can AFG survive economically without USA?

[Kushan Prince]

yeah, Afghanistan got so many natural resources that Americans want. All those resources which they apparently didn't take while having 140000 troops, but now when they want to reduce the troops to around 10000, they will suddenly steal them. Of course having soldiers stationed in few bases in Afghanistan will suddenly make it possible for Americans to steal them, because we all know soldiers are the best men to take not mined resources.

USA is definitely not losing trillions of $ in Afghanistan by having American troops stationed that far away. I mean it is free to have troops stationed in far away land, right?

We also know that USA definitely don't have any bases in Pakistan. We also know that Pakistan doesn't have any border with Iran and China. So of course Americans want USA bases in Afghanistan to be closer to China and Iran, I mean what are the chances of Iran retaliating against USA by attacking American bases?

Was this sarcasm? if so, you did a horrible job at it.

[Wowra]

Kabul is not like one of your godless citys in the west. Just becuase some guy was bored and put some skiny jeans, doesn't mean that the thousand of students in the univercitys are totaly westernised, last time I chekced majority had the same clothes what peopel wear in the villages.
Literature, art, music, science and general education is what defenies a countries face cultre and identity. If you don't understand that you are not only a farangy, bust also some kind of hill billy murican, who daydreams about apocaliptic event, just so that his life will spice up a littel bit.

Yes, I've been to Kabul (unlike Kushan Prince). Your view that culture can only occur in Kabul is exactly what allows the emigre technocrats to use it as their personal piggy bank. Enjoy.

Khushan,

Yep, I'm only here to push western propaganda. Hashmat and I discuss it over kafir beers, belt out a sinister laugh, then log on so we can play good cop bad cop. Guess I'm busted now--thanks for adding to the discussion.

[Khostai]

Yes, I've been to Kabul (unlike Kushan Prince). Your view that culture can only occur in Kabul is exactly what allows the emigre technocrats to use it as their personal piggy bank. Enjoy.

Khushan,

Yep, I'm only here to push western propaganda. Hashmat and I discuss it over kafir beers, belt out a sinister laugh, then log on so we can play good cop bad cop. Guess I'm busted now--thanks for adding to the discussion.

Kabul is not the only city that has an univercity with educated peopel, or musicians and artists,
Jallabad, Kandahar, Khost, Herat Mazar, al have this and contribute to the cultural development of Afghanistan. And in the future ther will come more.

[Khilji]

Kabul is not the only city that has an univercity with educated peopel, or musicians and artists,
Jallabad, Kandahar, Khost, Herat Mazar, al have this and contribute to the cultural development of Afghanistan. And in the future ther will come more.

more universitys a national peaceprocess inshallah this would be a dream comes true

[Badlun]

this person also said:

against the USSR we gave 2,000,000 martyrs, the reds lost 10K. for every 1 of them, we lost 200 afghans. not a single fire was shot in their cities, while our cities were all flattened and infrastructure broken. how was it worth it?

america is now a superpower, that has over 900 bases, in more than 100 countries. they can continue this fight in AFG for several decades.... they don't care about their lost soldiers, once in a while. thats what soldiers are for. they can fire a missile from the Persian golf and hit a target in AFG. their drones r operated from USA. it's not man-to-man anymore.

we need to have this deal with USA, because without it, we don't have a flag. nobody knows afg, so nobody will ever invest in afghanistan. it will be war and warlords, poverty, taking us back another 1000 years...........

its not that we like USA, we hate them, but we have no choice. we'll starve if we cut our relations with the world (.e.g. USA). they have the military power to do what they want, ....nobody could stop them in the past 12 years. they have the strength, we are weak. they will do whatever they want.

how would you respond?

This is the most realistic and pragmatic approach. We will be more and more losers if we continue with the idealistic paranoid propensity of false grandeur and religion to be the panacea for all.

Religion can make your grave and paradise comfortable but in this world you have to think in the real time and in the real world where there is only one super power and this only superpower has its claws on your soil and you cannot do anything with it.

Da kumey bala na che na khlasegey no by a werta der der khanda

As did by Japanese after WWII . Befriend them, learn from them and once you are on your own standing, make relations like a sovereign nation with all pride and liberty.

[BarakzaiAbdali]

this person also said:

against the USSR we gave 2,000,000 martyrs, the reds lost 10K. for every 1 of them, we lost 200 afghans. not a single fire was shot in their cities, while our cities were all flattened and infrastructure broken. how was it worth it?

Ask Vietnam which lost as many if not more for their cause and had maimed, disfigured peoples, agent orange scorched their earth. Yet the lessons of time, patience, and avoiding those with secondary gain intentions (Western zoot suit Afghans benefiting from the war in some way through prestige, access, or position) they are an autonomous nation. They get to make the deals on their terms:
Cam Ranh Bay Lures Panetta Seeking Return to Vietnam Port - Bloomberg


america is now a superpower, that has over 900 bases, in more than 100 countries. they can continue this fight in AFG for several decades.... they don't care about their lost soldiers, once in a while. thats what soldiers are for. they can fire a missile from the Persian golf and hit a target in AFG. their drones r operated from USA. it's not man-to-man anymore.

we need to have this deal with USA, because without it, we don't have a flag. nobody knows afg, so nobody will ever invest in afghanistan. it will be war and warlords, poverty, taking us back another 1000 years...........

These are often the excuses greedy people with secondary gain make when making an argument. Refer to my prior post as I already addressed these arguments that are on par morally with prostitution.

its not that we like USA, we hate them, but we have no choice.

Its not about liking or hating. The average US citizen in the most recent pollings wants nothing to do with Afghanistan and does not want a single red cent to go into the Western emigre's pockets. It is the military industrial complex that seeks to perpetuate the presence. Their average people are as all average people are in most nations, aloof of their elite's policy issues

we'll starve if we cut our relations with the world (.e.g. USA).

Vietnam did not starve. Iraq will also reset itself over time. It is not about cutting of world relations, but as the sister as the loya jirga was implying, forging these relationships from an autonomous vantage point.

they have the military power to do what they want, ....nobody could stop them in the past 12 years. they have the strength, we are weak. they will do whatever they want.

[B]False. They have lost every major insurgency driven conflict since World War II. In Iraq, they were bested by Iran which was the victor of the day. University of North Carolina political scientist Patricia L. Sullivan writes:

"The United States failed to achieve its primary political objectives in approximately 30 percent of its major military operation between 1946 and 2002. In almost every one of these failues, the United States chose to terminate its military intervenion short of victory despite the fact that it retained an overwhelming physical capacity to sustain military operations. The U.S. withdrawal from Somalia after the death of sixteen Army Rangers may appear to be an extreme case, but it is consistent with a pattern in which the United States experienced higher-than-expected costs and withdrew its troops short of attaining intervention objectives, despite the fact that its military was, at most, only marginally degraded in the conflict. The United States' unsuccessful intervention in Vietnam is, of course, the quintessential example. "


Senate Majority leader Harry Reid went on to note Iraq was a lost war:
Reid: Iraq War lost, U.S. can't win - politics | NBC News

They tried to surge there, produced a mirage of stability that everyone praised that zinawar Petreus for - but then the reality came to fruition when a group of patient fighters decided to start up again


how would you respond?

I would respond by saying that whoever says such things has secondary gain involved and is as I stated above short sighted. Its basically intellectual prostitution. There is no validity at all to their statements based on historical precedent and evidences.

Regarding wars being won and lost, I will let the former head of Alec Station, the UBL Unit at the CIA make the case:
Hearing: From al-Shabaab to al-Nusra: How Westerners Joining Terror Groups Overseas Affect the Homeland | The House Committee on Homeland Security

Start at 4 minutes 46 seconds:

Dr. Scheuer goes on to say: "You're presiding over a bakruptcy- what can be worse? What was the goal of AQ since it was formed? To bankrupt the US. Who is winning today Sir? We're done like dinner. Two US field armies were defeated by men in the field with weapons from the Korean war...The fact is we had two military defeats overseas. "

Ex CIA Operations Chief Michael Scheuer vs. Rep. Peter King on Israel - YouTube

Their various proxies are in trouble all over the place. Saleh in Yemen was hit by a rocket himself and burned to a crisp with the country in turmoil. Egypt is assumed to be stable with Al Sisi doing the MIC's dirty work but now has a civil war brewing as well:

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/11/21/world/middleeast/egyptian-soldiers-die-in-sinai-attack.html?_r=0

So this set of arguments is basically someone's way of reconciling their greed and inability for forsight to make themselves feel better. These same people are usually the very people that are obsessed with Pakistan - yet what they are accepting is the construction of a failed state that will be a mirror image of Pakistan but worse - since at least the British built lasting structures of brick and mortor and bridges and roads that persist.

[BarakzaiAbdali]

Zazai,

Justin Raimando, a libertarian, has an excellent article to show what the BSA really amounts to. Let me show you how he demonstrates with evidence that it is basically a piece of feces stained toilet paper Hamida Karzai Bibi wants to wipe Afghanistan down with.

We

1) On Unlawful search and seizure

"There were several sticking points in hammering out this agreement: Afghan President Hamid Karzai originally demanded a clause forbidding US troops from entering and searching Afghan homes. That was clearly not going to fly with Washington, and so after much back and forth the clause was dropped and instead President Obama wrote a letter to Karzai promising American soldiers won’t enter Afghan homes "except under extraordinary circumstances involving urgent risk to life and limb of US nationals."

Translation: the hated "night raids" will continue. So will the untrammeled behavior of US troops, whose brutality has made them universally hated."

2) On immunity for crimes:
"Another major sticking point was the same question that nixed an agreement with the Iraqis: the issue of whether US soldiers were going to be subject to local laws and the jurisdiction of local courts.

This is something the Americans never allow: they withdrew all their "combat forces" from Iraq rather than permit Iraqi courts to sit in judgment over US soldiers. After all, why have an empire if the conquerors are subject to the laws of the conquered? In the end, Karzai agreed to grant US troops immunity – and then sought to distance himself as much as possible from the agreement, saying it should be delayed and handing it over to his Loya Jirga to decide."

3) Territory purely allotted to Kharijaan:

"Another key provision is that governing US military facilities. While the US officially abjures "permanent bases" in the text of the agreement, certain areas are indeed set aside for the "exclusive" use of the Americans, and no limits are mentioned. The text reads:

"Afghanistan hereby authorizes United States forces to exercise all rights and authorities within the agreed facilities and areas that are necessary for their use, operation, defense, or control, including the right to undertake new construction works.""

4) Lack of defined monetary support for Afghan armed forces:

"In addition, the text says the US is "obligated" to appropriate money for the training and arming of Afghan troops. No amount is specified. The agreement is slated to take effect on January 15, 2015 and will remain in effect until "the end of 2024 and beyond.""

Other examples of Karzai failing from NY Times:

5) He pertends brinkmanship but ends up looking stupid and failing each time:

"And if anything, Mr. Karzai’s statements seemed of a piece with a series of negotiation moves that appeared calculated to squeeze every last American concession out of the process — though each usually ended in Afghan compliance."

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/11/22/world/asia/afghanistan.html

Basically, the man is like a stupid girlfriend who thinks she holds the cards but is pretty much just the flavor of the day.

6) The NY Times re-stresses how Karzai lost on immunity and search and seizure:
"Earlier this month, the issue of American soldiers being granted immunity from prosecution in Afghan courts was highlighted by Afghan officials as a potential deal-breaker, until it was not. On Sunday, the Afghans drew a line in the sand about United States forces searching Afghan homes, a demand that also largely fell by the wayside."

7) Then look at how his supposed letter of apology turned into an embarrassment when he was bit-ch slapped by John Kerry.

"And a public statement on Tuesday from a Karzai spokesman saying that the Americans were prepared to essentially apologize for past mistakes during the war turned into an embarrassment for the Karzai administration when two senior administration officials denied there was an apology in the works."

8) Joint action on Pakistan a flop:

The Pakistanis in the establishment are celebrating since this insures their symbiotic parasitic existence as well.

This is their most liberal paper noting how the text gives the US a clear way out from any joint action on the defense of Afghanistan, which is what I noted in another thread. Basically Hamida Bibi even lost out on this provision which was the one he coveted the most:

US-Afghan deal excludes joint action against Pakistan - DAWN.COM

"A draft of the agreement, posted on the official website of the Afghan Foreign Ministry, only says that the United States will regard any external aggression with “grave concern” and will “strongly oppose” military threats or force against Afghanistan after 2014."

"Although the draft says that the two countries “agree to consult on mutual responses to external aggression,” it excludes the Afghan demand."


So in summary, Karzai is signing a useless piece of paper that group of dogwashers and sycophants believe the validity of, but that no one else does. Its basically a tattoo on the back of Karzai's butt that demonstrates how he, Hamida Bibi, is the best prostitute money can buy... ,but otherwise, it means nothing else. All of his demands, immunity, search and seizure, money, coordinated military double pronged responses to pakistani incursions and attacks, etc - all summarily dismissed and rebuffed as if he were a dog getting a beating.

[MostafaM]

The question should be:

can Afghanistan survive on its own?

[BarakzaiAbdali]

The question should be:

can Afghanistan survive on its own?

Once again, survive appears to be defined in the eyes of the beholder. The zoot suit Governor Mangal crowd views survive as the continuation of the status quo - corruption, money being trafficked into his pockets, failed efforts at nation building - with the injected OPINION that this is "better than the 90s" without any objective view of what "better" means. Does better mean one make up farcical stories to claim that removing the occupation will automatically result in Hamid Gul or Khamanei sitting in Kabul having bangra jams? Is the trade off of losing autonomy in the most important contexts survival? Is the historical precedent of what occupation results in considered "survival"? These are simply distractors to assuage the opinion of a minority that has no touch with the rural country side.

[Admin Khan]

[MENTION=1772]BarakzaiAbdali[/MENTION]
What do you think the alternative should be. Let's suppose AFG doesn't sign this pact, knowing that Afghanistan has blood-thirsty neighbors, how do you think she should respond?

I look forward to your thoughts.

[BarakzaiAbdali]

@BarakzaiAbdali
What do you think the alternative should be. Let's suppose AFG doesn't sign this pact, knowing that Afghanistan has blood-thirsty neighbors, how do you think she should respond?

I look forward to your thoughts.

A bloodthirsty empire, working in tandem with the blood thirsty neighbors is hardly a solution.

Regarding the pact itself, note what I stated in the last 8 point post of how the pact is meaningless.

The most important part to the zoot suiters of Kabul is the issue of Pakistan (a canard to cover up their guilt of basically making a monetary benefit off the war industry):

Quoting myself above (and despite Dawn being a poor reference, the text they allude to is exactly as they quote it):
-----------------------------------------------------------------
8) Joint action on Pakistan a flop:

The Pakistanis in the establishment are celebrating since this insures their symbiotic parasitic existence as well.

This is their most liberal paper noting how the text gives the US a clear way out from any joint action on the defense of Afghanistan, which is what I noted in another thread. Basically Hamida Bibi even lost out on this provision which was the one he coveted the most:

US-Afghan deal excludes joint action against Pakistan - DAWN.COM

"A draft of the agreement, posted on the official website of the Afghan Foreign Ministry, only says that the United States will regard any external aggression with “grave concern” and will “strongly oppose” military threats or force against Afghanistan after 2014."

"Although the draft says that the two countries “agree to consult on mutual responses to external aggression,” it excludes the Afghan demand."
------------------------------------------------------------

Basically, the blood thirsty neighbor is chuckling to himself thinking about how the gravy train is going to continue to benefit him as well (funding, war items, supply line tarrifs). The only real threat to a neighbor is to Iran, as evidenced by the fiasco with the captured drone called the Beast Of Kandahar.

[BarakzaiAbdali]

@BarakzaiAbdali
What do you think the alternative should be. Let's suppose AFG doesn't sign this pact, knowing that Afghanistan has blood-thirsty neighbors, how do you think she should respond?

I look forward to your thoughts.

The alternative is the Western Afghans stop making excuses for their relatives making buko bucks and just admit its their greed that propels them to support a meaningless charter that is a net loss. The only brain in that jirga was Bilqis from Herat who dared to question that moron Karzai.

The alternative is that true Afghan patriots committ themselves to that most enduring of legacies, that most valuable of commodities, that most difficult to obtain treasure: autonomy

[Admin Khan]

A bloodthirsty empire, working in tandem with the blood thirsty neighbors is hardly a solution.

Regarding the pact itself, note what I stated in the last 8 point post of how the pact is meaningless.

The most important part to the zoot suiters of Kabul is the issue of Pakistan (a canard to cover up their guilt of basically making a monetary benefit off the war industry):

Quoting myself above (and despite Dawn being a poor reference, the text they allude to is exactly as they quote it):
-----------------------------------------------------------------
8) Joint action on Pakistan a flop:

The Pakistanis in the establishment are celebrating since this insures their symbiotic parasitic existence as well.

This is their most liberal paper noting how the text gives the US a clear way out from any joint action on the defense of Afghanistan, which is what I noted in another thread. Basically Hamida Bibi even lost out on this provision which was the one he coveted the most:

US-Afghan deal excludes joint action against Pakistan - DAWN.COM

"A draft of the agreement, posted on the official website of the Afghan Foreign Ministry, only says that the United States will regard any external aggression with “grave concern” and will “strongly oppose” military threats or force against Afghanistan after 2014."

"Although the draft says that the two countries “agree to consult on mutual responses to external aggression,” it excludes the Afghan demand."
------------------------------------------------------------

Basically, the blood thirsty neighbor is chuckling to himself thinking about how the gravy train is going to continue to benefit him as well (funding, war items, supply line tarrifs). The only real threat to a neighbor is to Iran, as evidenced by the fiasco with the captured drone called the Beast Of Kandahar.

I firmly believe that a nation who gets any sort of 'aid' will never prosper, sort of like the children of the a socialist country, who receive enough food and allowances, and will never think of studying hard enough to be admitted one day into say a Harvard or an MIT.

The point here that I wanted you to discuss is what are three major things that you expect Afghanistan to do, in order to get back on track. Sure, you and I can sit here and debunk this BSA mantra as meaningless, or full of cowardice, but it appears as if its a reality for Afghanistan right now, given the clout of those who can influence the nation.

In other words, if you don't have an alternative, is it fair to state that Afghanistan is a lost cause? With Iran Afghanistan has water-treaty issues, with Pakistan it has a border issue, and being land-locked doesn't quite help either. I do concur that it is naive to assume that any amount of aid will help Afghanistan stand on its feet. Afghanistan needs a knowledge based economy where Engineers can thrive and innovate, sort of like Israel, who has the 2nd most tech startups, the USA being the 1st, listed on Nasdaq. Not to mention, most of the health care software you use at work, along with the hardware equipment, comes from Israel.

[Kushan Prince]

Yes, I've been to Kabul (unlike Kushan Prince). Your view that culture can only occur in Kabul is exactly what allows the emigre technocrats to use it as their personal piggy bank. Enjoy.

Khushan,

Yep, I'm only here to push western propaganda. Hashmat and I discuss it over kafir beers, belt out a sinister laugh, then log on so we can play good cop bad cop. Guess I'm busted now--thanks for adding to the discussion.

I've been to Kabul before you even came to know what Pashtuns were. I went back in 2004 and i remember that over 80% of the people there wore kameez and partog.

[Kushan Prince]

The question should be:

can Afghanistan survive on its own?

Well Somalia, which is dubbed as the poorest country in the world which has no resources, suffer from droughts and famines, is surviving without forigen occupation and is a Muslim country.

If a country like Somalia can do it, then im sure Afghanistan can as well.