Islam and Freedom are not compatible. It will never work in Islamic countries. They will have to be crushed or isolated. We should profile Muslims and keep them out.

[BilLies]

Perhaps what you smell is Cambodia. Why are our military doing the publicized negotiating? Why aren't the Obama minions: Hillary Clinton, Karl W. Eikenberry and Richard Holbrooke out there carrying the public ball on this issue? because when things go wrong the Dimwits will want to blame someone, namely the military for its failure?

[ScottinVA]

NATO U.S. backs TalibanNorth Vietnam talks: Sign of a shift in AfghanistanVietnam war?

Sounds like a trip down memory lane to me. U.S. backing a corrupt, inept government against a motivated, well-funded, well-equipped enemy that says it wants to "negotiate"..

I hope the helicopter landing pad at the AmEmb in Kabul is in working order.