Do you support the US occupation of Afghanistan?

[unknownprince]

Yes or No.

[Digital Malang]

Absolutely positively NO!

[MostafaM]

No!

Who armes, trains and guides the resistance?

An American presence prevents Afghanistan from disintegrating right now.
I would rather have a strategic partnership with the US, Papua Neuginea or Fidji than with sourrounding countries who have strategic aims in Afghanistan and who we have territorial disputes with.
(Iran has always objected the integration of Herat into the Afghan homeland and always backs the Persian language and culture and uses Dari-speaking people as it´s strategic assets. Pakistan´s aims are clear: Pashtun inhabitated areas, Durand Line problems and it´s "Islam-Ummah" card)

[Janana]

No.

[afghan]

big NOOOOOOOOOO

[Shahid]

Yes i fully support U.S presence in Afghan right now and i think that this is a golden chance for AFghans to use in order not to fall in the hands of Pakistani and Iranian regimes. Afghans are tired of Taliban and their brutality. we Afghans want long term strategic partnership with U.S and the west. long live Afghanistan and America Paak dosti and down with Taliban and those who supports them.

[Haris]

No

[Michin Khel]

Big No.
We Pakistanis, your muslim brothers, are helping afghan resistance against US occupation. Without pakistani help talibans would'nt have been able to give any significant resistance to occupying forces.

[MostafaM]

Big No.
We Pakistanis, your muslim brothers, are helping afghan resistance against US occupation. Without pakistani help talibans would'nt have been able to give any significant resistance to occupying forces.

First, it´s not your business.

Second, you should stop giving the US Air Force flight capabilities over your "territory", stop accepting billion dollars in aid, stop transporting NATO and US goods over your territory and stop killing ethnic Afghans/Pashtuns if you are concerned about Afghanistan.

Conclusion:
Keep your devious and deceiving words to yourself.
Your role here has been exposed!

[Michin Khel]

First, it´s not your business.

Second, you should stop giving the US Air Force flight capabilities over your "territory", stop accepting billion dollars in aid, stop transporting NATO and US goods over your territory and stop killing ethnic Afghans/Pashtuns if you are concerned about Afghanistan.

Conclusion:
Keep your devious and deceiving words to yourself.
Your role here has been exposed!

Its my business because afghans are our muslim neighbours..Your talibans invite us for jihad against US.
we are cooperating with US because we dont stand a chance against them. Though we are destroying NATO tankers through our tools, talibans. And whats wrong with aid? It is helping our economy.
Pakistan is not killing pashtuns, it is collateral damage.

[MostafaM]

Its my business because afghans are our muslim neighbours..Your talibans invite us for jihad against US.
we are cooperating with US because we dont stand a chance against them. Though we are destroying NATO tankers through our tools, talibans. And whats wrong with aid? It is helping our economy.
Pakistan is not killing pashtuns, it is collateral damage.

We are definitly not your brothers. I can assure you of that.

"Our" Taliban are not our Taliban. If they get educated in Pakistani madrasses, armed, equipped and trained by your ISI, indoctrinated with your ideology and sent to fight inside Afghanistan, then we definitly do not think of them as ours.
You invited yourselves via the Taliban movement.

You state that you help the Taliban and cooperate with the US?
Isn´t that treason "against your muslim brothers"?
Or is it the Pakistani mindset of having a low self-esteem and prostituting yourself yourselves for some US dollars?
Your words expose bad habits that Pakistanis have, don´t you think?

The only collateral damage I am aware of is the space between your ears.

[شمله ور خراساني]

guys, you shouldn't pay much attention to those who blatantly and emotionally support occupation of hteir country and rape of their mothers and looting of their homes by Americans & CO.

You should be more wary of those who do not say that they are in favor of Americans and yet constantly condemn those who are against America.

[Catya Sher]

^ that's one of the central problems with this site :
SO MANY of that type pop in to derail many discussions.

Rather than these troublemakers, i think it would be more
relevant to have heard from those Afghans who went over
and trained ANA or performed some chores for the occupation forces.

I would like to learn: are they SERIOUSLY on the side of the
brutal army which has decimated their country ??

Or were they out of a job?

Are they putting on a show of favoring the occupation while
all the time clenching their teeth in outrage at whatever they see ?

Like that NDS guy recently who killed the 2 Americans -
of course news reports called them "NATO" so as not to
alarm the domestic population too much.
He must have been furious for quite some time; then
it all erupted after some dispute.
In short, he had seen enough to make him simmering with anger.

So if someone like these types came on PF and explained anonymously
their TRUE feelings, we could at least gauge WHY these people
are tempted to accept jobs in US military capacities ;

Then, why they would STAY there, not cut short their term of duty.

In sum my answer to Ashraf Question is a vehement, crystal clear
NO !

[MostafaM]

guys, you shouldn't pay much attention to those who blatantly and emotionally support occupation of hteir country and rape of their mothers and looting of their homes by Americans & CO.

You should be more wary of those who do not say that they are in favor of Americans and yet constantly condemn those who are against America.

Choose between America on the one hand and Pakistan, Iran, China and Russia on the other hand.

If you think that the US is in Afghanistan to erase Islam and to make Afghans forget their identity, then you clearly lack the basic logic and intelligence that is required to debate here.

If you think that Al Qaida´s strategic aim to involve the US in a muslim country, to trap it and destroy it, wasn´t achieved then you don´t get the problem here.

The US intervened in Afghanistan NOT to occupy it infinitly, turn it into the 51st state of the US and proclaim it as it´s own soil.
One day or another they will leave like any other invader so far.

The question is, at what level will Afghanistan be when the time comes for the US to leave?

Will we be able to encounter the shakals around us or will we be plunged into dog fights again?



What are our strategic and national interests and how can we achieve them?

Answer these questins for yourself.

[BarakzaiAbdali]

Choose between America on the one hand and Pakistan, Iran, China and Russia on the other hand.

If you think that the US is in Afghanistan to erase Islam and to make Afghans forget their identity, then you clearly lack the basic logic and intelligence that is required to debate here.

If you think that Al Qaida´s strategic aim to involve the US in a muslim country, to trap it and destroy it, wasn´t achieved then you don´t get the problem here.

The US intervened in Afghanistan NOT to occupy it infinitly, turn it into the 51st state of the US and proclaim it as it´s own soil.
One day or another they will leave like any other invader so far.

The question is, at what level will Afghanistan be when the time comes for the US to leave?

Will we be able to encounter the shakals around us or will we be plunged into dog fights again?



What are our strategic and national interests and how can we achieve them?

Answer these questins for yourself.

Your argument is laced with fallacies:

1) The US, per former CIA writings, openly stated that its goal is to avoid Islamist governments from rising to power. In fact, it appears you were asleep at the wheel for the whole Egypt drama. The key question was, when Americans were challenged regarding their double standard for who deserves democracy if democracy results in Islamists gaining power (as the University of Maryland polling shows they likely would), they resorted to commentary about the Muslim Brotherhood that had no basis in reality. Scheuer by way of Margolis states:

http://www.facts-are-facts.com/news/...onterror.ihtml

"U.S. military operations in the Muslim world," he adds, "validate bin Laden's contention the U.S. is attacking Islam and supports any country willing to kill or persecute Muslims." Scheuer, breaking the ultimate taboo, observes of Washington's "one-way alliance" with Israel that "Israelis have succeeded in lacing tight the ropes binding the American Gulliver to the ... Jewish state and its policies." The wars in Afghanistan and Iraq are lost causes, Scheuer concludes. The U.S. is totally unable to create legitimate governments in either chaotic nation, only puppet regimes, supported by American bayonets. If the U.S. stays, it will bleed endlessly; if it retreats, it faces political disaster."

2) Regarding US attempts to alter the cultural landscape of Afghanistan actively from Woodward ala Scheuer:

"–“Do you understand [asked Secretary of State Clinton] what the alternative would be if we don’t stick to this [waging the Afghan]? she asked. The gains for women will evaporate and the UN would be driven out” [p.102]
So, our soldiers and Marines are dying and being crippled in Afghanistan so Mrs. Muhammad can vote and abort, and so the UN can continue wasting U.S. taxpayer money?"

http://non-intervention.com/594/bob-...and-ignorance/

3) You have not proven that the Pashtuns of the southern Afghan basin viewed the Taliban as imposed outsiders. You contradict yourself. If the Afghans are, as you state, so capable of repelling invaders, then the Taliban would have been repelled had they been seen as foreign imposed elements. Instead the evidence is to the contrary:

http://www.thenation.com/article/157...-insider-talks

" In 2001–02 we installed a government in Kabul headed by Karzai. In doing this, we backed one side in a long civil war—the more progressive-secular and urban camp, Tajiks, Uzbeks and Hazaras, and some Pashtuns and those who live in the north and west. But it excluded one-third of Afghans, the rural, religious, traditional camp, who are Pashtuns in the south and east—which include the Taliban—whose forerunners we backed in 1980s, against the Soviets. "

I refer you to Dr. Kakar's text (an anti taliban Afghan historian) regarding how the rural Afghans functioned under the Taliban:

http://www.institute-for-afghan-stud...ntro_kakar.htm

"Although taliban have never been, until recent times, at the pinnacle of military and political power, they are not new to Afghanistan. They have been a component of the religious establishment and have always ways lived in the shadow of other military, political, and economic groups. Mullah Shor Bazar, an Afghan fighter known for inflicting heavy losses on the British during the Third Anglo-Afghan war of 1919, was also a talib, as were Mirwais Khan Hotaki, and Mullah Mushki Alam, who fought against the British occupation of Afghanistan. During the national struggle against the Soviet invaders, taliban fought alongside the Mujahideen mainly under the leadership of Mohammad Nabi, one of the seven sanctioned Mujahideen leaders in Pakistan (also known as "Peshawar Tanzeem" Leaders)."

"In reality, the traditional way of life in villages has changed little by Taliban's rule. The situation of Afghans in the countryside controlled by the Taliban has improved because of increased peace and security, giving them the opportunity to rebuild after two decades of war."

3) Once again, examine the US presence in the Arabian Peninsula, The DMZ line in Korea, various Eastern Euro regions, Iraq, Germany etc. You are attempting to promote a farcical idea that Afghanistan is the exception to the rule that the US stays where its footprint was. Once country is the exception, and how has strong business ties as a business partner with the US: Vietnam.

So in summary, you have not successfully proven at the Taliban are imposed (or even as imposed as NATO) or that the US presence is in any way benign.

Come back with proof. The Saleh line of reasoning is defunct here.