Afghanistan and Taliban peace talks end with promise to meet again

[khushal]

lol khara, did you recall any geography before british?

Ghula,
Before British, Afghans had access to the sea.

The debate is about post landlocked.

[khushal]

The new Iran deal makes the idea of a Pashtun blockade on Tajiks, Uzbeks and Hazaras less likely.

Iran has no motive to care about you. you offer nothing to them.

[Al-Afghani]

Iran has no motive to care about you. you offer nothing to them.

I don't think you understood my point. If the embargo on Iran is lifted, other countries are allowed to trade with Iran and use their sea ports. Which means Afghanistan has an alternative to Karachi.

[Bengal_Tiger]

Recently, Union shipping minister Nitin Gadkari was in Iran to sign a memorandum of understanding (MOU) on the Chabahar port expansion project. This project is of great significance to India as it will give access to Afghanistan’s garland highway.

As access through Pakistan is a distant dream, the Chabahar port will help Indian goods to reach four major cities in Afghanistan — Herat, Kandahar, Kabul and Mazar-e-Sharif quickly. On the other hand, Afghan dry fruits can reach the Indian markets through this port. The port can be used to ship crude oil and urea, saving transportation costs and reducing freight time from India to Central Asia and the Gulf by about a third. It is a win-win project for India. The port is also India’s gateway to the rest of Central Asia and Eurasia.

http://www.business-standard.com/article/international/how-the-historic-iran-nuke-deal-will-impact-india-115071401046_1.html

- China has moved in big time to Afghanistan in the sense of playing a major role, in fact it is taking the lead role in trying to bring peace to the country organizing Taliban & Afghan government talks.

- India wants to trade with Afghanistan via Iran, this benefits Iran, India and Afghanistan, Pakistanis lose out.





Karzai to Pakistanis: "Game over"

[Insight]

The new Iran deal makes the idea of a Pashtun blockade on Tajiks, Uzbeks and Hazaras less likely.

I don't think you understood my point. If the embargo on Iran is lifted, other countries are allowed to trade with Iran and use their sea ports. Which means Afghanistan has an alternative to Karachi.

I think that what @khushal meant was that Iran's decisions with regards to Afghanistan are not too linguistic or ethnic based.

I do agree that Iranian port access will be good for Afghanistan. Between Pakistan and Iran, Afghanistan has more to gain from an economic relationship with Iran. Above all else, Afghanistan's relationship with China will truly be the path to greater economic and defense ties. The relationship with China will put Pakistan under control, and never could Pakistan ever start supporting foreign invasion of Afghanistan because it would directly oppose China's interests.


Where I think we disagree is which Afghanistan and what future government we are talking about, and in my honest and objective opinion, the morally bankrupt and weak (because corruption results in weakness and loss of control) Kabul regime you refer to is not the future unless the future you imagine is a regime in exile in Paris!

[Brown Skinned Savage]

That is a testament to Pakistan's cunning. Without whose safe haven for Taliban and Mujahedin fighters this war would have been concluded long ago.

How does Pakistan outsmart the most technologically advanced, highly sophisticated military and intelligence apparatus in the world?

[Brown Skinned Savage]

Iran has no motive to care about you. you offer nothing to them.

It's sad there's still a prevalent belief that Iran cares about ethnic kinship more than political expediency I wonder if Al-Afghani has an "Iran Zameen" poster on his wall.

[Insight]

It's sad there's still a prevalent belief that Iran cares about ethnic kinship more than political expediency I wonder if Al-Afghani has an "Iran Zameen" poster on his wall.

LOL, no he probably has a poster of Xerexes from the movie 300 or of the Immortals (btw who were formidable Persian elite forces), but Al-Afghani just attaches ethnic importance.

I cant stand these ethnocentric retards regardless of whether they are Pashtun, Tajik, Hazara, Uzbek, or whatever in between. Reading their crap here gives me a headache LOL

[randolph85]

Artist: Ok Hooman, how does this look?

Hooman: It needs more feathers!

Artist: You sure, man?

Hooman: Yes damn it! merci

[Al-Afghani]

I think that what @khushal meant was that Iran's decisions with regards to Afghanistan are not too linguistic or ethnic based.

I do agree that Iranian port access will be good for Afghanistan. Between Pakistan and Iran, Afghanistan has more to gain from an economic relationship with Iran. Above all else, Afghanistan's relationship with China will truly be the path to greater economic and defense ties. The relationship with China will put Pakistan under control, and never could Pakistan ever start supporting foreign invasion of Afghanistan because it would directly oppose China's interests.


Where I think we disagree is which Afghanistan and what future government we are talking about, and in my honest and objective opinion, the morally bankrupt and weak (because corruption results in weakness and loss of control) Kabul regime you refer to is not the future unless the future you imagine is a regime in exile in Paris!

It's not certain the central government will survive, just like the cohesion of Afghanistan is shaky at best. You may dismiss ethnicity, but it has proven to unite people where religion failed, as evident by the civil war in Afghanistan under the Taliban's Islamic Emirate.

[randolph85]

It's not certain the central government will survive, just like the cohesion of Afghanistan is shaky at best. You may dismiss ethnicity, but it has proven to unite people where religion failed, as evident by the civil war in Afghanistan under the Taliban's Islamic Emirate.

This unity was based on a limited geographical influence which is evidenced by Rabbani having to make concessions to those outside his influence like communist Dostum, on the fence Hazara's and fringe Pashtuns. All it took to split these people apart was a puppet Pashtun in power and all the money that came with it. Today and yesterday, their flags had the Shahada on them.

Ethnicity is only a good rallying cry when an ethnic group is being legally oppressed by the institution in charge. That card probably doesn't work so well for Afghan minorities when its Pashtuns who are being killed by NATO, the gov't, and the Taliban day in and day out.

Mr. Noor went from Muj. to opposition within a puppet gov't and his people are no better for it.

[marwat]

Ghula,
Before British, Afghans had access to the sea.

The debate is about post landlocked.

in geography Afghanistan never have an access to the sea. those who had access to sea was not able even single time to behold the Afghan blow and always lost it. but then again Afghanistan never used sea for big trade or from strategic point of view.

[ComradePashtun]

I don't criticize an inclusive order, it is the only way out of this mess. You are talking as if the American campaign against Afghanistan was based on the wishes of the Afghan people, give me a break. People are fickle, they will support what is best for them in that point and time. Afghans are no different and if the Chinese invaded the country and ousted the Americans tomorrow investing even more money than the Americans did yesterday, the people supporting the American invasion would be called traitors.

Thousands attend Commie parade, thousands attend muj parade, thousands attend Taliban parade, thousands attend Karzai parade. Who knows whats next? Thousands attend Mullah Omar/Ghani parade.

Both sides have deviated from their ideologies. Talibs now talking because they are under Paki pressure and the Afg gov't and most importantly their American handlers approving it. Don't forget when Kharzai wanted to talk to the Taliban in the early 2000's and was shot down by his handlers.

From the outside looking in though, the Afghan gov't with American approval trying to talk to the Taliban is far more of a capitulation considering the countless billions/trillion poured into the war effort against anti-gov't elements than the Taliban agreeing to talk. If one were to say these things were equal would be to say that a Trillion dollars in the war effort and 14 years of propping up a puppet government was equal to the sandel wearing fake Chinese AK toting Taliban ideology of an Islamic Emirate.

Who looks better or worse in that equation?

I have never said anything near that the American campaign or rather an invasion was based on the wishes of the people of Afghanistan. Where did you get that from? You are trying of to vilify me and attribute something to me that I have never said and nor believe in. I said as far as the objective of overthrowing the Taliban regime and establishment of a new political authority was concerned (obviously aligned with the U.S.) and preserving the new dispensation the U.S. has been successful by in large. The U.S. interest is in the preserving the new dispensation which is also the desire of the absolute majority of the people of Afghanistan. So by this the degree to which the U.S' war against Talibs have been concerned and their presence in Afghanistan is achieved through convergence of their's and the people of Afghanistan's interest, not so much through using force. Where is the ambiguity in what I said?

People are not fickle, they are rational and have a believe system.

You need to look at beyond parroting the trillion dollars. War is an instrument politics hence a political objective, a mean to an end not an end in itself. Modern wars of limited scale against a weak enemy especially when there is a scope for it to be protracted, the outcome should not be weighed in absolute as complete win or loss. The political outcome I am talking about. The fact that the Talib dumb muda fkers are now talking to the Afghan government is testimony to their battlefield incapacity to overcome the Afghanistan government (I would not use the world defeat, not yet atleast), but more than anything a major political setback.

I respect Taliban for their gallantry and resilience on the battlefield. Just like many times in history, Pashtuns have won the wars but failed in politics. I hope they will stop committing more blunders.

[ComradePashtun]

This is not to say that they are winning, but they are not quite defeated. I hope with after all the losses and sacrifices of the people of Afghanistan Taliban will be able to think with their head than their aas. Today they are hated and are seen by majority of Afghan as misguided fvcktards and sell outs. They should align their gambit in the peace talks with the interest and popular desires of the Afghan people than Pakistan's strategic betting i.e. their proposition for Pakistan to be a guarantor along with China.

[randolph85]

I have never said anything near that the American campaign or rather an invasion was based on the wishes of the people of Afghanistan. Where did you get that from? You are trying of to vilify me and attribute something to me that I have never said and nor believe in. I said as far as the objective of overthrowing the Taliban regime and establishment of a new political authority was concerned (obviously aligned with the U.S.) and preserving the new dispensation the U.S. has been successful by in large. The U.S. interest is in the preserving the new dispensation which is also the desire of the absolute majority of the people of Afghanistan. So by this the degree to which the U.S' war against Talibs have been concerned and their presence in Afghanistan is achieved through convergence of their's and the people of Afghanistan's interest, not with the convenience of using force only. Where is the ambiguity in what I said?

People are not fickle, they are rational and have a believe system.

You need to look at beyond parroting the trillion dollars. War is an instrument politics hence a political objective, a mean to an end not an end in itself. Modern wars of limited scale against a weak enemy especially when there is a scope for it to be protracted, the outcome should not be weighed in absolute as complete win or loss. The political outcome I am talking about. The fact that the Talib dumb muda fkers are now talking to the Afghan government is testimony to their battlefield incapacity to overcome the Afghanistan government (I would not use the world defeat, not yet atleast), but more than anything a major political setback. Punching a toddler in the face and declaring a victory isn't the same as a toddler punching the adult in the face and also declaring victory. One looks better/worse than the other.

I respect Taliban for their gallantry and resilience on the battlefield. Just like many times in history, Pashtuns have won the wars but failed in politics. I hope they will stop committing more blunders.

I misread your initial quoted post concerning your first sentence above.

People are extremely fickle as evidenced by the communist and civil war butchers with the blood of a million plus Afghans becoming mainstream politicians. Either these people are not rational by participating in a system which protects and enriches war criminals or this entire rotten system and leadership has been forcibly imposed on them. How does a rational person accept an order where Dostum is a vice president, the people who brought Kabul to ruins are living in mansions in the same city and the Taliban who's crimes are a drop in a bucket in comparison are seen as the worst thing since the Pharaoh?

As long as there is such thing as American firepower, of course the Taliban will never take over. I am pretty sure every side in the conflict is aware of this. Your mistake is comparing a national military alongside the worlds only superpower to a bunch of rag tag guerrilla fighter's as if one sides setback is equal to the others. A grown man hitting a 6 yr old, knocking him out and declaring victory is different than that 6 yr old knocking that grown man out and declaring victory. One looks better/worse than the other.