Afghan chief urges early exit for Diggers

[thetruth]

Afghan chief urges early exit for Diggers

Dan Oakes, Tarin Kowt

November 21, 2011

THE commander of Afghan troops being trained by Australians has urged the Australian government to withdraw its troops immediately - provided they leave behind millions of dollars worth of sophisticated fighting equipment.
Afghan Brigadier-General Mohammed Zafar Khan also apologised repeatedly to the Australian people for the recent attacks by his troops on their Australian counterparts, including one in which three Diggers were killed at a patrol base.
He said he still did not know what motivated the rogue Afghan troops, pointing out the man who killed the Australians had been in the army for four years and had apparently got on well with both Australian and Afghan troops. It is believed that reports that the Afghan soldier had shaved his body and donned white clothes under his uniform - preparation for martyrdom - were incorrect.
Advertisement: Story continues below
General Zafar said his Afghan National Army soldiers were capable of providing security in Oruzgan province, despite the fact the Australian government has said it could take another three years to adequately train them.
However, he said he had repeatedly and unsuccessfully asked Australian and coalition officials - including Defence Minister Stephen Smith - to provide the Afghans with equipment for night vision, counter-IED capability, artillery and access to medical evacuation helicopters.
''Three years is too much time for the Australians to stay here. The only thing we are short of is some of the modern equipment … and if we had these things … we are ready at this moment to take the security of Oruzgan,'' General Zafar told The Age.
General Zafar repeatedly praised the Australian mentors, but said the Afghans were already conducting operations by themselves, which he said proved they could cope alone.
General Zafar's comments reveal a fundamental difference between his future vision for Oruzgan and the plans laid by the Australians. The commander of the Australian mentors, Lieutenant-Colonel Chris Smith, told The Age this week that the key to the Afghans taking responsibility was convincing them they could take on the Taliban without the sophisticated equipment used by the Australians.
Australian soldiers are cautiously optimistic about the competence of their Afghan charges, pointing to significant improvements over the last few months. But they have found that when patrol bases are handed over to the Afghan army, the Afghans are reluctant to carry out operations against the Taliban without equipment such as night vision scopes.
General Zafar praised the new provincial chief of police, Matiullah Khan, a significant development given the history of mistrust and hostility between the army and police in the province. Mr Matiullah has been accused in the past of human rights abuses, but is highly regarded by the coalition forces. However, The Age reported recently that the police chief had asked President Hamid Karzai to relieve him of his post.



Read more: http://www.theage.com.au/national/af...#ixzz1eJ7Kr7QB

[thetruth]

It appears that this Afghan general has understood that the barrier to peace is the foreign occupation of Afghanistan which is why he has said this.

Australian PM in response has said that Australians will now withdraw earlier than previously stated.

[Admin Khan]

It appears that this Afghan general has understood that the barrier to peace is the foreign occupation of Afghanistan which is why he has said this.

Australian PM in response has said that Australians will now withdraw earlier than previously stated.

Foreigners have invested way too much in Afghanistan, clearly they were looking for long-term interests and the time has now arrived. Making them leave won't be as easy as many would like to think. This in my opinion, was planned decades ago, and Afghan mickey-mouse leaders were complicit.

[thetruth]

There will never be peace in Afghanistan for as long as foreigners intend to prolong occupation. Last year, the stated losses were 711 foreign casualties, with thousands more wounded and billions of non-existent money lost. This year the number is currently 525 losses and growing with billions of more non-existent money lost. Key to note is that China has refused to comply with US demands in increasing the value of Chinese currency. The more China devalues their currency, the worse it becomes for the US economy which is teetering on a complete collapse, and the US can not threaten China. These are stated official numbers, and may not be correct.

Furthermore, aside from Afghan opposition to the US occupation, especially in the South and East which will never go away, regional nations just will not tolerate a US occupation of Afghanistan. They will just not sit back, and be content.

Having noted that, the US and Karzai are alone and isolated with no one besides the weak EU nations besides them who are already quitting Afghanistan.

Proclamations, false choreographed jirgas, and vows will not change the end result regardless of when that comes. Its like if a student cheats on their homework, and then takes an exam- they will still fail the exam.

As McChrystal put it best, you cant have bases in Chaosistan, and Afghanistan and the regional nations will not tolerate a foreign occupation of Afghanistan, and will move towards ensuring it is ended. The last ten years should make that perfectly clear, and that wont change regardless of what Karzai or the US says or does.

It is also logical to note that the majority of Afghanistan is under Afghan control, not US control. This has been confirmed by many Western officials, the most significant one being former British Ambassador Sherard Coles.


The historical record therefore provides us with how this will proceed. The US also made a similar pact with the Vietnamese puppet government a few years before they were completely defeated.

This "pact" has served only to increase opposition to the US occupation.

There is no longer a sole superpower in the world, and if there is, it is the nation that can not be threatened, but does not make threats that they cant follow through on. China would be that.

The US can not be that because within the past 2 months they made warnings of action to both Pakistan and Iran, and came away with no results.

[Admin Khan]

They can easily set up covert military bases. The solution isn't as easy as one would think. Afghanistan does not have control of her air-space.

[thetruth]

how? How would it be covert?

[Admin Khan]

how? How would it be covert?

They can easily set up bases near some mountainous rural area, and no one would know, should that be the final decision. If these guys have scientists that recently made a hyper sonic weapon, how could the covert-base possibility be taken off the table? This was a long-term investment for the US, and leaving would be a devastating blow to their foreign policy, and muscle-flexing. Remember, with Afghan bases, they kill 3 birds with one stone - Iran, Pakistan and China.

[thetruth]

They can easily set up bases near some mountainous rural area, and no one would know, should that be the final decision. If these guys have scientists that recently made a hyper sonic weapon, how could the covert-base possibility be taken off the table? This was a long-term investment for the US, and leaving would be a devastating blow to their foreign policy, and muscle-flexing. Remember, with Afghan bases, they kill 3 birds with one stone - Iran, Pakistan and China.

If they cant control Afghanistan now, that wont change ever. The recent threats leveled against Iran was another strategic blunder. It achieved nothing at all, and put Iran on the exact same page as Pakistan. Note that Iran also had a Taliban delegation at the Islamic Awakening Conference in Tehran back in September. It went under the name "Afghan Opposition Force."

That is a simplistic view of this conflict which has gone so terrible for the US that to say they even have a position to pave way for the so-called "Afghan endgame" is questionable. It is highly complex. Afghans will not stop fighting until the foreign occupation ends. There is no way around this, especially for peace, except to just withdraw.


On the other hand, Iran, Pakistan, China, and Russia have converged on their opposition to the US occupation. This was made clear at both the Istanbul summit, and the SCO summit. In addition, Pakistan will be a member of the UN Security Council where the Pakistan Ambassador to the UN Haroon, specifically said he will push the US withdrawal from Afghanistan issue.

US is not what it once was. If the US through a series of threats could not get Pakistan to start a North Waziristan operation, and could not get Iran to cower down, then evidently something has changed?

This will give a better analysis on what is really transpiring. Note: replace the term "Afghans" with just "Karzai"

New US Strategy: Afghans Losing Bargaining Power - Analysis

This was said by another puppet Zardari, most likely he was influenced to say it, but nontheless it is true.

“The situation in the region is a very complex one … the NATO armies, the world armies have been there for the last 10 years; if it was such an easy issue they would have solved it; the fact of the matter is that Afghanistan has always been known as the graveyard of empires.”

[Admin Khan]

This is a simplistic view of this conflict which has gone so terrible for the US that to say they even have a position to pave way for the so-called "Afghan endgame" is preposterous. In any conflict, the loser is the one who request talks.

So do you think the US will walk away from the region? I find them leaving without any presence to be a childish view. Afghanistan's independence from foreign interference is something every Afghanistan-loving human wishes to attain, but given the nexus of Afghan politicians in Kabul, military bases to prevent foreign interference from Pak-Iran is the flag they are waving.

On the other hand, Iran, Pakistan, China, and Russia have converged on their opposition to the US occupation.

Pakistan is a puppet, it holds no weight against the US. Anyone who views Pakistan as a sovereign nation needs to get their head examined.
China and the US both depend on each other, China can't just walk away, look at it's trade ratio.
Iran is a legitimate regional power, a country that is unparalleled in the region.
Russia, well, you already tasted her medicine in the 80's.

This was made clear at both the Istanbul summit, and the SCO summit. In addition, Pakistan will be a member of the UN Security Council where the Pakistan Ambassador to the UN Haroon, specifically said he will push the US withdrawal from Afghanistan issue.

These conferences mean nothing. These news sources mean nothing. What happens behind closed doors in Langley is what means something. It's Langley who decides the fate of London, Afghanistan or Pakistan.

US is not what it once was. If the US through a series of threats could not get Pakistan to start a North Waziristan operation, and could not get Iran to cower down, then evidently something has changed?

The US is blowing up Pukhtuns in Waziristan on a daily basis, the drone policy appears to them as a far more effective policy than men with boots. Pakistan behind the doors endorsed it, didn't they?

This isn't a black and white issue. You are viewing this problem with a very limited scope.

[Babygak]

http://www.news.com.au/breaking-news...-1226201179748

[thetruth]

[QUOTE]

So do you think the US will walk away from the region? I find them leaving without any presence to be a childish view. Afghanistan's independence from foreign interference is something every Afghanistan-loving human wishes to attain, but given the nexus of Afghan politicians in Kabul, military bases to prevent foreign interference from Pak-Iran is the flag they are waving.

There will be no peace as long as there is a foreign occupation. While the situation is complex, one only needs to know this simple fact. The US or Pakistan can never get Afghans to agree to a US occupation (which is what this conflict is all about). The US also wanted to stay in Iraq, and are now on their way out. This is recent news, and is relevant.

Pakistan is a puppet, it holds no weight against the US. Anyone who views Pakistan as a sovereign nation needs to get their head examined.

Pakistan is a puppet, but they as we all know play a double game, a double game that completely goes against US interests. It is also not simple to label them in the same boat as say Karzai. If it was, the US would already be occupying North Waziristan. Pakistan obviously has their own interests. They played a double game because to put it simply they are cowards.

China and the US both depend on each other, China can't just walk away, look at it's trade ratio.

American companies depend on China for cheap labor. American manufacturers assemble many products in China. These American Companies do not care about American foreign policy. China devalues its currency to favor increased trade with other nations, and these American companies go there to assemble their products cheaply, outsourcing both revenue and jobs away from America. It should be of no suprise to you then that as the US economy becomes weaker, these "American companies" will just leave to other nations to operate. Therefore, China cares about these "American companies" and not America's economy itself. Im sure you understand some basic economics to see the picture. Take Steve Jobs for example, his Iphones are all assembled in China. His company in fact is anything but an American company. All its assembly plants are overseas, and his consumers are in America. The question that must come to your mind then is are they really his consumers? NO As long as American companies are greedy and individualistic, China has nothing to fear, and China is not interested (as these economists put it) to save and prop up America. It will never serve their interests. Foreign policy interests of their power projection is more important to them. The only way China would ever prop up US economy is if they own the majority of it, meaning owning all the companies via "investments." This is the plan they set forth to the EU a few weeks ago, and the EU, predictably rejected it. However, the EU does not have any options, and may have to allow China to "save" their economy. This would be the type of assistance China would ever consider with the US economy, and that is not assistance at all, but the buying over a country to put it in simplistic terms. China is one of the only nations right now with surplus cash. Turkey is second to that.

Iran is a legitimate regional power, a country that is unparalleled in the region.

Iran wanted Karzai to be like Nuri Al Maliki, someone who could be pro-Iran, and go against American interests. However, that did not work. I suspect Iran has realized this, and have changed many of their positions. They have lost interest in Karzai, and are positioning themselves for the the future.

Russia, well, you already tasted her medicine in the 80's.

Opposition is opposition nontheless, and this is how the world works.

These conferences mean nothing. These news sources mean nothing. What happens behind closed doors in Langley is what matters.

No. You are completely wrong here not only due to the fact that the US is weak, but also due to the simple truth that only Allah(swt) matters. If what you think was so true, then they would have had permanent occupation of Iraq, and thats not happening. Furthermore, Sadr has even gone so far now to say the American presence in the US embassy in Baghdad must go, and that contractors must go. Judging from his record, he gets his way, not Obama or Panetta. Explain why that is not happening. The issue is you do not want to accept that the US is no longer the power it was. Getting a puppet jirga to agree to occupation literally means nothing at all. What matters is whether the Afghan people can be forced to stop fighting, and that is out of question. What matters is getting Pakistan and Iran fully on board with US interests and that is not happening. Therefore, the inability to do this reflects a weakened position that will not be improved with the proclamations and continuous vows that have been made. It appears there have been maybe 100 or so vows by the US and Western nations about "staying the course." If something is repeated so often, doesn't it cease to be taken seriously? Would it not be wise to suggest that such proclamations of vows are made out of frustration? Who is listening?

It is truly in fact becoming an incompetent group which garners no respect at all anymore then it once did. Shouldn't repeated threats to Pakistan and Iran have amounted to something? Hillary went with a "high level" delegation to Pakistan to push for North Waziristan offensive, and came back empty handed. US is not the powerful self it once was under Bill Clinton. Times have changed, whether one likes that or not.

The US is blowing up Pukhtuns in Waziristan on a daily basis, the drone policy appears to them as a far more effective policy than men with boots. Pakistan behind the doors endorsed it, didn't they

This is why Imran Khan is going to win a landslide victory. Yes, it is that simple.

This isn't a black and white issue. You are viewing this problem with a very limited scope.

I think you are viewing this problem on the assumption that the US has the same power it once had before. This is inaccurate to do. You are also viewing this thinking that Pakistan will be coerced to do operations that serve US interests. This too has not happened.

Had US power been the same, then as it made Pakistan support the war initially, it would have got more of its requests answered, but that has not happened so far. Pakistan's double game has been costly for the US. Pakistan does not seem to care about the level of violence in their nation, and seem intent on one sole objective. This has frustrated the US. The problem is Kayani understands that any operation will lead to a backlash.

Drone attacks do not achieve anything at all strategically speaking.

The region will not clap to a US agenda, especially when they see the US losing. This is the perception. Positions and stances do mean a lot. There can be no New Silk Road without the Taliban, Iran, Russian, China, and Pakistan cooperating, and right now they are not cooperating.

If everything was so simple, there would be no US failure as it is being witnessed. Did anyone really think that a choreographed jirga was going to save the day? Really?

Nations will not surrender their own interests in ending the occupation of Afghanistan.

The economy is also significant in regards to this.

However, the most important thing to realize is that Afghans are opposed to occupation, and these protests today should be directive of how this goes.

As we speak, Egyptian Military is attacking its own people, the people are not yielding.

Also, in Syria, armed resistance groups are fighting against Assad.

I say it as factually as possible, the time and era of wars, foreign occupations, and dictators is at its end. Karzai arrived on the scene too late.


The world has changed, it is not hopeful to say that people have power, rather it is now a matter of fact to say it.

Power is truly with the people, not with Western-backed figure heads, and the power of the people can not be crushed by violence.

[Admin Khan]

While the situation is complex, one only needs to know this simple fact. The US or Pakistan can never get Afghans to agree to a US occupation (which is what this conflict is all about). The US also wanted to stay in Iraq, and are now on their way out. This is recent news, and is relevant.

False. You see, once again you are viewing things the way you want to view them, and the way you wish they are. The US is not 'completely out'. They will still a large presence in their embassies, in fact, read this. Let me explain to you what the euphemisms in the article below mean:

A look at US Presence in Iraq After Troops Leave - ABC News

It sort of tells us that the leg-work for the US military will be done by contractors. Who at the end of the day, serve American interests. Also, there is another article which sort of outlines the American presence in Baghdad. Just because the men in uniform are leaving doesn't mean they won't have a presence where they can aim and hit targets, should they feel there is a need. Covert war is a beauty for such empires.

Pakistan is a puppet, but they as we all know play a double game, a double game that completely goes against US interests.

This is an incredibly weak, yet illogical statement. Pakistan's 'game' goes against US interests? Are you kidding me? For the past several decades, they have been serving US interests. This is what I mean. Just because Dawn News reports that Zardari criticized Obama doesn't mean behind closed doors they aren't laughing and drinking chai to a Lollywood movie. You and I both know, ISI, behind closed doors to prevent an outrage from the locals, agreed to the US drone strikes. Which is exactly why they still occur, with Pakistani concurrence. The inhabitants of Pakistan are mainly anti-American, so it's essential for the leaders to possess a "anti-American media stance". Let's not be naive here, actions speak louder than words.

It is also not simple to label them in the same boat as say Karzai. If it was, the US would already be occupying North Waziristan.

Why on earth would they want to "occupy" North Waziristan? That's so 18th century. Today, they don't have to occupy it. They have Pakistani permission to blow up any target they want, and that seems good enough. My people are dying on a daily basis, and here you are concerned about occupation?

American companies depend on China for cheap labor. American manufacturers assemble many products in China. These American Companies do not care about American foreign policy.

Another incredibly ignorant statement. You just told me American companies do not care about American foreign policy? Please tell me you take that back, please retract it.

China devalues its currency to favor increased trade with other nations, and these American companies go there to assemble their products cheaply, outsourcing both revenue and jobs away from America.

That's one side of the story. Who does China sell it's products to? What would happen if the US ban's Chinese products. As you can see, they both depend on each other.

It should be of no suprise to you then that as the US economy becomes weaker, these "American companies" will just leave to other nations to operate.

They sure as hell would not want to leave for China, where the air pollution in Beijing would make their cute little throats suffer.

Take Steve Jobs for example, his Iphones are all assembled in China. His company in fact is anything but an American company. All its assembly plants are overseas, and his consumers are in America. The question that must come to your mind then is are they really his consumers?

Obviously they are his consumers, since they are buying his product. Sweatshops in China are making him a product, for which Apple has a 80percent profit margin. What on earth are you talking about? Do you know what a consumer is? Apple being an innovative company, outsourced it's leg-work to China, and eats the bigger profit in the USA and has all it's software engineers, it's genius bar guys, it's product development team, it's marketing team, it's hardware team is all located in the USA. In fact, they are even constructing a new campus in California, where they can have more SE, etc,etc. As you can see, you made absolutely no sense in the world.

No. You are completely wrong here not only due to the fact that the US is weak, but also due to the simple truth that only Allah(swt) matters. If what you think was so true, then they would have had permanent occupation of Iraq, and thats not happening.

Young grasshopper, I never said I want an occupation so how can I possibly be wrong if I have yet to present my stance on the matter? All I am stating is the obvious, which one with common sense can understand. The US, after spending trillions, would want a covert presence in Afghanistan and Iraq.

This is why Imran Khan is going to win a landslide victory. Yes, it is that simple.

What a contradiction. You see, I simply don't know where to begin with your contradictions. Imran Khan is clearly backed by the ISI, and the ISI takes it's orders from the CIA as long as the CIA promises ISI will get what she wants from time to time. As you can see, we are back to the same gloomy image.


With all due respect Zahir, I honestly don't have the energy nor am I interested to debunk everything else you said. The quality is not there, and it's just emotional rants rather than factual discussions. First you say you despise Pakistan, then you say Imran Khan is here, It's just a mess. I wasn't expecting a post full of contradictions. I was honestly shocked at the level of ignorance present. On one hand you despise drone attacks, but then you are telling me Imran Khan is here? Little do you realize that it's an open secret that the ISI, the very same institutions that legitimized drone attacks with the US, is behind his back supporting him. Ya Allah khair, save me.

Thanks for your time.

[thetruth]

[QUOTE]

False. You see, once again you are viewing things the way you want to view them, and the way you wish they are.

False carries no weight in a debate, and this is what you are doing. There are sources to back everything mentioned, and you further are accusing me of what you yourself are doing which is pushing forward an expired narrative that holds no ground past a choreographed jirga. Its what you actually want to see and what you wish to see.

The US is not 'completely out'. They will still a large presence in their embassies, in fact, read this. Let me explain to you what the euphemisms in the article below mean:

A look at US Presence in Iraq After Troops Leave - ABC News

It sort of tells us that the leg-work for the US military will be done by contractors. Who at the end of the day, serve American interests. Also, there is another article which sort of outlines the American presence in Baghdad. Just because the men in uniform are leaving doesn't mean they won't have a presence where they can aim and hit targets, should they feel there is a need. Covert war is a beauty for such empires.

In short, without an overt and obvious US military presence, there can be no power projection from Iraq since no bordering nation will be threatened by an invisible exist. Understand? However, Iraq will be a completely free and independent nation led by Sadr and Sistani (an Iranian Ayatollah) at the top. It is best to not delude oneself with American power- it is no more. Sadr is not relenting, and forcing more non-military Americans to leave. Check his track record, and he has been rather successful. In fact, he appears to look for more thorny issue when he achieves his goals.
Sadr says to resist any U.S. presence in Iraq

http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/...7A27ZE20111103 His gotten his way so far. What makes you think he wont get his way anymore?

This is an incredibly weak, yet illogical statement. Pakistan's 'game' goes against US interests? Are you kidding me? For the past several decades, they have been serving US interests. This is what I mean. Just because Dawn News reports that Zardari criticized Obama doesn't mean behind closed doors they aren't laughing and drinking chai to a Lollywood movie.

Yes, Pakistan played a double game because they were cowards. It seems there is a mental war of attrition within yourself. Am I right? Sometimes you say Pakistan is the source of all Afghan problems (code word- the resistance), and now you say NO. Well, it doesn't matter what you say really, or how high and mighty you still believe the US to be. Pakistan played a double game because they were cowards, but their outward support for the US did not mean they would allow an opposing agenda which completely goes against US interests to not materialize.

You and I both know, ISI, behind closed doors to prevent an outrage from the locals, agreed to the US drone strikes. Which is exactly why they still occur, with Pakistani concurrence.

Drone strikes began in 2004 while Musharraf was in power. Musharraf thought he was the most powerful man in Pakistan until Bhutto was removed from power. Mushraf was not behind Bhuttos death. Musharraf then left. Please understand those events, and not through an American perspective.

The inhabitants of Pakistan are mainly anti-American, so it's essential for the leaders to possess a "anti-American media stance". Let's not be naive here, actions speak louder than words.

Zardari is a puppet and will be out of power in no time. He will probably be leaving within months, back to the UK. Same though can not be said about Ashfaq Kayani. I need not divulge my opposition to their support for the US war, as it makes no difference towards an analysis. That is all. It is a contradiction in thought to both at one time blame them for all Afghanistan and Pakistan's problems, and then say now that well, they are powerless. Kayani understands the backlash that will occur if he is to do a North Waziristan operation, and he will not do it, and more US-Pak tensions will lead to an end to this occupation and war. Lets stick to facts, and leave emotionalism out of this.

Why on earth would they want to "occupy" North Waziristan? That's so 18th century. Today, they don't have to occupy it. They have Pakistani permission to blow up any target they want, and that seems good enough.

No really. You seem almost deluded about American power. They want to have an operation in North Waziristan. They have not been lying about that. Did they?

My people are dying on a daily basis, and here you are concerned about occupation?

People are dying on a daily basis, and here you are hell bent on trying to make a convincing argument that occupation will be forever, and that Afghans have lost when all indications point in the opposite direction? What gives? Did Egyptians think they would have Hosni forever? Where is Hosni? Does it matter to me what you think, or does it matter to you what is reality? You our out of touch, and holding onto a ship that has sunken already. Are you concerned about deaths? Do you think Afghans should accept occupation due to deaths? Again, what you or I want has no bearing to what is happening and transpiring. Please clear that up within yourself, and leave the "yous" and "Is" out of this because it is simply irrelevant to the discussion. The reality and facts shows that the US is losing, this is crystal clear, not wishy-washy. What Pakistan or Iran wants has nothing to do with what Afghans want which is an end to the US occupation. Do not attribute Afghans self determination of freedom and independence to Pakistan or Iran, or China and Russia for that matter. That is inaccurate perspective that quite suprisingly leaves the Afghan insurgency (which according to top Western officials like Sherard Coles controls the majority of Afghanistan) out of the talk. Karzai is not Afghanistan, and is not even Kabul. Abdullah Abdullah today has said he is against US bases. At some point, one needs to learn to put emotionalism aside, and deal with the simple fact that not everyone simply says things to please their people, but actually has to act on it.

Another incredibly ignorant statement. You just told me American companies do not care about American foreign policy? Please tell me you take that back, please retract it.

American Companies like Wal-Mart do not care. Wal-Mart is China's best friend. Prove to me that this is not true.

That's one side of the story. Who does China sell it's products to?

China sells its products to the whole world, not just America.

What would happen if the US ban's Chinese products. As you can see, they both depend on each other.

If US does not want to be owned by China within the coming years, then they should ban Chinese products, but you are again under an impression that the US actually controls "American companies." It is the other way around. American companies operate on simply greed in line with the true Capitalism, and answer to no one except their pockets. As the US economy weakens, these companies move elsewhere. This is a simple fact of economics, whether you like it or not. Wal-Mart, Apple Inc, etc are not "American" companies.

They sure as hell would not want to leave for China, where the air pollution in Beijing would make their cute little throats suffer.

For the money, these companies will even move to Russia. They already are actually. Doing business in Russia | Russia Beyond The Headlines

Goldman Sachs in China: Best Investment Ever? - Deal Journal - WSJ

Obviously they are his consumers, since they are buying his product. Sweatshops in China are making him a product, for which Apple has a 80percent profit margin. What on earth are you talking about? Do you know what a consumer is? Apple being an innovative company, outsourced it's leg-work to China, and eats the bigger profit in the USA and has all it's software engineers, it's genius bar guys, it's product development team, it's marketing team, it's hardware team is all located in the USA.

This is why the US economy is in shambles, and will not recover. Apple Inc has companies in all nations. This means nothing. The phones are assembled in China, not America. That example alone should explain to you the reason China is rising, and the US is sinking. Apples profits mean nothing to the US. It is truly an independent company like Wal-Mart- and it answers to no one except its own pocket. This is Capitalism.

Young grasshopper, I never said I want an occupation so how can I possibly be wrong if I have yet to present my stance on the matter? All I am stating is the obvious, which one with common sense can understand.

You are presenting everything in a narrow vision that believes that the US is the all mighty power that no one can challenge. Even in its best, the US was defeated by Vietnam. The US has been defeated in Iraq. There is no other interpretation for this. You can go on about covert bases, but covert bases mean nothing because there is no power projection. Understand. Now, if they can even do that? Thats highly questionable as Sadr has stated he doesn't even want their presence at the US embassy. So far, Sadr has got his way. I would not bet on Obama and Panetta.

The US, after spending trillions, would want a covert presence in Afghanistan and Iraq.

The Afghans, and the region will not tolerate it. It is simple as that. The US wasted tax payer money to help American military industry complex. The US gov did not care about the money they wasted because it was not theirs in the first place.

What a contradiction. You see, I simply don't know where to begin with your contradictions. Imran Khan is clearly backed by the ISI, and the ISI takes it's orders from the CIA as long as the CIA promises ISI will get what she wants from time to time. As you can see, we are back to the same gloomy image.

This is a highly inaccurate representation of the situation. At one time you are saying the ISI is the source of Afghanistan's problems, and the problems for the US in Afghanistan, and now you are saying the opposite. Which one is it? Which one do you hold as truth? Pakistan played the double game because they were/are simply put cowards. Thats all.

With all due respect, I honestly don't have the energy nor am I interested to debunk everything else you said. The quality is not there, and it's just emotional rants rather than factual discussions.

Nor do I. With all due respect, you are hell bent on projecting a narrative in which the US is a world power whose economy is superb and who makes nations cower with fright. That may have been true before, but it no longer is. You are the one using rhetoric which is contradicted by reality, and if that is your method of getting out of this debate then so be it, but remember, you are the one you has made emotional rants appealing to an expired notion of American power. Please look at the stock exchange as you read this. Look at unemployment. Its over.

First you say you despise Pakistan, then you say Imran Khan is here, It's just a mess

My opinions do not matter. Imran Khan is part to ending the US war whether you like that or not. In regards to Pakistan, it is logical to be against their support for the US war. You on the other hand have alluded to their supposed support for the Afghan insurgents as the the reason for American failure http://www.pashtunforums.com/world-n...anistan-21107/
In which you said this Admin Khan
Administrator

Posts: 5,490
Thanks: 264
Thanked 3,302 Times in 1,477 Posts
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: C:\

09-22-2011, 10:43 PM


Tor_Khan mashra,

Me and Bernard White, last night over Afghan food, discussed the same exact topic. In particular, what's interesting about this is I made the same exact comment to him. Why did it take the US so long to realize that Pakistan is sponsoring, and supporting terrorism? I mean, several years ago the London School of Economics published a report stating the ISI is supporting the Taliban. Why wasn't any action taken? In fact, Pir_Rokhan has been chanting this for years now as well.


Even Adobe Photoshop can't change me.

A line[Durrand line] of hatred that raised a wall between the two brothers -Hamid Karzai
For generations, the Hindus of India prayed for deliverance from "the venom of the cobra, the teeth of the tiger and the vengeance of the Afghan."

and in that thread, you seem rather frustrated about it. You in fact allude to the Afghan insurgency, the Taliban as being a terrorist one? Care to elaborate on that, and how you have not made your ideas clear? So which one is it? You are contradicting yourself. This frustration can logically only be explained that you think Pakistan is supposedly thwarting US interests through not taking action in North Waziristan. In all due respect, the US failure in Afghanistan is not due to any single region. It is just a failure because people will not stop opposing occupation whether or not Pakistan, Iran supports or does not support US occupation.

I wasn't expecting a post full of contradictions. I was honestly shocked at the level of ignorance, on one hand you despite drone attacks, but then you are telling me Imran Khan is here, little do you realize that it's an open secret that ISI, the very same institutions that legitimized drone attacks with the US, is behind his back supporting him.

I am relaying to you a factual perspective. Who does not despise drone attacks? Imran Khan has his part in ending the US war and drone attacks, and you should come to terms with that, and understand what exactly is happening rather then what you may want to happen.

I have pointed your contradictions in thought above. Please check. Remind yourself that you can not push a car in both directions. I am actually shocked with the manner in which you are hell bent on pushing forward a narrative which no longer holds. America is not the Superpower it once was. It would be wise for you to come to terms with this rather than delude yourself into thinking otherwise. Secondly, not everything that happens against US interests in Afghanistan bleeds ISI green. This is outright false. The ISI boogieman does not run around Afghanistan, indoctrinating people to fight. US does that simply with their presence.

[Admin Khan]

False carries no weight in a debate, and this is what you are doing.

False carries no weight in a debate? Of course it does. What on earth are you talking about, you are spewing nonsense. Do you even read what you write? If something is false, how could it hold weight? If I claim something as a fact, which is false, are you telling me that won't alter the discussion? Please read what you write.

There are sources to back everything mentioned

Oh really? Why don't you provide me a source that claims US companies don't care about the USA's foreign policy. I will patiently wait for this source. While you are at it, provide evidence that those that buy Apple products, aren't really their consumers(lol).

and you further are accusing me of what you yourself are doing which is pushing forward an expired narrative that holds no ground past a choreographed jirga.

Which narrative do I hold? Huh? In a debate, if you make a claim, you have to back it up. Now provide me evidence of my so-called "narrative" and also provide evidence that my imaginary narrative is expired. So far, I have yet to share my stance. You see how paranoid you are Zahir? I haven't even shared my opinion on the matter, and here you are already assuming I have this so called narrative on the matter. For the record, all I said was the US might have covert activities in Afghanistan, which makes perfect sense for them considering the amount of money they have spent, and the geo-strategic location of Afghanistan. I'm dumbfounded as this open ended question, which was based on common sense, became something I support and want. Talk about a stretch. Don't beat around the bush Z, and don't misconstrue what I say to solidify your absurd claims which I have outlined in my previous post. I have never claimed I support the USA, nor have I ever claimed I support the Taliban. Just because I point the obvious in the two, does not mean I support them.

In short, without an overt and obvious US military presence, there can be no power projection from Iraq since no bordering nation will be threatened by an invisible exist.

What? Seriously? That's what you think? Power can only be projected by a military presence? Do you even know what power is? The US has a strong presence in Iraq, which it can use to exert influence on Iraq's economy, and internal politics. It's been doing this for years in Islamabad, and will continue doing it since it serves American interests. Power projection does not strictly mean military presence. Look at China, it projects power in many of the African nations, and I don't see Chinese soldiers in Africa, now do I? That was a good laugh, I shall confess.

.
Sadr is not relenting, and forcing more non-military Americans to leave. Check his track record, and he has been rather successful. In fact, he appears to look for more thorny issue when he achieves his goals.
Sadr says to resist any U.S. presence in Iraq

http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/...7A27ZE20111103 His gotten his way so far. What makes you think he wont get his way anymore?

Oh my, here we go again. If the US has an embassy in Iraq, it can acheive it's goals through contractors, which the article I posted outlined. The US does not need a military presence in the nation to do what it wants to do. Stating the aforementioned, does not mean I support covert activities, it just means there is a probability, based on the US's past track record, that such actions MAY occur. That's not the same as me saying I want it, or me saying it will NOT happen. It's a loud thought.

It seems there is a mental war of attrition within yourself.

The above makes no sense.

Am I right? Sometimes you say Pakistan is the source of all Afghan problems (code word- the resistance), and now you say NO.

Where have I said no, and where have I said Pakistan is the source of all Afghan problems? The above is a lie. You have now officially resorted to lies, to strenghten your position. In fact, what I have said many times is both Afghanistan and Pakistan are at fault. I criticize both nations, and I support none of the governments, of the two. I love all humans, and regard them all as equal.

Well, it doesn't matter what you say really, or how high and mighty you still believe the US to be.

Another lie. Never have I claimed the US is "high and mighty". And if what I say doesn't matter, why are you investing your time in responding to me? Clearly I have struck a nerve or two, after making you think about your absurd claims, especially the foreign policy, Pakistan, and Apple one.

Pakistan played a double game because they were cowards,
but their outward support for the US did not mean they would allow an opposing agenda which completely goes against US interests to not materialize.

What are you trying to say? The above did not make sense to me. You keep on saying Pakistan is a coward, I got the point. That's what I said as well.

Drone strikes began in 2004 while Musharraf was in power. Musharraf thought he was the most powerful man in Pakistan until Bhutto was removed from power. Mushraf was not behind Bhuttos death. Musharraf then left. Please understand those events, and not through an American perspective.

You are assuming I am viewing things from your proposed 'American perspective'. Stop making baseless assumptions.

Zardari is a puppet and will be out of power in no time.

Okay, we can also add that to your assumptions bag. Not a problem, I don't quite honestly care or wish to waste my time on him.

He will probably be leaving within months, back to the UK. Same though can not be said about Ashfaq Kayani. I need not divulge my opposition to their support for the US war, as it makes no difference towards an analysis. That is all. It is a contradiction in thought to both at one time blame them for all Afghanistan and Pakistan's problems, and then say now that well, they are powerless. Kayani understands the backlash that will occur if he is to do a North Waziristan operation, and he will not do it, and more US-Pak tensions will lead to an end to this occupation and war.

I have no clue what you are trying to say above. Please write your thoughts in a more organized way, you make absolutely no sense.

In specific, what the hell is this supposed to mean:

It is a contradiction in thought to both at one time blame them for all Afghanistan and Pakistan's problems, and then say now that well, they are powerless.

No really. You seem almost deluded about American power.

What American power? All I said was the following:

They can easily set up covert military bases. The solution isn't as easy as one would think. Afghanistan does not have control of her air-space.

How in the world does that make me deluded on American power? It's a constructive analysis, which makes perfect historical sense. Once again, stop assuming. Your entire post is based on baseless assumptions, where you are assuming my positions, rather than asking for my honest perspective. You assume I suport ABC, you assume I am deluded about XYZ. That's now how a debate goes, you don't quote somoene out of context, or make up a fairy-tale argument.

They want to have an operation in North Waziristan. They have not been lying about that. Did they?

Instead, they were permitted to fire drones.

People are dying on a daily basis, and here you are hell bent on trying to make a convincing argument that occupation will be forever,

Another lie, more assumptions. I have never stated an argument where I mentioned occupation will be forever. Evidence please. If not, you owe me an apology for creating another malicious lie.

and that Afghans have lost

Another lie. I never stated Afghans have lost.

Did Egyptians think they would have Hosni forever? Where is Hosni? Does it matter to me what you think, or does it matter to you what is reality?

Another emotional rant, where you assume that I think Afghans have lost, and decided to pull that argument out. Young man, you can't create lies and later post historical evidence to back up the assumption. That's a logical fallacy. If I would have said "Afghan's lost" or "occupation is forever" your post might've made sense. Instead, all you decided to do was post blatant lies, hoping I would refute your nonsense.

You our out of touch,

Another assumption. Keep it up, I need to create a count variable, so it can increment everytime you lie or assume. This amazing, and entertaining. It's not like I keep on reitterating "lie/assumption". It's that you truly are blatantly lieng.

and holding onto a ship that has sunken already.

Here we go again, I am not holding on to any ship.
Me saying,
Foreigners have invested way too much in Afghanistan, clearly they were looking for long-term interests and the time has now arrived. Making them leave won't be as easy as many would like to think. This in my opinion, was planned decades ago, and Afghan mickey-mouse leaders were complicit.
Does not mean I am holding on to a ship. It means,
#1)Foreigns have invested a lot.
#2)Making them leave won't be as easy, considering their vested interests, and Afghan leaders in power whom are complicit.

Do not attribute Afghans self determination of freedom and independence to Pakistan or Iran, or China and Russia for that matter.

Where have I done this?
[quote]

American Companies like Wal-Mart do not care. Wal-Mart is China's best friend. Prove to me that this is not true.
[quote]
Great. You make a claim, and you want me to prove it?

China sells its products to the whole world, not just America.

Percentages matter.
https://www.uschina.org/statistics/tradetable.html
China can't lose the American market, it's most profitable. It's dumb for anyone to assume that they both don't depend on each other, cause they do.

but you are again under an impression that the US actually controls "American companies."

Whether that's true or not, is irrelevant. What is true indeed is, once again, you assume I am under that impression.

This is why the US economy is in shambles, and will not recover. Apple Inc has companies in all nations. This means nothing. The phones are assembled in China, not America. That example alone should explain to you the reason China is rising, and the US is sinking. Apples profits mean nothing to the US. It is truly an independent company like Wal-Mart- and it answers to no one except its own pocket. This is Capitalism.

The above is once again, a rant that has nothing to do with what I said. There are so many contradictions in the passage above, that I just don't feel pointing out because it has absolutely nothing to do with what I said, it's a random can of worms you are opening. I honestly stopped reading as soon as you said, Apples profits mean nothing to the US.

You are presenting everything in a narrow vision that believes that the US is the all mighty power that no one can challenge.

Show me where I have done this. I beg to differ, and the above is another claim which is based on NOTHING! I've never asserted such nonsense.

You can go on about covert bases, but covert bases mean nothing because there is no power projection.

Covert bases do project power, they serve the interest of that Nation posessing those bases. What are you on about? I've never said I support bases, nor did I ever say I do NOT support bases. All I said was, the next likely thing that one might expect from the US is covert activities which we have seen next door in Pakistan. That's all. Stop assuming, once again.

Sadr has stated he doesn't even want their presence at the US embassy.

And the US still has a presence, so the above means nothing.

So far, Sadr has got his way.

No he has not. the US still has a presence and an embassy, so he has not had his way.

At one time you are saying the ISI is the source of Afghanistan's problems,

I probably, in a particular context, might have hinted that Pakistan is meddling in Afghan affairs, so if that could be intrepreted in the above format, then yes, I slightly agree although your wording appears oddballed, and I'd demand evidence if I've made such an assertive claim, nonetheless.

and the problems for the US in Afghanistan,

Evidence for this claim.

and now you are saying the opposite.

How have I said the opposite?

Which one is it? Which one do you hold as truth?

What I hold as truth, is a personal matter and that's none of your business.

Nor do I. With all due respect, you are hell bent on projecting a narrative in which the US is a world power

Lie, I've never done this.

whose economy is superb

I have never said that.

You are the one using rhetoric which is contradicted by reality,

Huh? which rhetoric?

you are the one you has made emotional rants appealing to an expired notion of American power.

Which appeal?

Imran Khan is part to ending the US war whether you like that or not.

If someone is being backed by the ISI, I'd question his stance.

and in that thread, you seem rather frustrated about it. You in fact allude to the Afghan insurgency, the Taliban as being a terrorist one?

Huh? Where have I said that? Evidence please. Show me where I have "alluded" to such.

Care to elaborate on that,

I'm sorry, I can't elaborate on something I haven't said.

I am relaying to you a factual perspective.

And so am I. He is backed by a spy agency, notorious for meddling in the affairs of soverign nations, I don't buy into his mantra. As simple as that. You don't have to convince me of anything. I don't care what he says to media. Let's let his actions speak for him, not his press releases.

I have pointed your contradictions in thought above.

You sure have.

I am actually shocked with the manner in which you are hell bent on pushing forward a narrative which no longer holds.

Says the person who consistently made baseless assumptions and formulated lies to strenghten his stance.

America is not the Superpower it once was.

I never said she was, so why are you negating it?

It would be wise for you to come to terms with this rather than delude yourself into thinking otherwise.

Huh?

Secondly, not everything that happens against US interests in Afghanistan bleeds ISI green.

What?

This is outright false. The ISI boogieman does not run around Afghanistan, indoctrinating people to fight.

Actually, by some interviews, according to many sources, they have supported the Taliban which does just that.

US does that simply with their presence.

If you say so.

Caveat:
Me saying,
"Why wasn't any action taken? In fact, Pir_Rokhan has been chanting this for years now as well. "
Means, based on the context of that thread, in third person, if the US is so unhappy with ISI supporting the Taliban, why didn't the US take any action against ISI at that moment, back when many were writing editorials outling ISI's support to various groups. I am dumbfounded as to how this guy here, associates this post with me supporting, or being against the Taliban. Talk about comprehension skills.

[thetruth]

I will address your one point here for now in regards to Iraq, and I will address the rest of your repeated statements soon. Recycling them does not bring any validity to them. In the end, you are simply holding onto an expired notion of American power which is now declining in the face of China.

So, in regards to Iraq, Muqtada Al-Sadr, if you know who he is, is a Shiite cleric who is fully backed by Iran. However, the main man in Iraq is Ayatollah Sistani. It is because of Muqtada Al-Sadr's objections and threats of renewed armed resistance that the US has been forced to withdraw from Iraq. Mudtaqa Al-Sadr is not satisfied and has now set his objectives on removing the training presence whether civilian or military.

Sadr says to resist any U.S. presence in Iraq | Reuters

"We do not accept any kind of U.S. presence in Iraq, whether it is military or not," Sadr said in an interview aired on al-Arabiya television."


If he has achieved his goals so far, why are you still betting on Obama and Panetta? They failed the first time, and Sadr is too eager to look for more thorny issues because as a religious reactionary, that is the only way he stays credible. Odds are he gets his way.

Now let me address the rest. I will now provide evidence for each and every single assertion you make. I will also expect you to provide evidence later.

I would also like you to cease using "Yous" and "Is" as this is irrelevant to the debate as this is an unnecessary distraction.

Thanks