Usa-Americas War Against The Pashtuns

[khushal]

what are you talking about?

[Pisho]

what are you talking about?

why are u soo confused? just read ur post and reread mine i was just replying to ur post i think ur really confused...
u said i was committing a red herring fallacy... whatever
i will let u be lol so u can concentrate on the debate again lol

[khushal]

your blabbering, are you the younger version of Faye?

[Pisho]

wow its either u cannot read properly or some one had too much chars today...
u say im wrong and then u cannot say why so u say im a younger version of faye haha i like her faye is my buddy

[faye]

from all that i have read, the war in afghanistan, is for strategic positioning, control in that area, in case pakistan totally flips, and iran actually does have nuclear arsenal etc. also because al qaeda was there, who is said to have organised 9/11, had training camps for jihad against the west, and supposedly, organised the bombing of american embassies (i think it was), in africa.
taliban could have been a bunch of pygmies for all america cares. i do not think it is a war against pashtuns, other than that the taliban are mostly pashtuns.
cheney, rumsfeld, bush and the neo cons 'plan for the new american century' (p.n.a.c.), partly by having bases in strategic areas, involves control over the whole planet. afghanistan is just another pawn in their project.

[faye]

your blabbering, are you the younger version of Faye?

there is no such thing and that is an ad hominem.

[Shah-i-Kot]

http://www.japantimes.co.jp/text/eo20120530gd.html

Wednesday, May 30, 2012

How the Afghan war ends


By GWYNNE DYER
LONDON — The recent NATO summit in Chicago was mostly about how to get NATO troops out of Afghanistan without causing too much embarrassment to the Western governments that sent them, and a little bit about how to ensure that the Taliban don't take over again once Western troops leave.

The timetable for NATO's withdrawal is now graven in stone: All Western troops will be withdrawn from actual combat by the end of 2013, and they will all be out of the country by the end of 2014 (except the French, who will leave by December of this year). This timetable will be adhered to no matter how the situation on the ground develops — or more likely, degrades — in the next two years. After that, it's entirely in the Afghans' hands.
There was some pretty rhetoric to soften this harsh fact: "As Afghans stand up, they will not stand alone," declared U.S. President Barack Obama. But alone is exactly where they will be, although NATO is promising to send the Afghan government $4 billion a year to enable its army to stand up to the Taliban. The Western alliance has finally accepted that if the foreign troops cannot defeat the Taliban in 11 years, they are most unlikely to do so in 13 or 15 years.
The Russians could have told them that. "Our soldiers are not to blame," General Sergei Akhromeyev told the Soviet Politburo in 1986. "They've fought incredibly bravely in adverse conditions. But to occupy towns and villages temporarily has little value in such a vast land where the insurgents can just disappear into the hills."
According to the Pentagon's own numbers, each American soldier in Afghanistan costs about $1 million a year. Pashtun teenagers, eager to show their worth fighting against the foreigners, can be had for about $200 a month each — and there is an almost inexhaustible supply of young Pashtun males. The war was unwinnable from the start.
It may also have been unnecessary. If the Taliban regime in Kabul was not told beforehand about al-Qaida's 9/11 attacks on the United States, then Osama bin Laden betrayed his hosts. Maybe they could have been persuaded to hand him and his men over by a judicious mixture of threats and bribes. But if the war that the U.S. launched instead was really unwinnable, then the question of whether it was "necessary" or not is irrelevant.
So if NATO is now conceding that the Taliban cannot be crushed by military force, then why is it going to keep its troops in Afghanistan for another two-and-a-half years before acting on that conclusion? Some of them will die as a result of that decision, and quite a few Afghans will be killed because of it, too. Apart from temporarily saving the face of various Western governments, what purpose will their deaths serve?
NATO's argument is that another two years will leave the Afghan Army in a better position to defend the Karzai government after Western troops leave, but there is absolutely no evidence that it is true. Indeed, of the 150-odd Western troops killed in Afghanistan so far this year, 20 were killed by the Afghan troops that NATO is supposed to be training for this role.
The Afghan Army is not fit for purpose, and the outcome after NATO troops leave will probably be the same whether they all go home this year or stay until 2014. So what is that probable outcome?
Karzai may not fall immediately: the $4 billion a year that NATO is promising to pay for the maintenance of his army will probably preserve the status quo for two or three years. But no more: it is most unlikely that the subsidy will be extended when it comes up for review in 2018.
That's the way the Vietnam war ended. The last U.S. troops left South Vietnam in 1973, but the regime they left behind survived until Congress cut off the flow of military aid in 1975. It happened exactly the same way when the Russians left Afghanistan in 1989: The regime they had supported lasted three more years, until the flow of funds was cut off after the old Soviet Union collapsed at the end of 1991.
The same thing will almost certainly happen this time. Even the $4 billion that NATO is now pledging will only pay for an Afghan Army two-thirds of its planned size. When that external funding ends, the roof will probably fall in on Karzai's regime.
The Taliban will doubtless keep control of the Pashtun-speaking provinces where they recruit most of their fighters. (For all NATO's efforts, they never really lost it.) The Afghan Army will probably disintegrate and be replaced by the separate but allied Tajik, Hazara and Uzbek ethnic militias that held the north of the country before 9/11. They may be able to hold it again.
In other words, the likeliest outcome is a reversion to the pre-9/11 distribution of power in Afghanistan, perhaps with the Taliban in control of Kabul, perhaps not. That's not a wonderful outcome, but it's not such a terrible one either.
An independent journalist, Gwynne Dyer's articles are published in 45 countries.

[Pisho]

http://www.japantimes.co.jp/text/eo20120530gd.html

How the Afghan war ends

.

the only time when afghan war will end is when afghanistans natural resources par ghara wadarawal see thats it...

but i like ur ideas

here there is even a list lol

https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/fields/2111.html

This entry lists a country's mineral, petroleum, hydropower, and other resources of commercial importance, such as rare earth elements (REEs). In general, products appear only if they make a significant contribution to the economy, or are likely to do so in the future.

[faye]

and then the taliban will chop off the heads of anyone who did anything to try and help develop afghanistan. not such a terrible outcome. is she on opium?

[Pisho]

and then the taliban will chop off the heads of anyone who did anything to try and help develop afghanistan. not such a terrible outcome. is she on opium?

really?
the only reason taliban stepped in was because no one wanned to step up... even now..

[faye]

so? ask our man, 2010. anyone who helped try to develop the country, joined the army, police force, helped foreign charities, etc, etc, etc, will be considered traitors.

[Pisho]

now every1 is looking for their own benefits... there is no need for us to argue how will the afghans live after us is out of the picture... cuz it will never happen.. why be so blind?? i would rather make a difference and be called a trader... than be sitting on my a$$ and wait for some1 to feed me, and ****up my country myself..
i hate politics ghrr

[khushal]

so? ask our man, 2010. anyone who helped try to develop the country, joined the army, police force, helped foreign charities, will be considered traitors.

how is the afghan governmnet developing the country? the reason its a faliure is because they are not.

[khushal]

wow its either u cannot read properly or some one had too much chars today...
u say im wrong and then u cannot say why so u say im a younger version of faye haha i like her faye is my buddy

so how much chars did you have today?

[khushal]

there is no such thing and that is an ad hominam.

I meant the blabbering part and how is that an ad honinem.