Afghanistan risks 'failed state'

[roadrunner]

Aren't those paramilitary troops brave aryan warrior Pakistanis too?

Whats your basis for this assumption (apart from your racial theories)?

Let's forget aryan theories for this thread that don't make sense. If you'd realized it, even if the paramilitaries were these aryan superior warriors or whatever it is you're trying to say, they are still up against the same aryan warriors in greater numbers.

So on one hand the Afghans are "brave" because they like to commit suicide....and on the other hand Mullah Omar is brave too, because he had the "guts to flee on a motorbike".

I don't think there's any question the Afghans are brave. Generally they don't commit suicide as you're trying to make out. But even committing suicide requires an act of sacrifice.

I had deleted my earlier post, but I guess I'll just summarize what I wrote:
Don't confuse unthinking violence with bravery, please.

"Unthinking violence" means what? You really don't have a case to claim here by suggesting the Afghans are not brave in this case. The Soviet war, this war are just two examples.

 

[Flintlock]

Do you guys it might be better to break up Afghanistan into more "manageable" portions?

After all, these ethnic groups simply can't get along...better to divorce than have a bad marriage IMO.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

RR:

I am not denying that the Taliban controlled the majority of Afghanistan, but that even in retreat and loyalty switching, the NA can be credited for displaying the same sort of pragmatism that the Taliban did - living to fight another day, which they did.

On the question of a stalemate - the fact that the Taliban regime repeatedly stated that all of their "promises" would only come into effect when they controlled all of Afghanistan, to me indicates that the ten percent of territory that was denied them would have continued to influence their decision making and postponing any kind of nation building they could have undertaken (which I think they were incapable of then, and are incapable of doing today as well). There would be good reason to not stop fighting as well, because even a small amount of territory outside their control would continuously be used to stage attacks against them. Without nation building, the other ethnic groups would chafe under their repression and Afghanistan would never be settled, therefore in one way or another the violence would continue and that is basically a stalemate for me.

 

[Flintlock]

Let's forget aryan theories for this thread that don't make sense. If you'd realized it, even if the paramilitaries were these aryan superior warriors or whatever it is you're trying to say, they are still up against the same aryan warriors in greater numbers.

Depends on who's more Aryan...the FC or the Taliban..lol...anyways...

I don't think there's any question the Afghans are brave. Generally they don't commit suicide as you're trying to make out. But even committing suicide requires an act of sacrifice.

I think that people who destroy their society to impose the Taliban doctrine are practically committing suicide.

If you convince a guy, beyond the slightest shred of doubt, that he'll be going to paradise, I'm sure he will be the bravest man on earth.

"Unthinking violence" means what? You really don't have a case to claim here by suggesting the Afghans are not brave in this case. The Soviet war, this war are just two examples.

It means, that Afghans just want a reason to fight...the reason they were toyed around by everyone from the Americans to the Russians is because they were a weak state with no institutions whatsoever.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

Do you guys it might be better to break up Afghanistan into more "manageable" portions?

After all, these ethnic groups simply can't get along...better to divorce than have a bad marriage IMO.

The problem is the precedent you set - of breaking up nations when chaos erupts. Though the emergence of an independent Kosovo would indicate that it can work, and is still being used as an instrument to obtain lasting peace.

The ethnic and sectarian wounds in Afghanistan are extremely deep (even the NA engaged in sectarian and ethnic massacres - before the Taliban ever did). Will they heal? Will the peace only be a superficial one, and hold only as long as NATO is there playing the role of head cop? I don't know. I'd like to hear other opinions on this.

 

[roadrunner]

RR:

I am not denying that the Taliban controlled the majority of Afghanistan, but that even in retreat and loyalty switching, the NA can be credited for displaying the same sort of pragmatism that the Taliban did - living to fight another day, which they did.

Well Dostum did not live to fight another day. He fled Afghanistan into Uzbekistan. This is not living to fight another day, it's just living. Dostum had given up Afghanistan in 1997, and only came back in 2001. IMO, the Taliban were not these pragmatic people you're describing them as - if they were they would have switched sides when the US invaded. They must have known they had no chance against a US invasion, and could have joined forces with the US even to flush out Al Qaeda.

On the question of a stalemate - the fact that the Taliban regime repeatedly stated that all of their "promises" would only come into effect when they controlled all of Afghanistan, to me indicates that the ten percent of territory that was denied them would have continued to influence their decision making and postponing any kind of nation building they could have undertaken (which I think they were incapable of then, and are incapable of doing today as well).

I didn't follow it enough to know these sorts of promises they were making. I certainly have no knowledge of anything the Taliban were promising. What I do know is that they had pacified Afghanistan by 2000. This is something the Northern Alliance could not do under Rabbani, and the result was a mini genocide.

There would be good reason to not stop fighting as well, because even a small amount of territory outside their control would continuously be used to stage attacks against them. Without nation building, the other ethnic groups would chafe under their repression and Afghanistan would never be settled, therefore in one way or another the violence would continue and that is basically a stalemate for me.

I don't think even stalemate would have ensued in this conjecturized situation. In the pacified areas where the Shia Hazaras lived for example, the Taliban had the power, so it was in their power to kill all the Hazaras off. There was no resistance in these areas, because those populations had been pacified.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

RR:

I get your argument about the "pragmatism" (compromises - deal making) of the NA vs the "Survival" (ideologically uncompromising) attitude of the Taliban.

The "promises" related to governance, development, addressing the concerns of international aid organizations so that they could continue providing aid and reassure donor nations in order to continue receiving more aid.

Some of the more criticized policies, for NGO's, were the self help programs initiated for women (widows, rophans etc.) that the Taliban essentially made unworkable by requiring only female aid workers (accompanied by a mehrem male) to deal with the locals, and additionally preventing Afghan women, due to similar restrictions, from assisting such programs.

While there was a mini genocide under Rabbani, the methods the Taliban were using to pacify the country were essentially going to amount to the same thing. Beyond wiping out other "troublesome" sects and ethnic groups, I don't see how they could keep the country pacified in the long run.

 

[Vinod2070]

Oh yeah, blame it on me that you're typing. You have no control obviously

No, I don't know what the three a's are. And 1971 was a genocide only in Indian newspapers. Your 3 million figure has been proven bs.

It's not Pakistani troops surrendering either. It's paramilitary troops, which has been pointed out to you often enough.

If you think India with all its billion people, would not leave the Indian Ocean infected with uncontrollable bowel products if the US threatens to bomb them, you are living in cuckoo land. India would cave to any US demand in a flash if it were threatened with bombing, of that there's little doubt.

And in 1971, India had the Soviets warships and nuclear submarines in the Bay of Bengal keeping the Americans in check.

Fleeing F-16s and Apaches on a donkey would be very brave. Even fleeing on a motorbike is what most people would not do when they have Apaches chasing them. Do you honestly think it is cowardly to flee Apaches on a motorbike rather than surrendering? Try using your head for once!

I am sure all this is making perfect sense to you. I earlier thought that you may have a hate filled, racist thought process bordering on bigotry and spewing out hatred and unfounded opinions in every post but you are capable of a civilized discussion.

Judging by the country in your profile, I do hope that your host community is not as racist and bigoted.

You have your own little theories of how the world should work. And you see everything around you in terms of those little theories. The little matter of fact and reality obviously be damned. You will make them adapt to your little theories.

And you just assume too many things. I never mentioned the 3 million figure. I don't know when and where it was proven wrong except in your mind. Even now if you google 1971 genocide, you will get 3,20,000 results endorcing that the genocide took place.

I never mentioned that it was the Pakistani army troops that surrendered. And mind you, all this started only when you brought India into what started as a purely Afghan/Taliban discussion.

MOD EDIT

And you may be disappointed to know that there is precious little chance of your wishful thinking coming true as the largest and greatest democracies won't go to war with each other. The relations are stronger than ever and there are lot of common values that may be too tough for the likes of you to comprehend.

But there is an off-chance (not that I personally want it) of that happening to your country if the Taliban affair is not managed and the international community gets convinced that Pakistan is unable or unwilling to manage it's own affairs.

I want to discuss on facts and you want to discuss on hate filled dubious opinions like what the Indians would do in a certain hypothetical situation. And you have little doubt about what they will do! The basis is again your little racist hate filled theories which have no ground in reality.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

I don't know when and where it was proven wrong except in your mind. Even now if you google 1971 genocide, you will get 3,20,000 results endorcing that the genocide took place.

There is no independent confirmation of "genocide" - and the 3 million figure has been discussed to death in various threads, and as Blain pointed out somewhere, comes across as a statistical impossibility given the number of Pakistani troops and how many each would have to kill. Google results are not an indicator of the legitimacy of a claim either. I'll try and dig up one of the threads where it was discussed.

 

[Vinod2070]

There is no independent confirmation of "genocide" - and the 3 million figure has been discussed to death in various threads, and as Blain pointed out somewhere, comes across as a statistical impossibility given the number of Pakistani troops and how many each would have to kill. Google results are not an indicator of the legitimacy of a claim either. I'll try and dig up one of the threads where it was discussed.

I am not fixated on proving the genocide. Nor on the figure of 3 million. It may not be even the right thread to discuss this.

I will only say that such things can't be proved or disproved in some threads on a forum. I have read books in the USA which mention this number (that was some years back). One book title was "The biggest genocides in history" or some such.

I guess this is the number used by the Bangladeshis too. And there were more than 10 million refugees in India before the war started. They must have left their country because of some terrible happenings back home. No one leaves their home and hearth for no reason.

I will tend to go by what the authentic history books or encyclopedias mention about that period. If there is some authentic research done that has thrown new light on that period, I guess it needs to be incorporated into the literature before most people will accept that.

I will agree that Google may not be the right indicator to prove of the accuracy of a claim, but nor is some forum thread which "proves" something wrong which is generally considered to be true in most literature considered as authentic.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

Vinod,

An indeed that process of comparing what various analysts, historians and books have mentioned about the events in 1971 is what was attempted in the thread I mentioned. Within that discussion it was certainly pointed out that differing claims exist as to the number of people who were killed and by whom. Therefore going by your own logic, it would be fair to say that a substantial amount of analysis and literature does argue that the genocide and number of people killed is different from that mentioned by you, and "acceptance" of a claim, in the presence of conflicting accounts and data, depends on your particular bias.

But I'll leave it at that, since the topic is derailing the discussion.

 

[Vinod2070]

Fair enough. Just that the number was brought up not by me here.

 

[fatman17]

i hav'nt read the previous posts... but my 2 cents on this issue is.

1. if afghanistan wants to survive as a nation, it MUST recognise the durand-line (pak-afghan border) as the international border between pak and afghan.
2. afghans are made up of pashtuns, tajiks, uzbeks etc. they all must have a equal say (politically, economically and administratively) within afghanistan.
3. afghanistan must realise that pakistan (and not india) is the major player in determining how it wants to live and progress. (give us respect and get respect back)
4. immediately sign a MFN and FTA treaties with Pakistan.
5. afghanistan is a free country it can have economic, political and defence ties with india or any other country in the world but it must recognise that pakistan and not india is its neighbour.
6. same applies to pakistan
will it happen! NO

 

[never]

afghanistan is a failed state
it can not feed, protect, encourage, provide education, jobs or any thing else for its population.
afghanistan has almost always been a failed state
and now as its instability is being used by our enemies to disturb pakistan and to remedy that afghanistan must be partitioned in to smaller countries where this mischief cant be done.

 

[Contrarian]

i hav'nt read the previous posts... but my 2 cents on this issue is.

1. if afghanistan wants to survive as a nation, it MUST recognise the durand-line (pak-afghan border) as the international border between pak and afghan.
2. afghans are made up of pashtuns, tajiks, uzbeks etc. they all must have a equal say (politically, economically and administratively) within afghanistan.
3. afghanistan must realise that pakistan (and not india) is the major player in determining how it wants to live and progress. (give us respect and get respect back)
4. immediately sign a MFN and FTA treaties with Pakistan.
5. afghanistan is a free country it can have economic, political and defence ties with india or any other country in the world but it must recognise that pakistan and not india is its neighbour.
6. same applies to pakistan
will it happen! NO

All that you have mentioned is what YOU want as a Pakistani for Afghanistan. Not what the Afghans want for themselves.