Tehran finds Taliban?

[Admin Khan]

Northern Alliance is finished. Their leaders have become fat, lazy, and corrupt.

What civil war?

All I can do is:

[Shah-i-Kot]

All I can do is:

Well, let see.

Abdullah Abdullah and Fahim have enriched themselves of corruption. What do you think? That they command a loyal and large fighting force after a decade of eating and getting fat?

What loyalty would they and the other 'leaders" expect when they are building mansions in Dubai? This is the historical reality of how corruption will lead to weakness.

When NATO leaves, who do you think is going to fight for the Karzai regime?

No one

[randolph85]

See this is what you dont get. You get so emotional and all that when something doesnt fit for you.

I never said Iran state cares about Afghans, and nor have I ever said that Pakistan state cares for Afghans.

What I am saying is that Iran's interests of seeing the NATO occupation in Afghanistan over converges with the aspirations of Afghans for independence. This is called diplomacy. This is how the world has worked for millenia.

Obviously, Iran has their own interests.

They did think Karzai could be lilke a Nuri Al-Maliki in Iraq who would oppose the NATO occupation, but now they have realized that not to be the case.

Hence, their change in interests.

As BA has pointed out, they will work for their own Iranian interests.

they didn't think anything of the such about karzai. iraq can afford to not have troops on its soil because it has exports of 80 billion a year whereas afghanistan has half a billion. one regime can afford to be independent, the other cannot survive without being on american welfare.

[randolph85]

Well, let see.

Abdullah Abdullah and Fahim have enriched themselves of corruption. What do you think? That they command a loyal and large fighting force after a decade of eating and getting fat?

OK, my analysis maybe crude, but what else has the Northern Alliance been doing except abusing little children and taking drugs?

I hardly think much!!

why do you think this wasn't ever the case before? what were the northern alliance doing in the early 90s? the same thing. they have money and troops. more money now than they ever did before actually.

[Shah-i-Kot]

they didn't think anything of the such about karzai. iraq can afford to not have troops on its soil because it has exports of 80 billion a year whereas afghanistan has half a billion. one regime can afford to be independent, the other cannot survive without being on american welfare.

Your now getting into irrelevant speculation.

Im just relaying what they have said.

[Shah-i-Kot]

why do you think this wasn't ever the case before? what were the northern alliance doing in the early 90s? the same thing. they have money and troops. more money now than they ever did before actually.

Northern Alliance? Civil war? 90s?

What changed is for the last decade, the Northern Alliance 'leaders" let America fight their battle while they were siphoning money and building mansions in Dubai. What did you think would happen? That they would be a threatening force from their mansions?

when the 'leadership' is busy enriching themselves, it results in a breakdown in loyalty among the so-called "troops" you claim to exist in 'large numbers.'

Again, there will be no civil war, and if there is one, it will be over in no time.

[Shah-i-Kot]

iran plays a double game and isnt even trying to hide it.

at that islamic conference a while back, a taliban delegation and rabbanis delegation were both there.

double game, triple game, quadruple game, or not.

Every nation, including Afghanistan works for their own interests.

For Iran, there is now a convergence of interest with Afghanistan in ending the NATO occupation, again for Iran's OWN interests.

[Shah-i-Kot]

iran wants to see an independent afghanistan?

are you out of your mind?


how is it not a double game, 2 days ago you make a thread about iran interfering in afghanistan because they support the war, now they want to see an independent afghanistan?

iran doesn't want american bases on its neighbors soil that threatens iran, it has nothing to do with afghanistan being free or not. iran didn't want the taliban in herat either.

What do my threads about Iran/Pakistan interference (support for puppet Karzai regime) have to do with this piece of news?

No occupation = independence (regardless of who is opposed to occupation)

[Shah-i-Kot]

http://www.atimes.com/atimes/South_Asia/NE11Df01.html

The Iranian ambassador in Kabul lost no time to respond to Spanta. He urged on Wednesday that the Karzai government should pay heed to Iran's concerns about the US-Afghan pact. Referring to his meeting at the Afghan Foreign Ministry the previous day, he disclosed:

The point that I made to the Afghan officials was that in our view the consequences of this [US-Afghan] agreement are not restricted to Afghanistan and will have regional and trans-regional impact and can disturb the regional security structure. We asked the Afghan officials to reconsider it [the security pact] more carefully. The Afghans should take our concerns into consideration and make their decisions while considering the Afghan people's interests and the security considerations of the regional countries.

Clearly, the ambassador has pushed the envelope by claiming that Tehran's stance is shared by other regional capitals. He also reached above Spanta's and Karzai's heads to bring onto the table the interests of the Afghan nation.

The Iranian demand for a review of the pact all but sets a collision course with Karzai. If the calculation was that amid the preoccupations over the P5+1 (Iran Six") talks on Tehran's nuclear program in Baghdad on May 23, Tehran would have no spare time to pay attention to the US-Afghan pact, that isn't the case. Evidently, Tehran's threat perceptions from the long-term US military presence on Iran's eastern borders run far too deep.

Tehran has probably consulted other regional powers. Both the Foreign Ministry statement in Tehran on Saturday and the Iranian ambassador's remarks in Kabul on Wednesday referred to regional opinion weighing against the US-Afghan security pact. Although no other regional capital has spoken against the US-Afghan pact in the past 10 days, Tehran's claim suggests that the silence is merely tactical.

[randolph85]

in the 90s they were doing jack ****.
i even saw this fahim coming to my neighbourhood with a motorcycle parade while driven in a mercedes benz black windows(probably stolen from a general because that was a general's car).

duh, thats the point, smart guy.

they have always been corrupt *******s. but that doesn't make them any less capable of waging a war. they fought hekmatyar and turned kabul to rubble, they fought the taliban and were still active 5 years later.

the only difference is that they are far more rich than they ever were in the 90s.

[Shah-i-Kot]

it took them 10 years to realize karzai is a puppet? don't be so easily fooled. in a few months we will be seeing ahmadinejad and karzai photo ops.


you give iran way way too much credit. this is not a regime that bases its decisions on the greater good, morality, or islamic solidarity. iran is out for iran.

See this is what you dont get. You get so emotional and all that when something doesnt fit for you. Im just relaying the news here, and the news says Iran is opposing the NATO occupation.

For Iran, seeing the end of the NATO occupation is a bigger priority for them than what type of government takes hold in Afghanistan.

Remember the US drone that violated Iranian airspace?

I never said Iran state cares about Afghans, and nor have I ever said that Pakistan state cares for Afghans.

Just because regional opposition to the NATO presence converges with Afghanistan's opposition, it doesn't mean that they care for Afghans.

Iran's interests, now, of seeing the NATO occupation in Afghanistan over converges with the aspirations of Afghans for independence. This is called diplomacy. This is how the world has worked for thousands of years.

They did indeed think Karzai could be lilke a Nuri Al-Maliki in Iraq who would oppose the NATO occupation, but now they have realized that not to be the case.

Hence, now their change in interests.

As BA has pointed out, they will work for their own Iranian interests.

[randolph85]

What do my threads about Iran/Pakistan interference (support for puppet Karzai regime) have to do with this piece of news?

No occupation = independence (regardless of who is opposed to occupation)

it has everything to do with it, in the other thread you are taking an anti iranian stance because they are playing ball with the west in afghanistan, but now you are being pro iranian because of the public backlash against the recent pact. iran will still have diplomatic relations with kabul, things will go on business as usual. you act as if iran just changed its mind last week. iran knows afghanistan is poor and weak and its government will have to depend on the americans. this is not exactly breaking news and its not something that wasn't expected years ago either.

so if you are not occupied by foreign troops, that automatically makes you independent?

governments that dance to a foreign tune are not independent, occupation or not.

syria is an iranian puppet state but has no armed iranian soldiers on its land.

[Shah-i-Kot]

duh, thats the point, smart guy.

they have always been corrupt *******s. but that doesn't make them any less capable of waging a war. they fought hekmatyar and turned kabul to rubble, they fought the taliban and were still active 5 years later.

the only difference is that they are far more rich than they ever were in the 90s.

Active in Panjshir, their stronghold.

The historical record indicates that they, the Northern Alliance retreated to Panjshir before the NATO war began in 2001.

For the last decade, America has been fighting Karzai/Northern Alliance battles for them.

If NATO with the most advanced weapons and technology has failed in Afghanistan, then how will the Northern Alliance (ANA) be any different?

They already are failing now with the backing of NATO.

[randolph85]

Active in Panjshir, their stronghold.

The historical record indicates that they, the Northern Alliance retreated to Panjshir before the NATO war began in 2001.

For the last decade, America has been fighting Karzai/Northern Alliance battles.

If NATO with the most advanced weapons and technology has failed in Afghanistan, then how will the Northern Alliance (ANA) be any different?

They already failing now with the backing of NATO.

because the civil war was waged between groups who used conventional warfare against each other. this was not guerilla war against guerilla war. both sides used tanks, planes, and heavy artillery against one another. this was about taking cities and large towns instead of hit and run tactics. obviously you can't do this against a modern military force because you will be completely wiped out. for instance, look at saddams 1960s and 70s equipped military against the americans military in the first gulf war, it was completely and utterly destroyed.


you say iran wants to see an independent afghanistan free of the west because it serves its interests. here is something that destroys your arguement.....why did they support the northern alliance against the taliban then? massoud had no problem going to europe and asking for western intervention in afghanistan but iran still supported massoud, as did the russians. obviously, the taliban was the most anti western regime in the world at the time.

[Shah-i-Kot]

[QUOTE]

it has everything to do with it, in the other thread you are taking an anti iranian stance because they are playing ball with the west in afghanistan, but now you are being pro iranian because of the public backlash against the recent pact.

you are going to call someone pro-Iranian/or Pro Pakistani simply because they post up a news article and highlight Iran's recent opposition to the NATO occupation? Its a fact. Its news for the last few days.

FACT: Iran is opposed to the NATO occupation.

FACT: Iran was previously interfering in Afghanistan by recognizing the Karzai regime.

FACT: Iran is going to act in their interests like all nations, including Afghanistan will. BTW, Karzai regime is not Afghanistan.



Im relaying what just happened in the news. If you cant digest it, and it doesn't fit with what you think, then deal with it.

iran will still have diplomatic relations with kabul, things will go on business as usual. you act as if iran just changed its mind last week. iran knows afghanistan is poor and weak and its government will have to depend on the americans. this is not exactly breaking news and its not something that wasn't expected years ago either.

Again, man o man, Im just relaying the news which shows Iran is opposing the NATO occupation.

does that sound right to you? Diplomatic relations dont mean much. Gaddafi had diplomatic relations with Sarkozy, what did it do?

As BA pointed out in the other thread, they will do what fits their interest, and what fits their interests now certainly does not involve having a US/NATO occupation in Afghanistan. Remember the drone incident where Iran's airspace was violated?

so if you are not occupied by foreign troops, that automatically makes you independent?

governments that dance to a foreign tune are not independent, occupation or not.

Thats your opinion. In the world, all nation-states engage in diplomacy.

syria is an iranian puppet state but has no armed iranian soldiers on its land.

I dont like Assad, but living in a fantasy land and saying that Assad is a puppet of Iran because they support him makes no sense. That would mean any nation who is supported by another nation is a puppet. This means to some extent that all nations in the world are puppets.

Again, makes no sense.