can AFG survive economically without USA?

[randolph85]

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.

not the greatest example lol

[BarakzaiAbdali]

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.

But that is the rub Admin. The issue is that the lessons of history are lost on the zoot suit emigres. Take Israel for instance. Many many Afghans have used her as an example to show how a nation can prosper with American aid if things are done correctly. Yet the example is far more complex than they let on.

1) Israel was built with the finesse, smarts, and action of the early Zionists
2) The Irgun and various militant jews were very active in "cleansing" certain areas violently
3) The Aid has been and will continue to be on Israel's terms. This is why when congressman dare to criticize Netanyahu they regret it instantly when AIPAC clamps down on their butts but have a field day lampooning and ridiculing the effeminate karzai and his coterie.
4) Israel has minimized corruption and its denizens have created a Jewish state despite calling it a secular democracy. Its very existence on its borders is pushed by orthodox militant settlers with a religious bent.

And look at the time it took for the Jews to create Israel. This project or dream of theirs has not been going on or in the planning for just 50 years... but rather since Roman era.

Read about Bar Kochba and his insurgency; then read about the modern concept of Zionism which has its life time not of 50 years but rather since the late 1700s with Herzel and others laying the foundations subsequently.

My point is that the zoot suiters like to make us think that its a lost cause because they demand a super value meal Afghanistan ready to order and completely reorganized along their paradigms - not an Afghanistan for and by the people.

Its never a lost cause. Its about understanding like Dr. Geuvara did, that there are regional goals by which so many cultures and nations that are indigenous to the region have to stand together or all will eventually lose out long term. Local goals should meld with those regional goals.

Basically, we have to stop thinking out of the box and realize this is bigger than just Afghanistan. Neocolonial shackles need to be broken off throughout the region in a unified fashion and controlling these resources in a unified federated fashion will be paramount.

Instead we are shackled by idiots who think they are modern reincarnations of Amanullah but instead or the most unintelligent people you will ever encounter.

[Shah-i-Kot]

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.

I want to further extrapolate on BarakzaiAbdali's discussion of Israel, and also point to your talk that the BSA is a reality.

The US for all practical purposes has been defeated in Afghanistan by an Afghan insurgency armed with Soviet vintage weaponry. The fact of the matter is is that a NATO force of over 100,000 armed with the most sophisticated weaponry is packing up and shipping out. 100,000 to 5000 to 10,000 is called retreat. The majority of Afghanistan is under the control of the Afghan insurgency, not NATO and definitely not Karzai. Thats the reality.

Secondly, the current issues with Israel are tied to the BSA in Afghanistan and all the other US bases in the region. Its why the Obama Administration sent a secret back channel message to Iran that US will stay out of an Israeli strike on Iran if Iran steers clear of US interests. Iran's response was that an Israeli strike will be considered a US strike, and that is why the US is negotiating on Israel's behalf right now.

'Iran must steer clear of US interests in Gulf' - Israel News, Ynetnews

Iran threatens attack on US bases in event of war with Israel - CSMonitor.com

This is why even the debate of this issue by a puppet Karzai and Kerry is rather paradoxical especially in light of the fact that Israel has made their intention clear, and Iran has too. It banks on Israel and Iran not going to war, and not going to war until 2024. It banks on Netanyahu cowing down and accepting a nuclear Iran which is out of question.

White House: Israel

This is an absurd expectation on the part of US planners/negotiators who have been speaking with Karzai. The US Senate and Congress are under the thumb of AIPAC, and as of now that is not going to change. Just today, Senator Harry Reid, Obama's man in the Senate has had to break with policy of backing the President, and has made it clear that US Senate will pass new Iran sanctions.

Reid pledges to move ahead with Iran sanctions in U.S. Senate | Reuters

This makes the already absurd US-Iran nuclear negotiations more difficult than they already.

The point I am getting to is in an Israel-Iran war, US military would be dragged into the war. As a result, nearly all US bases in the region, including in Afghanistan are at risk of being hit by an Iranian reprisal. Iran has ballistic missiles. BSA is more like tissue paper signed with feces in Afghanistan and everywhere else in the region. This is the only reason the US is desperately trying to negotiate this Iran nuclear matter to a close, not for some lofty goal of world peace (consider that they want to negotiate with Iran for the sake of peace (because Americans are opposed to war- thats what US officials are saying-- but want to continue the war in Afghanistan). Contradiction. What happened to War on Terror? Iran backs Hezbollah, a group classified as a terrorist organization. Real reality however is raw, and no one can wish it away.

The issue is Israel is not budging from its military option, and Netanyahu has even publicly stated that Israel will not be held hostage to US strategic interests- the only person so far who is slated as a US ally who pretty much says he could care less about the risks to US military and economic interests that an Israel war with Iran would provoke. In his UN speech, he further states that his priority as Israeli PM is to protect the Jewish people all over, not just in Israel. No where in this current state of world affairs have I noted a leader, or nation as independent as Israel- a nation that has a so-called superpower- the US- begging them not to go to war with Iran

The US foreign policy team has even attempted to the use the Palestinian card as a negotiating tactic to pressure Netanyahu. He publicly stated he knew what they were doing, and said he doesnt care.

BSA is definitely not a reality. Actually, the only word to take seriously nowadays is that of Israels.

[BarakzaiAbdali]

I want to further extrapolate on BarakzaiAbdali's discussion of Israel, and also point to your talk that the BSA is a reality.

The US for all practical purposes has been defeated in Afghanistan by an Afghan insurgency armed with Soviet vintage weaponry. The fact of the matter is is that a NATO force of over 100,000 armed with the most sophisticated weaponry is packing up and shipping out. 100,000 to 5000 to 10,000 is called retreat. The majority of Afghanistan is under the control of the Afghan insurgency, not NATO and definitely not Karzai. Thats the reality.

Secondly, the current issues with Israel are tied to the BSA in Afghanistan and all the other US bases in the region. Its why the Obama Administration sent a secret back channel message to Iran that US will stay out of an Israeli strike on Iran if Iran steers clear of US interests. Iran's response was that an Israeli strike will be considered a US strike, and that is why the US is negotiating on Israel's behalf right now.

'Iran must steer clear of US interests in Gulf' - Israel News, Ynetnews

Iran threatens attack on US bases in event of war with Israel - CSMonitor.com

This is why even the debate of this issue by a puppet Karzai and Kerry is rather paradoxical especially in light of the fact that Israel has made their intention clear, and Iran has too. It banks on Israel and Iran not going to war, and not going to war until 2024. It banks on Netanyahu cowing down and accepting a nuclear Iran which is out of question.

White House: Israel

This is an absurd expectation on the part of US planners/negotiators who have been speaking with Karzai. The US Senate and Congress are under the thumb of AIPAC, and as of now that is not going to change. Just today, Senator Harry Reid, Obama's man in the Senate has had to break with policy of backing the President, and has made it clear that US Senate will pass new Iran sanctions.

Reid pledges to move ahead with Iran sanctions in U.S. Senate | Reuters

This makes the already absurd US-Iran nuclear negotiations more difficult than they already.

The point I am getting to is in an Israel-Iran war, US military would be dragged into the war. As a result, nearly all US bases in the region, including in Afghanistan are at risk of being hit by an Iranian reprisal. Iran has ballistic missiles. BSA is more like tissue paper signed with feces in Afghanistan and everywhere else in the region. This is the only reason the US is desperately trying to negotiate this Iran nuclear matter to a close, not for some lofty goal of world peace (consider that they want to negotiate with Iran for the sake of peace (because Americans are opposed to war- thats what US officials are saying-- but want to continue the war in Afghanistan). Contradiction. What happened to War on Terror? Iran backs Hezbollah, a group classified as a terrorist organization. Real reality however is raw, and no one can wish it away.

The issue is Israel is not budging from its military option, and Netanyahu has even publicly stated that Israel will not be held hostage to US strategic interests- the only person so far who is slated as a US ally who pretty much says he could care less about the risks to US military and economic interests that an Israel war with Iran would provoke. In his UN speech, he further states that his priority as Israeli PM is to protect the Jewish people all over, not just in Israel. No where in this current state of world affairs have I noted a leader, or nation as independent as Israel- a nation that has a so-called superpower- the US- begging them not to go to war with Iran

The US foreign policy team has even attempted to the use the Palestinian card as a negotiating tactic to pressure Netanyahu. He publicly stated he knew what they were doing, and said he doesnt care.

BSA is definitely not a reality. Actually, the only word to take seriously nowadays is that of Israels.

Yes Admin, I think one thing he has got here is the Iran Israel paradigm...

Basically look at the difference between Israel (Netanyahu) and that fool Karzai.

Iraq creates a threat to Israel in the 90s ---> US goes to war
Israel wants Saddam out ---> US goes to war
If Iran and Israel go to war ---> US will certainly back up Israel with great might

There is NOT EVEN A BILATERAL SECURITY AGREEMENT for godsakes in the written record yet if any mid east nation farts in the direction of Tel Aviv the US will go to war (they even proved this back when Kissinger was in power).

Yet I can tell you clearly that Pakistan can continue, will continue, and will not stop to continue its transgressions. Instead, Karzai's strategic balancing crap will cause them to escalate because frankly, Karzai is stupid.

And will the US do anything other than get them to "talk it out?" No it wont. It certainly wont go to war to help Afghanistan against Pakistan.

So that is the clear example

Israel: No written BSA ---> Netanyahu farts---> unwillingly more often, America does the bidding

Afghanistan: BSA having none of what Karzai claims he won the Afghan people ---> Pakistan shells (an overt act of war) ---> US shrugs shoulders

OR take Turkey:

Syria shells Turkish border ---> US puts patriot systems in place

Basically, this is all a farcical sham for Karzai to rob the American people and his own people and to think that history will judge him better.

[Al-Afghani]

Hello all,

There are good points raised. To me, the most striking problem is that the opposition to the government does not provide practical solutions. They are full of ideology, propaganda and rhetoric, but little substance.

For example, how will they have an inclusive, pluralistic government? Do you think that once the Americans leave, the Talibs will simply sit at the table with their former rivals and talk it out? Will they accept that some people don't like an "Islamic Emirate"?

Of course not. We all know their war will not end until they capture all of Afghanistan. On the other hand, Karzai has called for Mullah Omar to run for president.

If the Talibs were not as extremist (as they are today), then we would have no need for NATO.

[Khostai]

Hello all,

There are good points raised. To me, the most striking problem is that the opposition to the government does not provide practical solutions. They are full of ideology, propaganda and rhetoric, but little substance.

For example, how will they have an inclusive, pluralistic government? Do you think that once the Americans leave, the Talibs will simply sit at the table with their former rivals and talk it out? Will they accept that some people don't like an "Islamic Emirate"?

Of course not. We all know their war will not end until they capture all of Afghanistan. On the other hand, Karzai has called for Mullah Omar to run for president.

If the Talibs were not as extremist (as they are today), then we would have no need for NATO.

But the point is that its not about extremism in taliban, the current govermnet only called them to join goverments is becuase they are killing people. I don't know if you have noticed but Afghanistan is a country where you only can get influende and respect if you just kill enough people and say it was for Islam and Sharia, than everybody will love you, even if you had slaves and what not. Like the people in the current goverment. The things that they have done is just beyond my words but still US backs them and the general population could care less who is on power.

[ډګروال]

Hello all,

There are good points raised. To me, the most striking problem is that the opposition to the government does not provide practical solutions. They are full of ideology, propaganda and rhetoric, but little substance.

For example, how will they have an inclusive, pluralistic government? Do you think that once the Americans leave, the Talibs will simply sit at the table with their former rivals and talk it out? Will they accept that some people don't like an "Islamic Emirate"?

Of course not. We all know their war will not end until they capture all of Afghanistan. On the other hand, Karzai has called for Mullah Omar to run for president.

If the Talibs were not as extremist (as they are today), then we would have no need for NATO.

Are you an Afghan?

[Al-Afghani]

But the point is that its not about extremism in taliban, the current govermnet only called them to join goverments is becuase they are killing people. I don't know if you have noticed but Afghanistan is a country where you only can get influende and respect if you just kill enough people and say it was for Islam and Sharia, than everybody will love you, even if you had slaves and what not. Like the people in the current goverment. The things that they have done is just beyond my words but still US backs them and the general population could care less who is on power.

That is certainly true. Some of the people in charge today have their hands stained with Afghan blood.

I guess Afghanistan is doomed to remain a primitive, African-like society. No amount of money can change that, any cultural change will be replied with Jihad (as the people showed during the Soviet times when they killed teachers for educating girls).

We will have strongmen ruling us many years to come.

[MostafaM]

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.

I don´t know what you mean with "surviving" but you do realize that a state has to be able to take care of it´s citizens, collect taxes, secure the borders, provide health care and education and create a viable sociaty, right?

[MostafaM]

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.

[MENTION=1772]BarakzaiAbdali[/MENTION] ,

I do understand your points but could you please try to communicate a little less emotionally because talking about a problem and making the language and communication become a part of the problem is not going to be very helpfull.

Of course everyone wants to be independent but full scale autonomy isn´t possible in present times because we are hunter-gatherers but live in times of modern industries, connected economies and sociaties.
Afghanistan or any other state cannot be autonomous anymore.

What Afghanistan or any other state should try is to safeguard it´s interests and yes, the current regime doesn´t seem to have accomplished that with the Biliteral Security Treaty with the US.

From my perspective it´s neccessary that Afghanistan has a strong security pact with a state that has military and economical power because Afghanistan is currently not able to fill the gap if foreign aid stops.

Untill Afgs economy is not strong enough to provide for it´s security institutions it will be dependent on other states.

India was able to secure it´s interests with Soviet help, the taxes of hundreds of millions of citizens and by neglecting the needs of 70% of it´s population 40-35 years ago.
Now it is at a stage to secure itself AND to provide for the needs of its people and without Soviet help India wouldn´t be what it is now.

Afghanistan needs strategic partnerships or it will be swallowed by the regional powers via proxy wars, civil wars etc.

If there is any other way that is logically possible, please show that way.

[Da Bannu Mazdigar]

Well the deal is good in a sense that Afghanistan still need a big player to protect itself from its neighbour and their interference into the afghan affairs be it Pakistan or Iran.

Till 2024 Afghan with a right leader can become a state whom wont need any other country support and mature enough to protect themselves from the neighbours wrong interests

[Al-Afghani]

BarekzaiAbdali,

India was able to secure it´s interests with Soviet help, the taxes of hundreds of millions of citizens and by neglecting the needs of 70% of it´s population 40-35 years ago.
Now it is at a stage to secure itself AND to provide for the needs of its people and without Soviet help India wouldn´t be what it is now.

All countries in our region were at one point built up by foreigners.
India, Pakistan: has colonial infrastructure, military, institutions.
Central Asia: Communist Russian influence, they used to live a nomadic lifestyle but now are industrialized, urbanized, more than 95% literate.
Iran: technology, military and other institutions built up by Westerners (during the Shah period).
Arabs: same as Iran.

We should put our false pride, which is largely myths, aside us

[Kushan Prince]

I don´t know what you mean with "surviving" but you do realize that a state has to be able to take care of it´s citizens, collect taxes, secure the borders, provide health care and education and create a viable sociaty, right?

Hey can't hurt to give an opinion on the topic right?

[Badlun]

[MENTION=1772]BarakzaiAbdali[/MENTION] ,

I do understand your points but could you please try to communicate a little less emotionally because talking about a problem and making the language and communication become a part of the problem is not going to be very helpfull.

Of course everyone wants to be independent but full scale autonomy isn´t possible in present times because we are hunter-gatherers but live in times of modern industries, connected economies and sociaties.
Afghanistan or any other state cannot be autonomous anymore.

What Afghanistan or any other state should try is to safeguard it´s interests and yes, the current regime doesn´t seem to have accomplished that with the Biliteral Security Treaty with the US.

From my perspective it´s neccessary that Afghanistan has a strong security pact with a state that has military and economical power because Afghanistan is currently not able to fill the gap if foreign aid stops.

Untill Afgs economy is not strong enough to provide for it´s security institutions it will be dependent on other states.

India was able to secure it´s interests with Soviet help, the taxes of hundreds of millions of citizens and by neglecting the needs of 70% of it´s population 40-35 years ago.
Now it is at a stage to secure itself AND to provide for the needs of its people and without Soviet help India wouldn´t be what it is now.

Afghanistan needs strategic partnerships or it will be swallowed by the regional powers via proxy wars, civil wars etc.

If there is any other way that is logically possible, please show that way.

The problem with Barakzai is that he will refer to few sources sometimes known some times unknown and if a researcher has proved a point, he will take that far granted and will declare it a forgone conclusion while ignoring the ground realities. If I do not have a reference that this computer is a computer so barakzai will not believe in it once I do not give a reference.

The way out is simple. The system where Barakzai is sitting and enjoying the life. Make Afghanistan America or any G8 country. Do what these countries have done in the past. Make them as your development partners, investors and importers/exporters. Keep religion to your heart, home, family and mosque. Afghan or Pashtun culture or Pashtunwali is not a hindrance as cultural values like egalitarianism, hospitality, jirgas etc do not have clash with democracy or human rights. Afghanistan before 1979 was not bad.

Let us be honest and recommend the course of action for Afghans which will make their lives as comfortable as we ourselves have in these developed countries. Let us not be hypocrites enjoying democracy and development and recommending barbarism of Taliban for poor Afghans who even do not have access to internet to tell us what they feel.

[Shamlawar Khurasani]

[MENTION=5723]Kushan Prince[/MENTION]

SOmalia is partitioned into Puntland, Somaliland, Somalia, Djibouti etc.

Parts of somalia is occupied by Christian African Union soldiers, especially in the east and the south where they are there to fight al-Shabab.

Somalia is after Afghanistan, the most corrupt country. The so-called government are Ikhwani criminals like Karzai and Mursi who are paid by the West while having double nationalities.

Somalia has a very rich soil, with oil, gas and other natural resources. Its location is strategic both for economic and military reasons.

You should think of a better example.