Dr.Ashraf Ghani Ahmadzai

[Khostai]

I appreciate the enthusiasm grana but you have to come to reality some time. The BSA will not do afghans any good, in fact with foreign presence still in the country, the taliban will continue bombing innocent civilians and american military posts due to intimidation. Therefore the country will still be in vain and bloodshed, and do you really want that? Now i used to be a ghani supporter myself but after he hired ghani as his vice president and proposed the signing of the bsa if he got elected, thats what really turned me off.



So why should we jump on the bandwagon and be america's bitch just because the rest of the world is doing it? You should know the history of Afghanistan, we have never been conquered and don't take orders from nobody, not especially a country using Afghanistan for its own economic interest. We have tons of other countries that can help us like china or india. A neighbour is more reliable right?

Anyways i hope you take these points into consideration.

Taliban days are coming to an end, there support is loosing more and more becuase PAshtuns also have enough of them.
Yes Taliban will not stop for now due to BSA, but at least Afghanistan still can get aid from the west and one day Taliban can be defited. Becuase I belive Ghani can make a stable and corruption free goverment not like Karzai, and lets be honest the bigest reason why Taliban is stil a factor today is becuase Karzai made a mess of the goverment, he established corrupt goverment that drove people in to talibanism.

And no BSA, means no aid and no help. Govermet will fall and you have the 90s all over again. neighbours like China and India can only helpe economicaly, and that only if the country is stable, they are not going to fund your goverment or public services. And if talibs get again in power, US will ignore them like they did in the 90s and China and India will do that to, becuase they are with the West.

Afghanistan was conqured, the taliban regime was ousted and the country was taken over by US. Just becuase taliban don't give up doesn't mean we were never conqured, its easy to conquere Afghanistan becuase its weak and poor country, but its hard to preserve order and stability. Thats the big difference.

[Bengal_Tiger]

Taliban days are coming to an end, there support is loosing more and more becuase PAshtuns also have enough of them.
Yes Taliban will not stop for now due to BSA, but at least Afghanistan still can get aid from the west and one day Taliban can be defited. Becuase I belive Ghani can make a stable and corruption free goverment not like Karzai, and lets be honest the bigest reason why Taliban is stil a factor today is becuase Karzai made a mess of the goverment, he established corrupt goverment that drove people in to talibanism.

And no BSA, means no aid and no help. Govermet will fall and you have the 90s all over again. neighbours like China and India can only helpe economicaly, and that only if the country is stable, they are not going to fund your goverment or public services. And if talibs get again in power, US will ignore them like they did in the 90s and China and India will do that to, becuase they are with the West.

Afghanistan was conqured, the taliban regime was ousted and the country was taken over by US. Just becuase taliban don't give up doesn't mean we were never conqured, its easy to conquere Afghanistan becuase its weak and poor country, but its hard to preserve order and stability. Thats the big difference.

1. The rise of the Taliban in the 1990s came in the background of chaos, anarchy and domination by warlords.

Many welcomed the Taliban, since despite being very strict, they at least ensured some form of law and order and combatted certain forms of immorality.


2. The Taliban were welcomed at first by some but then they just went too far with ridiculous laws and policies e.g. forcing men to have long beards.


3. So the Taliban in the 1990s contrasted with the corrupt warlords and were "better" (or a lesser evil), now they would contrast with a nascent national government and be seen as worse.


4. In the 1990s internet was not widely available, Afghans did not know much about the outside world and that life does not have to be lived the way exponents of austere pseudo-Islam say it should be. Now a person in Kabul or Kandahar can see Youtube and the rest of the internet and is connected to the outside world.

The educated Pashtuns definitely do not want the Taliban back.

Also Taliban-supporters can say what they want about foreign occupation, but Dr Ahmadzai, Abullah etc are all sons of the soil and all those millions of voters are sons and daughters of the soil and are not "foreign occupiers". The next Kabul government will be an Afghan government, voted in by Afghans, not foreigners.

There is a chance that maybe/maybe not the Taliban will regain control of much of the country but they will never be able to sustain it for a long time. Taliban rule is so oppressive that nobody can bear it for too long.


* Dr Ahmed Ghani or whoever is the next Afghan leader should give free scholarships to the sons and daughters of influential tribal leaders so they can study in the west, so the Taliban will lose tribal support for trying to spread their form of rule.

[Tjanaparh]

what is kulchey?

Same word root as Kalach or Kulich in Russian

[JAMALUDEEN]

Ghani is better choice than all the other candidates.

[Al-Afghani]

Ghani must absolutely win, because Pakistan prefers a Pashtun in charge. If Abdullah wins, they will become worried and support Taliban factions to destabilize the government.

[Herat]

Admin Khan, I don't know too much about Dr Ahmadzai (except what Ive been reading in the western media) but Ill put my 2 cents on what I think "most qualified" means with respect to Afghanistan: the most qualified leader Afghanistan can have now will be the one who can ensure the quickest path to long term stability and this entails making it clear that the west has no business in Afghanistan, it also inherently entails incorporating the core of the Taliban in the government. In the current political atmosphere it seems to me the only way anyone could feasibly achieve this would be through Machiavellian politics: the west will have to be deceived, the warlords and anti-Taliban elements need to be purged somehow and basically the terms of the Taliban must be accepted. Any alternative is simply a longer and more violent path to the same end (basically most likely a civil war that the Taliban will certainly win anyway).

Does anyone think Dr Ashraf Ghani Ahmadzai is on these lines?

[Al-Afghani]

Admin Khan, I don't know too much about Dr Ahmadzai (except what Ive been reading in the western media) but Ill put my 2 cents on what I think "most qualified" means with respect to Afghanistan: the most qualified leader Afghanistan can have now will be the one who can ensure the quickest path to long term stability and this entails making it clear that the west has no business in Afghanistan, it also inherently entails incorporating the core of the Taliban in the government. In the current political atmosphere it seems to me the only way anyone could feasibly achieve this would be through Machiavellian politics: the west will have to be deceived, the warlords and anti-Taliban elements need to be purged somehow and basically the terms of the Taliban must be accepted. Any alternative is simply a longer and more violent path to the same end (basically most likely a civil war that the Taliban will certainly win anyway).

Does anyone think Dr Ashraf Ghani Ahmadzai is on these lines?

That means scrapping the constitution for the sake of peace. Smarter people have warned about these dangerous methods,

An appeaser is one who feeds a crocodile, hoping it will eat him last

[afghan]

Ghani must absolutely win, because Pakistan prefers a Pashtun in charge. If Abdullah wins, they will become worried and support Taliban factions to destabilize the government.

too bad for pakies then, ghani is opposing the taliban as well pakies hand in afghan affairs. Abdullah is a sellout pakies could handle tajiks especially abdullah very easily. Abdullah has spent most of his life among ISI.

[Herat]

That means scrapping the constitution for the sake of peace. Smarter people have warned about these dangerous methods,

Thank you for the daily dose of humor, ah yes the third most corrupt state in the world has a "constitution" and is worth defending so much so that it warrants a comparison with the allies vs the axis, no doubt. Yes, peace, stability and those "crocodiles" over your brand of parasites my friend.

[Al-Afghani]

Thank you for the daily dose of humor, ah yes the third most corrupt state in the world has a "constitution" and is worth defending so much so that it warrants a comparison with the allies vs the axis, no doubt. Yes, peace, stability and those "crocodiles" over your brand of parasites my friend.

Peace will not come by negotiations. If we hand parts of the government to the Taliban, they will be encouraged to grab the rest as well. It is their goal to capture 100% of the country, and implement Sharia, as Allah intended.

Churchill fought the great great grandfathers of the current Taliban during his service in British India.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Story_of_the_Malakand_Field_Force

Plus, what you describe as Machiavellian scheming is nothing new to Afghanistan. All Afghan kings have balanced internal and external powers against each other for their benefit. It always failed.

[Herat]

Peace will not come by negotiations. If we hand parts of the government to the Taliban, they will be encouraged to grab the rest as well. It is their goal to capture 100% of the country, and implement Sharia, as Allah intended.

Churchill fought the great great grandfathers of the current Taliban during his service in British India.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_St...nd_Field_Force

Plus, what you describe as Machiavellian scheming is nothing new to Afghanistan. All Afghan kings have balanced internal and external powers against each other for their benefit. It always failed.

So be it, the Islamic Emirate is preferable to your warlordocracy in any case. Actually Im an atheist but unlike you Im not delusional: the fact is that the Taliban are the political expression of the tribal Pashtuns who make up the bulk of the largest single ethnic group in the country (do you deny this?) -and frankly they have more claim to the state than do your opportunistic parasites leeched on to NATO. They could have been German Nazis it doesn't change the fact that they represent the spirit of a very large segment of the population and therefore have every right to political representation (by your own standard of what "constitution" usually involves anyway) and more importantly: there can be no stable political arrangement that does not involve them.

Tell me, once the host your leeched onto leaves, what are you going to do then? And lol, no amount of "training" is going to help your -up to 75%- drug addicted unstable farce of an army (with a 4.1% monthly attrition rate according to the 2013 pentagon report). You can only delay the inevitable for so long and I personally prefer not delaying it at all.

[Bengal_Tiger]

So be it, the Islamic Emirate is preferable to your warlordocracy in any case. Actually Im an atheist but unlike you Im not delusional: the fact is that the Taliban are the political expression of the tribal Pashtuns who make up the bulk of the largest single ethnic group in the country (do you deny this?) -and frankly they have more claim to the state than do your opportunistic parasites leeched on to NATO. They could have been German Nazis it doesn't change the fact that they represent the spirit of a very large segment of the population and therefore have every right to political representation (by your own standard of what "constitution" usually involves anyway) and more importantly: there can be no stable political arrangement that does not involve them.

Tell me, once the host your leeched onto leaves, what are you going to do then? And lol, no amount of "training" is going to help your -up to 75%- drug addicted unstable farce of an army (with a 4.1% monthly attrition rate according to the 2013 pentagon report). You can only delay the inevitable for so long and I personally prefer not delaying it at all.

1. First of all brother I don't want to divert the topic (maybe we can discuss it on another thread) but Allah does exist, I have to say this or else I'll be fault at not giving advice.


2. In terms of the future of the Taliban other sources seem to say that the ANA are dealing with them more effectively. Here is a quote by an Afghan on another site (a propaganda troll site with occassional interesting information):

When I continuously said countless times that, (Taliban are no longer powerful as they were in 2009, Taliban lost a lot of ground after security transition, Taliban can't even face the police let alone the army, Taliban ain't ANSF's assets so they have no mercy on Taliban killed them like rats in these 3 years, Taliban have lost Afghan fighters and more of their fighters are foreigners who lack geographical knowledge, the causes through which they gathered people's support are no longer working....) No one believed me for the ground realities I told them but they were rather fooled by mass media which had obligation to put mental pressure on Afghans and political pressure on Afghan government to sign the security agreement (BSA).

Taliban had 149 terror activities to disrupt the election and in return ANSF responded aggressively and killed 89 Taliban on election day and arrested over 300 terror suspects. US/NATO had no stack on security of this election everything was planned and executed by Afghan forces.

Afghans have realized and Pakistanis are yet to realize that Taliban of any type are evil and should not be supported in any way.

http://defence.pk/threads/afghanistan-presidential-elections-aftermath.307900/page-9

Post #123


Also the same poster displayed this image, a collection of various online reports about the elimination of Taliban by Afghan security forces.



Now I'm not saying you're wrong. I'm just saying as an outsider I'm reading different things.


3. Are the "Taliban" homogenous. I mean isn't there Hekmatyar and his group and the actual "Taliban", as well as others? Isn't there a Ghilzai/Durrani split too?



NB: By the way the person I quoted above and whose image I have shown is an Afghan Pashtun.

[Al-Afghani]

So be it, the Islamic Emirate is preferable to your warlordocracy in any case. Actually Im an atheist but unlike you Im not delusional: the fact is that the Taliban are the political expression of the tribal Pashtuns who make up the bulk of the largest single ethnic group in the country (do you deny this?) -and frankly they have more claim to the state than do your opportunistic parasites leeched on to NATO. They could have been German Nazis it doesn't change the fact that they represent the spirit of a very large segment of the population and therefore have every right to political representation (by your own standard of what "constitution" usually involves anyway) and more importantly: there can be no stable political arrangement that does not involve them.

Tell me, once the host your leeched onto leaves, what are you going to do then? And lol, no amount of "training" is going to help your -up to 75%- drug addicted unstable farce of an army (with a 4.1% monthly attrition rate according to the 2013 pentagon report). You can only delay the inevitable for so long and I personally prefer not delaying it at all.

7 million people voted yesterday, a 58% turnout rate, yet you are still clinging to a false narrative.

The Taliban must understand they are now waging a a unilateral civil war.

[BarakzaiAbdali]

So be it, the Islamic Emirate is preferable to your warlordocracy in any case. Actually Im an atheist but unlike you Im not delusional: the fact is that the Taliban are the political expression of the tribal Pashtuns who make up the bulk of the largest single ethnic group in the country (do you deny this?) -and frankly they have more claim to the state than do your opportunistic parasites leeched on to NATO. They could have been German Nazis it doesn't change the fact that they represent the spirit of a very large segment of the population and therefore have every right to political representation (by your own standard of what "constitution" usually involves anyway) and more importantly: there can be no stable political arrangement that does not involve them.

Tell me, once the host your leeched onto leaves, what are you going to do then? And lol, no amount of "training" is going to help your -up to 75%- drug addicted unstable farce of an army (with a 4.1% monthly attrition rate according to the 2013 pentagon report). You can only delay the inevitable for so long and I personally prefer not delaying it at all.

The loudest voices these days are the ones getting benefit. Here in the states there are quasi religious Pashtuns I know on the coasts who used to boast about the brave Afghan vanquishing the Soviets and were warning media outlets here about how brave the black turbaned ones were and how they were the very same cadre of men who vanquished the Russyaan etc etc etc.

Then as the NATO monies starting pouring into Afghanistan, these folks suddenly became democrats and started creating farcical translation companies amongst other shady ventures.

They would go back to their villages and try to teach their "little brown brothers" as Kipling called them, on how to live modern style. Interestingly enough these same people used to preach against others who had larger houses and more material wealth as being "greedy" yet they all moved to some of the nicest neighborhoods in Seattle and outside of Fremont within a decade.

This war is a racket at this point with war companies bringing most of the returns back here and building faulty products:

http://america.aljazeera.com/features/2014/4/afghanistan-and-thebottomline.html

^look at the images of that idiotic structure built on a seismic fault line in that article.

The subrackets are the local and emigre folks who developed no other skills but are now dependent on NATO for a livelihood.

The locals developed a proper term for these people "dogwasher" implying they were generally less than nothing before but now are pretend khans

One horrible trait in our people, any of the ethnic groups, is that when they are doing something foolish or when they lack something someone else has - they will either mock the person that has what they want or they will do just about anything and then reason through it to satisfy their own conscience.

My favorite example is a local friend who had some issues with Gul Agha Sherzai and who is himself Kakar. Day in and out Gul Agha Sherzai was derided by said fellow. He referred to the latter as not measuring up to his father and as being a corrupt womanizer etc etc. Subsequently, a few years later our discussion turned to Sherzai again and now Sherzai was an angel and a great governor. Turns out his family members received some secondary gain from Sherzai who astutely bought them off.

They would be garner far more respect if they simply admitted their secondary gain and just fessed up that they benefit from the war. This should be their disclaimer at the beginning of any discussion.

[BarakzaiAbdali]

So be it, the Islamic Emirate is preferable to your warlordocracy in any case. Actually Im an atheist but unlike you Im not delusional: the fact is that the Taliban are the political expression of the tribal Pashtuns who make up the bulk of the largest single ethnic group in the country (do you deny this?) -and frankly they have more claim to the state than do your opportunistic parasites leeched on to NATO. They could have been German Nazis it doesn't change the fact that they represent the spirit of a very large segment of the population and therefore have every right to political representation (by your own standard of what "constitution" usually involves anyway) and more importantly: there can be no stable political arrangement that does not involve them.

Tell me, once the host your leeched onto leaves, what are you going to do then? And lol, no amount of "training" is going to help your -up to 75%- drug addicted unstable farce of an army (with a 4.1% monthly attrition rate according to the 2013 pentagon report). You can only delay the inevitable for so long and I personally prefer not delaying it at all.

I've learned the hard way, don't waste your time engaging the beneficiaries of the system - to ask them to reason is akin to asking someone to bleed themselves of their life's blood.

It seems you understand the arc of history very well. Let us leave it at the fact that

1) Never in history has an indigenous people benefited from being a satrapy except with some temporal secondary gain (a railroad or two here or there). What is lost simultaneously is autonomy and native standards/traditions.

2) The supposed benefits have to be weighted against the cultural attrition. The loudest voices clamoring against this argument present a juvenile argument about some nonexistent Arab colonialization where fair rangee colonialization is deemed "better." These people have a poor grasp on cause and effect on the fact that the supposed Arab colonializers are themselves in turn backed by the same colonializer they prefer to run the show.

3) There is a glass ceiling when one becomes a satrapy as that is the whole goal of an imperium - no particular satrap cam become too powerful. The perfect example is the dysfunctional country next door that was built off the same exact model by people with better nation building skills than Holbrooke and Eikenberry.

4) Regional coherence and cooperation is thwarted and that is exactly what imposes the glass ceiling in the first place.

You and I realize that Ghani was elected under a 40 nation outsider presence in a nation that what, somehow went from being super high on the corruption index and having had blatant fraud with more observers present in 2009 to a "clean" election just 5 years later?

Others may decide to believe in fairy tales - we both can sit back realizing the reality.