Impatient for Pashtunistan

[RevolutionThroughReason]

wow talk about contradiction centralized government = central authority and you did use the word government

epic failure dude.

[khushal]

whatever you say to make yourself feel better.

zahir shah also had a centralized government but they also left the tribes be. Its not about that centalized government = central authority, its about if the centalized governmnet will exert control over people that will resist it.

[faye]

from what i read, the taliban were still fighting northern alliance and the pakistan army, helping the taliban, had to be airlifted out, when america invaded. so where was the stability?
women couldn't even go to university to become much needed doctors, until taliban were pressured by red cross and others and allowed a few to continue their studies. so what do you mean by order, khushal?
weren't the taliban a dictatorship?

[khushal]

the stability was in 90% of the country and if the US wanted a stable afghanistan, they should have worked and negotiated with the taliban instead of bringing in criminals warlords and accomplishing nothing because now they are begging the taliban for negotiations, why not do that at the beginning, it would have saved afghan and american lives.

And in reality, Taliban interests are parallel with american interests in the region. The NA interests lie more with Iran and Russias interests.

[faye]

allow me to dictate, that i agree with you, that america should have negotiated with the taliban but they have their agenda also, of using afghanistan strategically, i believe.
and of course, those minerals in the ground are a temptation to one and all.

[khushal]

allow me to dictate, that i agree with you, that america should have negotiated with the taliban but they have their agenda also, of using afghanistan strategically, i believe.
and of course, those minerals in the ground are a temptation to one and all.

your agreeing with me? hold it, are pigs flying.
but all that can be accomplished peacefully. as you can see the saudis are now stepping in to counter iran without firing a shot and china is getting all the mineral rights without firing a shot. the pen is mighter than the sword.

[faye]

peacefully. by filling the now governments pockets with more cash, i suppose. disgusting, isn't it?
the sword made way for the pen though.

[khushal]

The pen made its way when the sword didnt work. The NA warlords have softened up, they used to hate the saudis for their support for the taliban, but now they are willing to put the hate aside for a little cash. wasnt curbing saudi influence their motto.

[RevolutionThroughReason]

whatever you say to make yourself feel better.

zahir shah also had a centralized government but they also left the tribes be. Its not about that centalized government = central authority, its about if the centalized governmnet will exert control over people that will resist it.

yeah ok nice red herring there, the difference is , Then if your argument is true, that means the Taliban poppycock narrative of "bringing peace to 90%" of Afghanistan would be false since they would have had no power to change and bring security since the people themselves would have been capable as they're independent ..and all that stuff you said before.

How easily the Taliban/Pashtunist portrayals fall apart under scrutiny.

[faye]

The pen made its way when the sword didnt work. The NA warlords have softened up, they used to hate the saudis for their support for the taliban, but now they are willing to put the hate aside for a little cash. wasnt curbing saudi influence their motto.

even so, the saudis influence is more than likely another phase of sharpening the sword with their religious influence and assisting america and israel to beef up anti iran propaganda, for their game plan.
the afghans being used, AGAIN.

[randolph85]

saudis don't have much stake in afghanistan, they would love to use their influence there but it doesn't seem to be much of a priority for them, an example would be their lukewarm response to being a mediator between the gov't and the taliban. afghanistan is not iraq or syria to them, just look at how much money they have put into the country in the last 11 years, its not much.

[khushal]

yeah ok nice red herring there, the difference is , Then if your argument is true, that means the Taliban poppycock narrative of "bringing peace to 90%" of Afghanistan would be false since they would have had no power to change and bring security since the people themselves would have been capable as they're independent ..and all that stuff you said before.

How easily the Taliban/Pashtunist portrayals fall apart under scrutiny.

The problem is you dont understand how the rurals live because you have never been there. Ask that American PF member Siinii who has been there. They want to be left alone, you leave them alone, you have peace, you want to to dictate to them, you have armed conflict. Its simple you simpleton.

dream of independence?

I'd wager that most Pashtuns, if given the options:

a. Stay with Afghanistan
b. Stay with Pakistan
c. Independent Pashtunistan

would pick
d. all governments and armed groups should stay out of my villages' business

Right or wrong? That was the impression I got from my short stay.

yes you are right

[randolph85]

but what does being left alone entail? it worked fine hundreds of years ago when most nations of the world were not united, it doesn't work so well now when modern nations are united and some take advantage of afghanistans social federalism.

[khushal]

saudis don't have much stake in afghanistan, they would love to use their influence there but it doesn't seem to be much of a priority for them, an example would be their lukewarm response to being a mediator between the gov't and the taliban. afghanistan is not iraq or syria to them, just look at how much money they have put into the country in the last 11 years, its not much.

They have not put too much money in Afghanistan because the NA refused them as they were the supporters of their mortal enemy and the Saudis never trusted them as they were close to Iran. Most Saudi support was going to the Taliban. Because the NA warlords have been sidelined in KAbul, the evolved Karzai administration who is more Anti NA than before but still has elements in it has been warm to the Saudis to as a balance to the influence Iran has in Kabul.

[randolph85]

They have not put too much money in Afghanistan because the NA refused them as they were the supporters of their mortal enemy and the Saudis never trusted them as they were close to Iran. Most Saudi support was going to the Taliban. Because the NA warlords have been sidelined in KAbul, the evolved Karzai administration who is more Anti NA than before but still has elements in it has been warm to the Saudis to as a balance to the influence Iran has in Kabul.

but the saudis had before funded portions of the ring road in the country, the NA could of blocked a saudi funded masjid in kabul but i seriously doubt they could of blocked any saudi funded initiatives in southern and eastern afghanistan if the saudis were willing to donate.