# Afghan War: News & Update Mega Thread



## FOOLS_NIGHTMARE

For nearly 20 years, Bagram Airfield was the heart of American military power in Afghanistan, a sprawling mini-city behind fences and blast walls just an hour’s drive north of Kabul. Initially, it was a symbol of the U.S. drive to avenge the 9/11 attacks, then of its struggle for a way through the ensuing war with the Taliban.

In just a matter of days, the last U.S. soldiers will depart Bagram. They are leaving what probably everyone connected to the base, whether American or Afghan, considers a mixed legacy.

“Bagram grew into such a massive military installation that, as with few other bases in Afghanistan and even Iraq, it came to symbolize and epitomize the phrase ‘mission creep’,” said Andrew Watkins, Afghanistan senior analyst for the Brussels-based International Crisis Group.

U.S. Central Command said last week that it’s well past 50% done packing up Bagram, and the rest is going fast. American officials have said the entire pullout of U.S. troops will most likely be completely finished by July 4. The Afghan military will then take over Bagram as part of its continuing fight against the Taliban — and against what many in the country fear will be a new eruption of chaos.


The departure is rife with symbolism. Not least, it’s the second time that an invader of Afghanistan has come and gone through Bagram.

The Soviet Union built the airfield in the 1950s. When it invaded Afghanistan in 1979 to back a communist government, it turned it into its main base from which it would defend its occupation of the country. For 10 years, the Soviets fought the U.S.-backed mujahedeen, dubbed freedom fighters by President Ronald Reagan, who saw them as a front-line force in one of the last Cold War battles.

The Soviet Union negotiated its withdrawal in 1989. Three years later, the pro-Moscow government collapsed, and the mujahedeen took power, only to turn their weapons on each other and kill thousands of civilians. That turmoil brought to power the Taliban who overran Kabul in 1996.

When the U.S. and NATO inherited Bagram in 2001, they found it in ruins, a collection of crumbling buildings, gouged by rockets and shells, most of its perimeter fence wrecked. It had been abandoned after being battered in the battles between the Taliban and rival mujahedeen warlords fleeing to their northern enclaves.

After dislodging the Taliban from Kabul, the U.S.-led coalition began working with their warlord allies to rebuild Bagram, first with temporary structures that then turned permanent. Its growth was explosive, eventually swallowing up roughly 30 square miles.

“The closure of Bagram is a major symbolic and strategic victory for the Taliban,” said Bill Roggio, senior fellow at the Foundation for the Defense of Democracies.


“If the Taliban is able to take control of the base, it will serve as anti-U.S. propaganda fodder for years to come,” said Roggio who is also editor of the foundation’s Long War Journal.

It would also be a military windfall.

The enormous base has two runways. The most recent, at 12,000 feet long, was built in 2006 at a cost of $96 million. There are 110 revetments, which are basically parking spots for aircraft, protected by blast walls. GlobalSecurity, a security think tank, says Bagram includes three large hangars, a control tower and numerous support buildings. The base has a 50-bed hospital with a trauma bay, three operating theaters and a modern dental clinic. There are also fitness centers and fast food restaurants. Another section houses a prison, notorious and feared among Afghans.

Jonathan Schroden, of the U.S.-based research and analysis organization CNA, estimates that well over 100,000 people spent significant time at Bagram over the past two decades. “Bagram formed a foundation for the wartime experience of a large fraction of U.S. military members and contractors who served in Afghanistan,” said Schroden, director of CNA’s Center for Stability and Development.

“The departure of the last U.S. troops from there will likely serve as the final turn of the page for many of these folks with respect to their time in that country,” he said.

For Afghans in Bagram district, a region of more than 100 villages supported by orchards and farming fields, the base has been a major supplier of employment. The U.S. withdrawal effects nearly every household, said Darwaish Raufi, district governor.

The Americans have been giving the Afghan military some weaponry and other material. Anything else that they are not taking, they are destroying and selling it to scrap dealers around Bagram. U.S. officials say they must ensure nothing usable can ever fall into Taliban hands.

Last week, the U.S. Central Command said it had junked 14,790 pieces of equipment and sent 763 C-17 aircraft loaded with material out of Afghanistan. Bagram villagers say they hear explosions from inside the base, apparently the Americans destroying buildings and material.

Raufi said many villagers have complained to him about the U.S. leaving just their junk behind.

“There’s something sadly symbolic about how the U.S. has gone about leaving Bagram. The decision to take so much away and destroy so much of what is left speaks to the U.S. urgency to get out quickly,” said Michael Kugelman, deputy director of the Asia Program at the U.S.-based Wilson Center.

“It’s not the kindest parting gift for Afghans, including those taking over the base,” he said.

Inevitably, comparisons to the former Soviet Union have arisen.

Retired Afghan Gen. Saifullah Safi, who worked alongside U.S. forces at Bagram, said the Soviets left all their equipment when they withdrew. They “didn’t take much with them, just the vehicles they needed to transport their soldiers back to Russia,” he said.

The prison in the base was handed over to the Afghans in 2012, and they will continue to operate it. In the early years of the war, for many Afghans, Bagram became synonymous with fear, next only to Guantanamo Bay. Parents would threaten their crying children with the prison.

In the early years of the invasion, Afghans often disappeared for months without any reports of their whereabouts until the International Committee of the Red Cross located them in Bagram. Some returned home with tales of torture.

“When someone mentions even the word Bagram I hear the screams of pain from the prison,” said Zabihullah, who spent six years in Bagram, accused of belonging to the faction of Gulbuddin Hekmatyar, a warlord designated a terrorist by the U.S. At the time of his arrest it was an offense to belong to Hekmatyar’s party.

Zabihullah, who goes by one name, was released in 2020, four years after President Ashraf Ghani signed a peace deal with Hekmatyar.

Roggio says the status of the prison is a “major concern,” noting that many of its prisoners are known Taliban leaders or members of militant groups, including al-Qaida and the Islamic State group. It’s believed about 7,000 prisoners are still in the prison.

“If the base falls and the prison is overrun, these detainees can bolster the ranks of these terror groups,” Roggio said.









It's imminent: After nearly 20 years US to leave Bagram


BAGRAM, Afghanistan (AP) — For nearly 20 years, Bagram Airfield was the heart of American military power in Afghanistan, a sprawling mini-city behind fences and blast walls just an hour’s drive north of Kabul.




apnews.com


----------



## 8888888888888

Well they did left in a hurry like in S Vietnam.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## hualushui

U.S. forces *escaped* from Afghanistan

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## beijingwalker

*U.S. says it is up to Afghans to defend country as Taliban take more territory*

August 10, 20219:26 AM CST


The United States said it was up to Afghan security forces to defend the country after Taliban militants captured a sixth provincial capital on Monday, along with border towns and trade routes.

President Joe Biden has said the US military mission in Afghanistan will end on Aug 31, arguing that the Afghan people must decide their own future and that he would not consign another generation of Americans to the 20-year war.

US envoy for Afghanistan Zalmay Khalilzad has left for Qatar where he will "press the Taliban to stop their military offensive and to negotiate a political settlement," the State Department said on Monday.

In talks over three days, representatives from governments and multilateral organizations will press for "a reduction of violence and ceasefire and a commitment not to recognise a government imposed by force," the State Department said.

The Taliban, fighting to reimpose strict Islamic law after their 2001 ouster, have stepped up their campaign to defeat the government as foreign forces withdraw.










U.S. says it is up to Afghans to defend country as Taliban take more territory


The United States said it was up to Afghan security forces to defend the country after Taliban militants captured a sixth provincial capital on Monday, along with border towns and trade routes.




www.reuters.com

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## PradoTLC

no they want US to stay and fight, while the get free money and rape young boys.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## beijingwalker

*U.S. says up to Afghans to defend as Taliban advance*


----------



## Dalit

Don't you just love the Americans? LOL


PradoTLC said:


> no they want US to stay and fight, while the get free money and rape young boys.



What do Afghans and Indians have in common? I will give you one guess.


----------



## redtom

The Chinese are familiar with this situation. The result was a complete defeat of the US-backed government and it fled to the small island called Taiwan. The Afghan government could choose a small island.

Reactions: Haha Haha:
4


----------



## Dalit

redtom said:


> The Chinese are familiar with this situation. The result was a complete defeat of the US-backed government and it fled to the small island called Taiwan. The Afghan government could choose a small island.



Let the Afghan government flee to Hindustan.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## PradoTLC

Dalit said:


> Don't you just love the Americans? LOL
> 
> 
> What do Afghans and Indians have in common? I will give you one guess.




both have stupid airforces...that surrender to PAF

Reactions: Love Love:
1 | Haha Haha:
3


----------



## Dalit

PradoTLC said:


> both have stupid airforces...that surrender to PAF



I didn't think of that one yet. 😁

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## PradoTLC

Dalit said:


> I didn't think of that one yet. 😁




they are an endless supply of cheap jokes.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Battlion25

The Americans know and have realized the ground realities while it has become apparent to them that the Afghan gov't has fallen already from the tactical and coventional point of view and that this can't be reversed

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Leviza

beijingwalker said:


> In talks over three days, representatives from governments and multilateral organizations will press for "a reduction of violence and ceasefire and a commitment not to recognise a government imposed by force," the State Department said



talis are saying the same they asking for resignation of imposed gov in Afghanistan by the occupation forces

let see what comes out of it


----------



## Battlion25

Leviza said:


> talis are saying the same they asking for resignation of imposed gov in Afghanistan by the occupation forces
> 
> let see what comes out of it



That was the original peace deal.. That the government resigns and a new interim gov't takes office but Ghani has refused to step down and chose to cling on to power.. The Ghani issues in Afghanistan right now it is not Taliban, Americans, Pakistan or other foreign elements and hack not even ANA but only GHANI


----------



## Nan Yang

Quote
The United States said it was up to Afghan security forces to defend the country after Taliban militants captured a sixth provincial capital on Monday, along with border towns and trade routes.
End Quote

I hope Taiwan pro-independent forces are listening.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## GHALIB

beijingwalker said:


> *U.S. says it is up to Afghans to defend country as Taliban take more territory*
> 
> August 10, 20219:26 AM CST
> 
> 
> The United States said it was up to Afghan security forces to defend the country after Taliban militants captured a sixth provincial capital on Monday, along with border towns and trade routes.
> 
> President Joe Biden has said the US military mission in Afghanistan will end on Aug 31, arguing that the Afghan people must decide their own future and that he would not consign another generation of Americans to the 20-year war.
> 
> US envoy for Afghanistan Zalmay Khalilzad has left for Qatar where he will "press the Taliban to stop their military offensive and to negotiate a political settlement," the State Department said on Monday.
> 
> In talks over three days, representatives from governments and multilateral organizations will press for "a reduction of violence and ceasefire and a commitment not to recognise a government imposed by force," the State Department said.
> 
> The Taliban, fighting to reimpose strict Islamic law after their 2001 ouster, have stepped up their campaign to defeat the government as foreign forces withdraw.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> U.S. says it is up to Afghans to defend country as Taliban take more territory
> 
> 
> The United States said it was up to Afghan security forces to defend the country after Taliban militants captured a sixth provincial capital on Monday, along with border towns and trade routes.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.reuters.com





Afghan forces will defeat taliban.

Reactions: Haha Haha:
2


----------



## Muhammed45

Go Taliban

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## hualushui

GHALIB said:


> Afghan forces will defeat taliban.

Reactions: Haha Haha:
2


----------



## master_13

Makes you wonder what kind of inferior US "trainings" have been provided to Afghanistan the whole time. American trained Afghan troops vs. Afghan trained Taliban, American trained South Vietnamese vs. Vietnamese trained North Vietnamese, American trained South Korean vs. Korean trained North Korean, American trained Iraqis vs. Iraqi trained ISIS.... American trained troops almost always fail once American support is gone. Makes you wonder all US did was to just provide weapons to them and never really "trained" them on anything else. No wonder American "trained" troops just melt away as soon as American air/heavy weapon supports are gone.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## 8888888888888

S Korea never did trusted US forces to help so they usually don't listen to any USA advise, S Vietnam and Afghanistan on the other hand trusted USA to help them.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## lcloo

It will be like Vietnam again. There will be a large flow of refugees just like the Vietnamese boat people. 

People who worked for the American military and current Afghan government are having fear of revenge by Taliban, just like the South Vietnamese had fear in Vietcon's revenge against those working with Americans and South Vietnamese government.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## beijingwalker

*China Preparing to Recognize Taliban if Kabul Falls: Sources*
The move comes at the expense of the U.S., which has held up the Taliban’s international legitimacy as its remaining source of leverage while the militant group storms across Afghanistan.

By Paul D. Shinkman
Aug. 12, 2021, at 12:52 p.m





China is prepared to recognize the Taliban as the legitimate ruler of Afghanistan if it succeeds in toppling the Western-backed government in Kabul, U.S. News has learned, a prospect that undercuts the Biden administration's remaining source of leverage over the insurgent network as it continues its startling campaign to regain control. 


Beijing has publicly pressured the Taliban to continue working toward a peace agreement with President Ashraf Ghani's government – an outcome China appears to genuinely prefer and one the U.S. has pressed with growing urgency. However, new Chinese military and intelligence assessments of the realities on the ground in Afghanistan have prompted leaders in the Chinese Communist Party to prepare to formalize their relationship with the insurgent network, according to multiple U.S. and foreign intelligence sources familiar with the Chinese assessments.

The move comes as the Taliban has been routing Afghan forces – as of Thursday afternoon it had overrun 10 major provincial capitals, including one near Kabul, sometimes uncontested, along with key territory that connects with China's border. And it also undermines U.S. attempts to try to pressure the insurgent group to return in good faith to diplomatic negotiations in Doha, Qatar, where America's envoy returned this week for new talks.

"If the Taliban claim to want international legitimacy, these actions are not going to get them the legitimacy they seek," White House spokeswoman Jen Psaki said Friday. "They could choose to devote the same energy to their peace process as they are to their military campaign. We strongly urge them to do so."


The Chinese Ministry of Foreign Affairs did not respond to requests for comment.

At stake for Beijing are agreements it has already secured from the Taliban not to harbor inside Afghanistan any Islamic extremists with designs to wage insurgencies in parts of western China, notably the restive Xinjiang province – a promise that far exceeds anything the U.S. has been able to extract with regard to the persistent threats of al-Qaida operatives partnered with the Taliban.

Any sort of stability in Afghanistan would also allow China to reap the benefits of prior economic investments in the region, including mineral rights in Afghanistan. Buried in the latest report from the U.S. inspector general overseeing reconstruction in Afghanistan was a little-noticed observation that China has dramatically increased its economic interests in Afghanistan recently, encouraging the completion of a road in the Wakhan Corridor – the sliver of land connecting the two countries. It cited an Afghan Public Works Ministry spokesperson who said, "China has expressed a huge interest for investment in Afghanistan, particularly in the mining sector, and this road will be good for that, too." The Taliban recently seized wide swaths of that territory as part of an apparent campaign to control Afghanistan's northern border crossings.

China also seeks stability in Afghanistan for the sake of regional infrastructure projects it's already pursuing in neighboring Pakistan as a part of similar investments globally known as the Belt and Road Initiative.


Indeed, Pakistan appears at the center of the growing relationship between China and the Taliban, with Beijing relying on it for interpreting the cultural and linguistic divide. Pakistan in turn has come under increased Chinese influence through the growing number of economic investments Beijing has funded there, notably the China-Pakistan Economic Corridor or CPEC that flows through regions in the north where Taliban networks have sought refuge – apparently with at least some complicity from Pakistan's influential military.

U.S. News first reported a new intelligence sharing arrangement between the two Asian countries last year.

Pakistan's contributions to the instability in America's longest war zone are not lost on the Afghans, nor on those who follow the conflict closely. A seemingly benign tweet from the U.S. Embassy in Kabul soliciting suggestions for the agenda at the new Doha talks wrought near-unanimous replies and a trending hashtag: #SanctionPakistan

The fall of Kabul is not guaranteed, as American officials continue to insist. And in a call two weeks before the high-profile summit, Chinese President Xi Jinping assured Ghani of "China's firm support of the Afghan government." But the Taliban's onslaught has privately surprised the Biden administration with its speed and apparent success, officials familiar with internal deliberations say.

The Defense Department restarted in recent days a bombing campaign against Taliban positions in support of the pro-government ground forces, though Pentagon spokesman John Kirby said Wednesday the authority to do so expires with the planned full withdrawal of U.S. forces by the end of the month. And on Tuesday, President Joe Biden showed no signs of a willingness to reverse his decision for a full withdrawal.

"I think they're beginning to realize they've got to come together politically at the top," Biden told reporters at the White House, referring to the U.S.-backed government in Kabul. "We're going to continue to keep our commitment. But I do not regret my decision."

With this deadline in sight, China has begun preparing for what it considers more realistic contingencies that would grant both Beijing and the Taliban what they seek in the near future. It's a prospect met with little surprise from those who study the region closely.

"If you suspect there's a good possibility that a new government is coming to power, it's potentially useful to set conditions such that if those folks succeed in taking power, you're well positioned to extract a bargaining concession from them," says Tyler Jost, a professor at Brown University who studies Chinese national security decision-making. "In this case, any potential connections between Islamist groups and Xinjiang would likely be front and center in the minds of Chinese decision-makers. It's such a central priority for them."

Chinese Communist Party officials have held increasingly frequent and visible engagements with Taliban leaders – including a high-profile summit two weeks ago in the northeastern coastal city of Tianjin – in which they ostensibly touted the need for them to participate in the U.S.-backed peace process in Doha.


It's unclear whether this or other Chinese delegations have communicated their intentions explicitly to the Taliban, though the insurgent network's brazenness in recent weeks suggests it sees the American threats of international isolation as inconsequential.

It also remains to be seen whether the Taliban will follow through on their promises to deny safe haven to foreign fighters after spending two decades refusing American demands for similar concessions about al-Qaida. China, however, is not saddling the Taliban with the lofty bureaucratic expectations the U.S. and its Western partners have for Afghanistan's future.

"Beijing doesn't necessarily place the same emphasis on factors the U.S. sees as central to the future of Afghanistan, such as sustaining democratic elections or human rights," Jost says. "Traditionally, Beijing doesn't emphasize either in its diplomacy – or at least does not do so with the same definitions that the U.S. employs."

It remains unclear whether China's intentions with regard to the Taliban will grant it what it seeks, says Yun Sun, director of the Stimson Center's China Program, who documented relations between the two in a thorough analysis published this week on the national security website War on the Rocks.

Afghanistan may well collapse into a protracted civil war, Sun says, which would undercut the arrangements that China or any other foreign power seeks there.

What is clear from China's latest moves, however, is that the shifting U.S. goals for Afghanistan have not succeeded.

Adds Sun, "Fundamentally, what's implied is that the recognition of the legitimacy of the Taliban equates to the total failure of the 20 years of war by the U.S. in Afghanistan."



https://www.usnews.com/news/world-report/articles/2021-08-12/china-prepared-to-recognize-taliban-if-kabul-falls-sources-say-undermining-us-threats

Reactions: Like Like:
9


----------



## CIA Mole

what did they expect China to pick up the fight?

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Love Love:
1 | Haha Haha:
2


----------



## Jawad-Ali-Khan

beijingwalker said:


> *China Preparing to Recognize Taliban if Kabul Falls: Sources*
> The move comes at the expense of the U.S., which has held up the Taliban’s international legitimacy as its remaining source of leverage while the militant group storms across Afghanistan.
> 
> By Paul D. Shinkman
> Aug. 12, 2021, at 12:52 p.m
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> China is prepared to recognize the Taliban as the legitimate ruler of Afghanistan if it succeeds in toppling the Western-backed government in Kabul, U.S. News has learned, a prospect that undercuts the Biden administration's remaining source of leverage over the insurgent network as it continues its startling campaign to regain control.
> 
> 
> Beijing has publicly pressured the Taliban to continue working toward a peace agreement with President Ashraf Ghani's government – an outcome China appears to genuinely prefer and one the U.S. has pressed with growing urgency. However, new Chinese military and intelligence assessments of the realities on the ground in Afghanistan have prompted leaders in the Chinese Communist Party to prepare to formalize their relationship with the insurgent network, according to multiple U.S. and foreign intelligence sources familiar with the Chinese assessments.
> 
> The move comes as the Taliban has been routing Afghan forces – as of Thursday afternoon it had overrun 10 major provincial capitals, including one near Kabul, sometimes uncontested, along with key territory that connects with China's border. And it also undermines U.S. attempts to try to pressure the insurgent group to return in good faith to diplomatic negotiations in Doha, Qatar, where America's envoy returned this week for new talks.
> 
> "If the Taliban claim to want international legitimacy, these actions are not going to get them the legitimacy they seek," White House spokeswoman Jen Psaki said Friday. "They could choose to devote the same energy to their peace process as they are to their military campaign. We strongly urge them to do so."
> 
> 
> The Chinese Ministry of Foreign Affairs did not respond to requests for comment.
> 
> At stake for Beijing are agreements it has already secured from the Taliban not to harbor inside Afghanistan any Islamic extremists with designs to wage insurgencies in parts of western China, notably the restive Xinjiang province – a promise that far exceeds anything the U.S. has been able to extract with regard to the persistent threats of al-Qaida operatives partnered with the Taliban.
> 
> Any sort of stability in Afghanistan would also allow China to reap the benefits of prior economic investments in the region, including mineral rights in Afghanistan. Buried in the latest report from the U.S. inspector general overseeing reconstruction in Afghanistan was a little-noticed observation that China has dramatically increased its economic interests in Afghanistan recently, encouraging the completion of a road in the Wakhan Corridor – the sliver of land connecting the two countries. It cited an Afghan Public Works Ministry spokesperson who said, "China has expressed a huge interest for investment in Afghanistan, particularly in the mining sector, and this road will be good for that, too." The Taliban recently seized wide swaths of that territory as part of an apparent campaign to control Afghanistan's northern border crossings.
> 
> China also seeks stability in Afghanistan for the sake of regional infrastructure projects it's already pursuing in neighboring Pakistan as a part of similar investments globally known as the Belt and Road Initiative.
> 
> 
> Indeed, Pakistan appears at the center of the growing relationship between China and the Taliban, with Beijing relying on it for interpreting the cultural and linguistic divide. Pakistan in turn has come under increased Chinese influence through the growing number of economic investments Beijing has funded there, notably the China-Pakistan Economic Corridor or CPEC that flows through regions in the north where Taliban networks have sought refuge – apparently with at least some complicity from Pakistan's influential military.
> 
> U.S. News first reported a new intelligence sharing arrangement between the two Asian countries last year.
> 
> Pakistan's contributions to the instability in America's longest war zone are not lost on the Afghans, nor on those who follow the conflict closely. A seemingly benign tweet from the U.S. Embassy in Kabul soliciting suggestions for the agenda at the new Doha talks wrought near-unanimous replies and a trending hashtag: #SanctionPakistan
> 
> The fall of Kabul is not guaranteed, as American officials continue to insist. And in a call two weeks before the high-profile summit, Chinese President Xi Jinping assured Ghani of "China's firm support of the Afghan government." But the Taliban's onslaught has privately surprised the Biden administration with its speed and apparent success, officials familiar with internal deliberations say.
> 
> The Defense Department restarted in recent days a bombing campaign against Taliban positions in support of the pro-government ground forces, though Pentagon spokesman John Kirby said Wednesday the authority to do so expires with the planned full withdrawal of U.S. forces by the end of the month. And on Tuesday, President Joe Biden showed no signs of a willingness to reverse his decision for a full withdrawal.
> 
> "I think they're beginning to realize they've got to come together politically at the top," Biden told reporters at the White House, referring to the U.S.-backed government in Kabul. "We're going to continue to keep our commitment. But I do not regret my decision."
> 
> With this deadline in sight, China has begun preparing for what it considers more realistic contingencies that would grant both Beijing and the Taliban what they seek in the near future. It's a prospect met with little surprise from those who study the region closely.
> 
> "If you suspect there's a good possibility that a new government is coming to power, it's potentially useful to set conditions such that if those folks succeed in taking power, you're well positioned to extract a bargaining concession from them," says Tyler Jost, a professor at Brown University who studies Chinese national security decision-making. "In this case, any potential connections between Islamist groups and Xinjiang would likely be front and center in the minds of Chinese decision-makers. It's such a central priority for them."
> 
> Chinese Communist Party officials have held increasingly frequent and visible engagements with Taliban leaders – including a high-profile summit two weeks ago in the northeastern coastal city of Tianjin – in which they ostensibly touted the need for them to participate in the U.S.-backed peace process in Doha.
> 
> 
> It's unclear whether this or other Chinese delegations have communicated their intentions explicitly to the Taliban, though the insurgent network's brazenness in recent weeks suggests it sees the American threats of international isolation as inconsequential.
> 
> It also remains to be seen whether the Taliban will follow through on their promises to deny safe haven to foreign fighters after spending two decades refusing American demands for similar concessions about al-Qaida. China, however, is not saddling the Taliban with the lofty bureaucratic expectations the U.S. and its Western partners have for Afghanistan's future.
> 
> "Beijing doesn't necessarily place the same emphasis on factors the U.S. sees as central to the future of Afghanistan, such as sustaining democratic elections or human rights," Jost says. "Traditionally, Beijing doesn't emphasize either in its diplomacy – or at least does not do so with the same definitions that the U.S. employs."
> 
> It remains unclear whether China's intentions with regard to the Taliban will grant it what it seeks, says Yun Sun, director of the Stimson Center's China Program, who documented relations between the two in a thorough analysis published this week on the national security website War on the Rocks.
> 
> Afghanistan may well collapse into a protracted civil war, Sun says, which would undercut the arrangements that China or any other foreign power seeks there.
> 
> What is clear from China's latest moves, however, is that the shifting U.S. goals for Afghanistan have not succeeded.
> 
> Adds Sun, "Fundamentally, what's implied is that the recognition of the legitimacy of the Taliban equates to the total failure of the 20 years of war by the U.S. in Afghanistan."
> 
> 
> 
> https://www.usnews.com/news/world-report/articles/2021-08-12/china-prepared-to-recognize-taliban-if-kabul-falls-sources-say-undermining-us-threats


That`s the question I had in mind few days ago on a different thread. But I didn`t want to derail the discussion.

China, Pakistan, Iran and UK: Who will recognize them first? 

Though I had watched a video of a Taliban fighter shaking hand with our soldier on the border and the brief talk where our soldier had told him that if there were any misunderstandings, we would clear it through talks. For me, that was the initiation of foreign relations of Taliban and our soldier had worked as an ambassador, recognizing them as legitimate authority of Afghanistan.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## 8888888888888

Afghanistan war from 2001 to 2021

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Titanium100

China and Pakistan will recognize them followed by Uzbekistan and Iran will recognize them and others in central asia like Turkmenistan will also recognize them

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## lcloo

China's policy has always been non-intervention of internal affairs of other countries. Thus whoever controls the country will be recognised by China, regardless whether it is Islamic style government or western style democracy.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## MH.Yang

We never interfere in the internal affairs of other countries, and we will not break our principles in Afghanistan. The Afghan people should make their own choices. We will recognize which one the people choose. We do not interfere with or support any party, but only recognize the results. If the two sides want to negotiate, we can provide a safe place.

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## CIA Mole

> .
> Muhammad Zadran, a high-ranking Taliban member in the country’s southern Paktia province, said: “We will get around Kabul like an anaconda. Control of Kabul and the Afghan regime is inevitable, perhaps a few weeks away.”


----------



## Baby Leone

every sensible and peace loving country will do that.


----------



## Dungeness

lcloo said:


> China's policy has always been *non-intervention of internal affairs of other countries.* Thus whoever controls the country will be recognised by China, regardless whether it is Islamic style government or western style democracy.



Well, the principal should be equally upheld by all parties, or else. The key word here is "*互不干涉内政*”。

Anyway, any sensible party would know already: * The West Bombs, but China Builds.*

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Globenim

beijingwalker said:


> *Sources*
> U.S. News has learned


That means anything from bogus to bullsh*t

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## FuturePAF

For the Chinese leadership; it is like seeing their own history (of defeating the KMT) play out in front of them. While being weary of the religious Taliban they will heavily study the strategy of the Talibs and their “People’s war”; especially the psychological aspects.


----------



## HRK

beijingwalker said:


> *China Preparing to Recognize Taliban if Kabul Falls: Sources*
> The move comes at the expense of the U.S., which has held up the Taliban’s international legitimacy as its remaining source of leverage while the militant group storms across Afghanistan.
> 
> By Paul D. Shinkman
> Aug. 12, 2021, at 12:52 p.m
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> China is prepared to recognize the Taliban as the legitimate ruler of Afghanistan if it succeeds in toppling the Western-backed government in Kabul, U.S. News has learned, a prospect that undercuts the Biden administration's remaining source of leverage over the insurgent network as it continues its startling campaign to regain control.
> 
> 
> Beijing has publicly pressured the Taliban to continue working toward a peace agreement with President Ashraf Ghani's government – an outcome China appears to genuinely prefer and one the U.S. has pressed with growing urgency. However, new Chinese military and intelligence assessments of the realities on the ground in Afghanistan have prompted leaders in the Chinese Communist Party to prepare to formalize their relationship with the insurgent network, according to multiple U.S. and foreign intelligence sources familiar with the Chinese assessments.
> 
> The move comes as the Taliban has been routing Afghan forces – as of Thursday afternoon it had overrun 10 major provincial capitals, including one near Kabul, sometimes uncontested, along with key territory that connects with China's border. And it also undermines U.S. attempts to try to pressure the insurgent group to return in good faith to diplomatic negotiations in Doha, Qatar, where America's envoy returned this week for new talks.
> 
> "If the Taliban claim to want international legitimacy, these actions are not going to get them the legitimacy they seek," White House spokeswoman Jen Psaki said Friday. "They could choose to devote the same energy to their peace process as they are to their military campaign. We strongly urge them to do so."
> 
> 
> The Chinese Ministry of Foreign Affairs did not respond to requests for comment.
> 
> At stake for Beijing are agreements it has already secured from the Taliban not to harbor inside Afghanistan any Islamic extremists with designs to wage insurgencies in parts of western China, notably the restive Xinjiang province – a promise that far exceeds anything the U.S. has been able to extract with regard to the persistent threats of al-Qaida operatives partnered with the Taliban.
> 
> Any sort of stability in Afghanistan would also allow China to reap the benefits of prior economic investments in the region, including mineral rights in Afghanistan. Buried in the latest report from the U.S. inspector general overseeing reconstruction in Afghanistan was a little-noticed observation that China has dramatically increased its economic interests in Afghanistan recently, encouraging the completion of a road in the Wakhan Corridor – the sliver of land connecting the two countries. It cited an Afghan Public Works Ministry spokesperson who said, "China has expressed a huge interest for investment in Afghanistan, particularly in the mining sector, and this road will be good for that, too." The Taliban recently seized wide swaths of that territory as part of an apparent campaign to control Afghanistan's northern border crossings.
> 
> China also seeks stability in Afghanistan for the sake of regional infrastructure projects it's already pursuing in neighboring Pakistan as a part of similar investments globally known as the Belt and Road Initiative.
> 
> 
> Indeed, Pakistan appears at the center of the growing relationship between China and the Taliban, with Beijing relying on it for interpreting the cultural and linguistic divide. Pakistan in turn has come under increased Chinese influence through the growing number of economic investments Beijing has funded there, notably the China-Pakistan Economic Corridor or CPEC that flows through regions in the north where Taliban networks have sought refuge – apparently with at least some complicity from Pakistan's influential military.
> 
> U.S. News first reported a new intelligence sharing arrangement between the two Asian countries last year.
> 
> Pakistan's contributions to the instability in America's longest war zone are not lost on the Afghans, nor on those who follow the conflict closely. A seemingly benign tweet from the U.S. Embassy in Kabul soliciting suggestions for the agenda at the new Doha talks wrought near-unanimous replies and a trending hashtag: #SanctionPakistan
> 
> The fall of Kabul is not guaranteed, as American officials continue to insist. And in a call two weeks before the high-profile summit, Chinese President Xi Jinping assured Ghani of "China's firm support of the Afghan government." But the Taliban's onslaught has privately surprised the Biden administration with its speed and apparent success, officials familiar with internal deliberations say.
> 
> The Defense Department restarted in recent days a bombing campaign against Taliban positions in support of the pro-government ground forces, though Pentagon spokesman John Kirby said Wednesday the authority to do so expires with the planned full withdrawal of U.S. forces by the end of the month. And on Tuesday, President Joe Biden showed no signs of a willingness to reverse his decision for a full withdrawal.
> 
> "I think they're beginning to realize they've got to come together politically at the top," Biden told reporters at the White House, referring to the U.S.-backed government in Kabul. "We're going to continue to keep our commitment. But I do not regret my decision."
> 
> With this deadline in sight, China has begun preparing for what it considers more realistic contingencies that would grant both Beijing and the Taliban what they seek in the near future. It's a prospect met with little surprise from those who study the region closely.
> 
> "If you suspect there's a good possibility that a new government is coming to power, it's potentially useful to set conditions such that if those folks succeed in taking power, you're well positioned to extract a bargaining concession from them," says Tyler Jost, a professor at Brown University who studies Chinese national security decision-making. "In this case, any potential connections between Islamist groups and Xinjiang would likely be front and center in the minds of Chinese decision-makers. It's such a central priority for them."
> 
> Chinese Communist Party officials have held increasingly frequent and visible engagements with Taliban leaders – including a high-profile summit two weeks ago in the northeastern coastal city of Tianjin – in which they ostensibly touted the need for them to participate in the U.S.-backed peace process in Doha.
> 
> 
> It's unclear whether this or other Chinese delegations have communicated their intentions explicitly to the Taliban, though the insurgent network's brazenness in recent weeks suggests it sees the American threats of international isolation as inconsequential.
> 
> It also remains to be seen whether the Taliban will follow through on their promises to deny safe haven to foreign fighters after spending two decades refusing American demands for similar concessions about al-Qaida. China, however, is not saddling the Taliban with the lofty bureaucratic expectations the U.S. and its Western partners have for Afghanistan's future.
> 
> "Beijing doesn't necessarily place the same emphasis on factors the U.S. sees as central to the future of Afghanistan, such as sustaining democratic elections or human rights," Jost says. "Traditionally, Beijing doesn't emphasize either in its diplomacy – or at least does not do so with the same definitions that the U.S. employs."
> 
> It remains unclear whether China's intentions with regard to the Taliban will grant it what it seeks, says Yun Sun, director of the Stimson Center's China Program, who documented relations between the two in a thorough analysis published this week on the national security website War on the Rocks.
> 
> Afghanistan may well collapse into a protracted civil war, Sun says, which would undercut the arrangements that China or any other foreign power seeks there.
> 
> What is clear from China's latest moves, however, is that the shifting U.S. goals for Afghanistan have not succeeded.
> 
> Adds Sun, "Fundamentally, what's implied is that the recognition of the legitimacy of the Taliban equates to the total failure of the 20 years of war by the U.S. in Afghanistan."
> 
> 
> 
> https://www.usnews.com/news/world-report/articles/2021-08-12/china-prepared-to-recognize-taliban-if-kabul-falls-sources-say-undermining-us-threats


Just to keep the record straight this development came after when the perpetrators and handlers of Dasu Terrorist attack on Chinese worker are not only recognized but all the relevant record of from Financial support logistic and planners are uncovered and shared with China officially by Pakistan and Pakistan has officially declared Afghan Intelligence Agency NDS and Indian Intelligence Agency RAW as the main actors behind this attack.

Keep in mind Afghan Intelligence agency report directly to President & Vice President of Afghanistan

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## Dalit

Indians, Americans, NATO gang and Northern Alliance are deeply demoralized.


----------



## Taimoor Khan

HRK said:


> Just to keep the record straight this development came after when the perpetrators and handlers of Dasu Terrorist attack on Chinese worker are not only recognized but all the relevant record of from Financial support logistic and planners are uncovered and shared with China officially by Pakistan and Pakistan has officially declared Afghan Intelligence Agency NDS and Indian Intelligence Agency RAW as the main actors behind this attack.
> 
> Keep in mind Afghan Intelligence agency report directly to President & Vice President of Afghanistan




Precisely. Maybe one the reason Amarullah Saleh did the run to Tajikistan, knowing that he has been caught with his pants down. He is known to be CIA pet as well.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## CatSultan

MH.Yang said:


> We never interfere in the internal affairs of other countries


lmao. That is obviously a lie. Every country interferes in the affairs of other countries. Even Pakistan.


----------



## Pakistan Space Agency

As the saying goes, if you can't fight them, join them.


----------



## Dalit

This is what really terrifies US/NATO and Indian gang. Recognition and legitimacy from regional powerhouses such as China and Russia. Icing on cake will be Iran. It would really break Indian and US/NATO back. Isolation of Taliban is out of the question.


----------



## MH.Yang

CatSultan said:


> lmao. That is obviously a lie. Every country interferes in the affairs of other countries. Even Pakistan.



If you don't believe it, you can give examples. every time China join in foreign events, Or at the request of a foreign government (Belt and Road), Or involving Chinese territory and China, Or involving China's allies (Korean War, first Indochina war and Vietnam War)

You don't even know the name of China's intelligence organization. Because we don't like to participate in chaos.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## CatSultan

MH.Yang said:


> If you don't believe it, you can give examples. every time China join in foreign events, Or at the request of a foreign government (Belt and Road), Or involving Chinese territory and China, Or involving China's allies (Korean War, first Indochina war and Vietnam War)
> 
> You don't even know the name of China's intelligence organization. Because we don't like to participate in chaos.


How many social credits did Xi Xinping give you for this post. lol


----------



## Dalit

MH.Yang said:


> If you don't believe it, you can give examples. every time China join in foreign events, Or at the request of a foreign government (Belt and Road), Or involving Chinese territory and China, Or involving China's allies (Korean War, first Indochina war and Vietnam War)
> 
> You don't even know the name of China's intelligence organization. Because we don't like to participate in chaos.



Well done China. China is set to reap full benefits.


----------



## MH.Yang

CatSultan said:


> How many social credits did Xi Xinping give you for this post. lol



You can't find an example, can you? So you decided to slander me directly.

We do not interfere in the internal affairs of other countries. 
For example even if India is hostile to us. We don't also support the Indian Maoist organization.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## 艹艹艹

Don't listen to words, but look at actual action.
Isis, al-Qaidah, ETIM must be cleared.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Beast

China also do not like Bacha Bazi.. Only the sick Northern alliance allow such thing.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## CatSultan

MH.Yang said:


> You can't find an example, can you? So you decided to slander me directly.
> 
> We do not interfere in the internal affairs of other countries.
> For example even if India is hostile to us. We don't also support the Indian Maoist organization.


I wasn't slandering anybody. I was just joking


----------



## MH.Yang

CatSultan said:


> I wasn't slandering anybody. I was just joking



China believes that economic relations determine political relations, and political relations determine military relations. 

Therefore, non-interference in foreign internal affairs is the rule most in our interests. 

Because the interference of external forces will only lead to greater chaos. 
China is a trading country, trade needs a peaceful environment, and China needs a peaceful world. Any increase in chaos will harm China's interests.
So you often see that China has always opposed the use of sanctions or force to solve problems at the UN, and called for peaceful negotiations.
Usually, China's behavior is predictable. Otherwise, the Taliban would not want Beijing's support.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## zectech

What do you call a country who believes in "liberty", "freedom" and "democracy", but lies and genocides dozens of times, is at war nearly constantly. And believes itself to be superior even when it is an oligarchy and squashes freedom, democracy and liberty in their "own land" and around the globe.

A: a cult

UK/US are a cult

Worse and more murderous than any other cult. UK/US are not even countries, calling these diabolical cults is hitting the target.

China has to deal with Washington privately as though Washington was some evil cult, which it is.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## zectech

Washington is hypocrisy. Socialism for me, not for thee.









Corporate Socialism: The Government is Bailing Out Investors & Managers Not You


(With Mark Spitznagel)




medium.com





Welfare for me, not for thee.









Ten Examples of Welfare for the Rich and Corporations


Here are the top 10 examples of corporate welfare and welfare for the rich. There are actually thousands of tax breaks and subsidies for the rich and corporations provided by federal, state and local governments, but these 10 will give a taste.




www.huffpost.com





The Latin Americans looks out for their own people, with democracy, and does socialism and welfare for the poor. And has Roman Empire capitalism of the state owning the resources for the benefit of the people, that the people demand. Expect that country to be treated like Bolivia or Hugo Chavez Venezuela.

The NYT published an article saying it was Cecil Rhodes and other British Oligarchs mission to make the Anglos rich and the rest of the worlds population very poor and exploitable. This is still the US/UK oligarchs goal. To have no economic, military, political rivals.

This is not a democracy:

America’s political and military mission in the post-cold-war era is to ensure that no rival superpower is allowed to emerge in Western Europe, Asia or the territories of the former Soviet Union..The classified document makes the case for a world dominated by one superpower whose position can be perpetuated by constructive behavior and sufficient military might to deter any nation or group of nations from challenging American primacy. US Department of Defense, The New York Times, March, 1992.

This is an Empire. And to call it a democracy concerned with "liberty" and "freedom"... makes it a cult.

This is not a democracy. This is the oligarch class paranoid about being replaced by intelligent Asians:









Harvard discrimination trial reveals Ivy League school's different SAT standards for Asian-Americans


Harvard University uses different SAT score standards for prospective students based on factors such as race, a fact revealed in a lawsuit alleging the Ivy League school of discriminating against Asian-Americans in its admissions process, which the dean adamantly denies.




www.foxnews.com

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## FuturePAF

Eric prince is on Fox News saying the prison at Bagram was assaulted and the prisoners released. Is this true?


----------



## Trango Towers

FuturePAF said:


> Eric prince is on Fox News saying the prison at Bagram was assaulted and the prisoners released. Is this true?


Erik prince needs a taliban talking to


----------



## FuturePAF

Beast said:


> China also do not like Bacha Bazi.. Only the sick Northern alliance allow such thing.



The Indian media (propaganda news channel WION) even covered this. It’s a sick sick practice that no one from the world tried to stop, just because the ANA was fighting against the Taliban. (Search YouTube for WION and Bacha Bazi and you will find the documentary, I won’t link to it here because it too disturbing)


----------



## Beast

FuturePAF said:


> The Indian media (propaganda news channel WION) even covered this. It’s a sick sick practice that no one from the world tried to stop, just because the ANA was fighting against the Taliban. (Search YouTube for WION and Bacha Bazi and you will find the documentary, I won’t link to it here because it too disturbing)


Norther Alliance are highly corrupted. They are doomed to fail.


----------



## FuturePAF

Beast said:


> Norther Alliance are highly corrupted. They are doomed to fail.


True.

Also, when a student is learning the game of “Go” and asking where it has ever been used in modern warfare. They can point to Afghanistan in 2021.


----------



## casual

Afghan Gov don't have any leverage on the Taliban. The only negotiation the Taliban will be interested in now is the terms of surrender of the Afghan gov.


----------



## beijingwalker

*Taliban enter Afghan capital as US diplomats evacuate by chopper*

August 15, 20215:53 PM CST



Taliban enter Kabul from all sides - interior ministry official
U.S. diplomats evacuated by chopper
President's office says firing heard but situation under control
Eastern city of Jalalabad falls without a fight

KABUL (Reuters) - Taliban insurgents entered the Afghanistan capital Kabul on Sunday, an interior ministry official said, as the United States evacuated diplomats from its embassy by helicopter.

The senior official told Reuters the Taliban were coming in "from all sides" but gave no further details.

A tweet from the Afghan Presidential palace account said firing had been heard at a number of points around Kabul but that security forces, in coordination with international partners, had control of the city.

U.S. officials said the diplomats were being ferried to the airport from the embassy in the fortified Wazir Akbar Khan district. More American troops were being sent to help in the evacuations after the Taliban's lightning advances brought the Islamist group to Kabul in a matter of days.

*J**ust last week, a U.S. intelligence estimate said Kabul could hold out for at least three months.*

"Core" U.S. team members were working from the Kabul airport, a U.S. official said, while a NATO official said several EU staff had moved to a safer, undisclosed location in the capital.

A Taliban official told Reuters the group did not want any casualties as it took charge but had not declared a ceasefire.

There was no immediate word on the situation from President Ashraf Ghani, who said on Saturday he was in urgent consultations with local leaders and international partners on the situation.

Earlier on Sunday, the insurgents captured the eastern city of Jalalabad without a fight, giving them control of one of the main highways into landlocked Afghanistan. They also took over the nearby Torkham border post with Pakistan, leaving Kabul airport the only way out of Afghanistan that is still in government hands.

The capture of Jalalabad followed the Taliban's seizure of the northern city of Mazar-i-Sharif late on Saturday, also with little fighting.

"There are no clashes taking place right now in Jalalabad because the governor has surrendered to the Taliban," a Jalalabad-based Afghan official told Reuters. "Allowing passage to the Taliban was the only way to save civilian lives."

A video clip distributed by the Taliban showed people cheering and shout Allahu Akbar - God is greatest - as a convoy of pick-up trucks entered the city with fighters brandishing machine guns and the white Taliban flag.

After U.S.-led forces withdrew the bulk of the their remaining troops in the last month, the Taliban campaign accelerated as the Afghan military's defences appeared to collapse https://www.reuters.com/article/afg...us-efforts-to-build-afghan-army-idUSL8N2PL043.

President Joe Biden on Saturday authorised https://www.reuters.com/world/us/bi...rces-help-drawdown-personnel-kabul-2021-08-14 the deployment of 5,000 U.S. troops to help evacuate citizens and ensure an "orderly and safe" drawdown of military personnel. A U.S. defence official said that included 1,000 newly approved troops from the 82nd Airborne Division.

Taliban fighters entered Mazar-i-Sharif virtually unopposed as security forces escaped up the highway to Uzbekistan, about 80 km (50 miles) to the north, provincial officials said. Unverified video on social media showed Afghan army vehicles and men in uniforms crowding the iron bridge between the Afghan town of Hairatan and Uzbekistan.

Two influential militia leaders supporting the government - Atta Mohammad Noor and Abdul Rashid Dostum - also fled https://www.reuters.com/world/asia-...atta-noor-dostum-escape-conspiracy-2021-08-14. Noor said on social media that the Taliban had been handed control of Balkh province, where Mazar-i-Sharif is located, due to a "conspiracy."

POPULARLY ACCEPTED

In a statement late on Saturday, the Taliban said its rapid gains showed it was popularly accepted by the Afghan people and reassured both Afghans and foreigners that they would be safe.

The Islamic Emirate, as the Taliban calls itself, "will, as always, protect their life, property and honour, and create a peaceful and secure environment for its beloved nation," it said, adding that diplomats and aid workers would also face no problems.

Afghans have fled the provinces to enter Kabul in recent days, fearing a return to hardline Islamist rule https://www.reuters.com/world/asia-...forced-roles-taliban-takes-control-2021-08-13.

Early on Sunday, refugees from Taliban-controlled provinces were seen unloading belongings from taxis and families stood outside embassy gates, while the city's downtown was packed with people stocking up on supplies.

Hundreds of people slept huddled in tents or in the open in the city, by roadsides or in car parks, a resident said on Saturday night. "You can see the fear in their faces," he said.

Biden said his administration had told Taliban officials in talks in Qatar that any action that put U.S. personnel at risk "will be met with a swift and strong U.S. military response."

He has faced rising domestic criticism as the Taliban have taken city after city far more quickly than predicted. The president has stuck to a plan, initiated by his Republican predecessor, Donald Trump, to end the U.S. military mission in Afghanistan by Aug. 31.

Biden said it is up to the Afghan military to hold its own territory. "An endless American presence in the middle of another country's civil conflict was not acceptable to me," Biden said on Saturday.

Qatar, which has been hosting so-far inconclusive peace talks between the Afghan government and the Taliban, said it had urged the insurgents to cease fire. Ghani has given no sign of responding to a Taliban demand that he resign as a condition for any ceasefire.










Taliban enter Afghan capital as US diplomats evacuate by chopper


Taliban insurgents entered the Afghanistan capital Kabul on Sunday, an interior ministry official said, as the United States evacuated diplomats from its embassy by helicopter.




www.reuters.com

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## beijingwalker

Vietnam then, Afghanistan now: Tense Kabul evacuation rekindles memories of another US retreat


The Vietnam operation, dubbed Operation Frequent Wind, saw more than 7,000 Vietnamese civilians evacuated from Saigon on 29 and 30 April 1975 by helicopter




www.firstpost.com













US Embassy to be evacuated in 72 HOURS and staff rushes to the airport


Sen. Mitch McConnell has called for US airstrikes against the Taliban in Afghanistan as warlords moved to within seven miles of Kabul and prepare to isolate the capital.




www.dailymail.co.uk





*Fall of Saigon 2.0, Americans just never learn




*

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Windjammer

@SQ8

Reactions: Like Like:
7 | Haha Haha:
1 | Wow Wow:
1


----------



## Mentee




----------



## Dalit

*




*

Reactions: Like Like:
6 | Haha Haha:
1


----------



## Get Ya Wig Split

Dalit said:


> *
> View attachment 769875
> *








Don't pull the thang out, unless you plan to bang
_Bombs over Baghdad!_
Yeah, don't even bang unless you plan to hit something
_Bombs over Baghdad!_

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## hualushui



Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## hualushui



Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Wow Wow:
2


----------



## Dalit

Another one for the history books.


----------



## waz

hualushui said:


> View attachment 769953



That is very uncanny.


----------



## Reichsmarschall

Going to watch this movie tonight.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## gambit

master_13 said:


> Makes you wonder what kind of inferior US "trainings" have been provided to Afghanistan the whole time. American trained Afghan troops vs. Afghan trained Taliban, American trained South Vietnamese vs. Vietnamese trained North Vietnamese, American trained South Korean vs. Korean trained North Korean, American trained Iraqis vs. Iraqi trained ISIS.... American trained troops almost always fail once American support is gone. Makes you wonder all US did was to just provide weapons to them and never really "trained" them on anything else. No wonder American "trained" troops just melt away as soon as American air/heavy weapon supports are gone.


Do not forget Soviet and China trained Iraq. Re: Desert Storm.


----------



## FairAndUnbiased

gambit said:


> Do not forget Soviet and China trained Iraq. Re: Desert Storm.



China never trained Iraq, they flew Mirages and Migs, drove T-72s.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## AsianLion

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1426994181738844160

Reactions: Like Like:
7


----------



## Protest_again

Seriously how is this victory of Taliban over US?

Reactions: Haha Haha:
3


----------



## beijingwalker

*Swift Taliban takeover leaves U.S. image in tatters*


Aug 16, 2021

WASHINGTON – After two decades in Afghanistan, America’s longest war was ending with the image of the United States in tatters.

With the swift collapse Sunday of the government in Kabul, the 20th anniversary of the Sept. 11 attacks that triggered the U.S. invasion will be marked with the Taliban back in control of Afghanistan, despite a cost to the United States of nearly 2,500 lives and more than $2 trillion.

To some observers, *the debacle following the withdrawal of U.S. troops will inevitably weaken the United States on the global stage at a time when President Joe Biden was speaking of rallying democracies in the face of a rising China.*

“America’s credibility as an ally is diminished because of the way the Afghan government was abandoned beginning with the Doha talks,” said Husain Haqqani, Pakistan’s former ambassador to the United States, referring to the deal last year in the Qatari capital with the Taliban in which the United States set a pullout timeline.

Haqqani, now a senior fellow at the Hudson Institute, noted how U.S. diplomats in the end could do little more than send tweets urging the Taliban to stop.

“That envoys of the mightiest nation on Earth can be duped as they were in Doha, and its leaders ignored so easily as they have been in the final days, will encourage others to engage in duplicitous diplomacy,” Haqqani said.

Biden faced heated criticism that the withdrawal was mismanaged, with the United States racing to evacuate its sprawling embassy just a month after he played down fears the Afghan government would crumble quickly.

“It is going to have ramifications not just for Afghanistan,” said Rep. Liz Cheney, a Republican hawk.

“America’s adversaries know they can threaten us, and our allies are questioning this morning whether they can count on us for anything,” she said in an ABC interview.

*Mixed message to China*
The Biden administration is quick to point out that former President Donald Trump negotiated the Doha deal on the withdrawal and that a majority of the U.S. public favors ending “forever wars.”

Trump has repeatedly put the blame on his successor, however, calling for him to resign on Sunday “in disgrace for what he has allowed to happen to Afghanistan.”

“What Joe Biden has done with Afghanistan is legendary. It will go down as one of the greatest defeats in American history!” he said in an earlier Sunday statement.

Secretary of State Antony Blinken, also speaking on ABC, said the United States had “succeeded” in its primary mission of bringing justice to the al-Qaida perpetrators of the Sept. 11 attacks.

“It’s also true that there’s nothing that our strategic competitors around the world would like more than to see us bogged down in Afghanistan for another five, 10 or 20 years. That is not in the national interest,” Blinken said.

China, which the Biden administration sees as the nation’s pre-eminent challenge, has already rhetorically pounced, with the nationalistic state-run Global Times publishing an analysis saying Afghanistan showed Washington to be an “unreliable partner that always abandons its partners or allies to seek self-interest.”

But Richard Fontaine, chief executive officer of the Center for a New American Security, said it was simplistic to think that China would be emboldened, for example, to move on Taiwan, a self-ruling democracy claimed by Beijing that depends on U.S. weapons.

China may instead see the high cost that the United States is willing to pay in exiting Afghanistan as a sign of seriousness in shifting to the Pacific, Fontaine said.

But Fontaine, who opposed the withdrawal, said the United States was taking major risks by effectively ceding Afghanistan to the Taliban, who never formally broke with al-Qaida.

“Now that it looks like the Taliban will be running the country, I think the chances of a terrorist threat are pretty high,” he said.

“If that’s the case, it could well increase distraction from our focus on the bigger strategic challenges in China.”


*New era on military?*
Some policymakers argued for maintaining a residual force of some 2,500 troops in Afghanistan, but Biden decided the war was over and he should not risk further U.S. lives.

Trita Parsi, executive vice president of the Quincy Institute for Responsible Statecraft, which supports U.S. military restraint, said the ones who have now lost credibility are advocates for a continued war.

“When you see that the whole thing falls apart in nine days, this was nothing more than a house of cards,” Parsi said.

He hoped the withdrawal would help end the view, in Washington but also among allies, that the U.S. military should be the first resort.

“Perhaps some of the external pressures on the United States to act as if it is the answer to everything in the world will reduce.”










Article expired


News on Japan, Business News, Opinion, Sports, Entertainment and More




www.japantimes.co.jp

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Haha Haha:
1


----------



## Goritoes

Protest_again said:


> Seriously how is this victory of Taliban over US?



Political Victory and to a extent Military, but the latter is open for discussion. It depends on which definition of Victory you are subscribing for.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Goritoes

I'd rather have bad US image about a war which costs thousands of American lives and trillions of dollars gone to waste, US made the right decision and world can and must suck it up to it. American forces should only die for their homeland and country, not in fights of others, civil wars or opium wars , or regional conflicts.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## IbnAbdullah

Salaam



Protest_again said:


> Seriously how is this victory of Taliban over US?



I doubt mullah omar meant the Taliban would be conquering Washington at the end of the war. 

The Americans were unable to end the Taliban and in fact after two decades and an unbelievably large amount of resources the Taliban are back stronger than ever. The Americans haven't even fully left yet. 

So despite the massive difference in resources, the Americans were unable to decisively defeat the Taliban and finish them. 

The Mission wasn't accomplished.

Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## beijingwalker

Goritoes said:


> I'd rather have bad US image about a war which costs thousands of American lives and trillions of dollars gone to waste, US made the right decision and world can and must suck it up to it. American forces should only die for their homeland and country, not in fights of others, civil wars or opium wars , or regional conflicts.


This is what China suggests US do for decades, US just doesn't listen and insists on learning the lesson the hard way.


----------



## AsianLion

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1427051060334583810


----------



## FuturePAF

IbnAbdullah said:


> Salaam
> 
> 
> 
> I doubt mullah omar meant the Taliban would be conquering Washington at the end of the war.
> 
> The Americans were unable to end the Taliban and in fact after two decades and an unbelievably large amount of resources the Taliban are back stronger than ever. The Americans haven't even fully left yet.
> 
> So despite the massive difference in resources, the Americans were unable to decisively defeat the Taliban and finish them.
> 
> The Mission wasn't accomplished.



Ironically, American intervention allowed the Talibs to take the north in the end and in a sense end the stalemated civil war of 2001. Territory they had never controlled before. They allowed the Talibs to build good relations with all its neighbors and allowed them to take out its rivals so a threat of another resistance to their rule is not as likely.

Talibs would probably use a Nigerian saying to the Americans; “clap for yourself”

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Protest_again

IbnAbdullah said:


> Salaam
> 
> 
> 
> I doubt mullah omar meant the Taliban would be conquering Washington at the end of the war.
> 
> The Americans were unable to end the Taliban and in fact after two decades and an unbelievably large amount of resources the Taliban are back stronger than ever. The Americans haven't even fully left yet.
> 
> So despite the massive difference in resources, the Americans were unable to decisively defeat the Taliban and finish them.
> 
> The Mission wasn't accomplished.


When was it the American mission to kill off Taliban? It could easily do so.

America gave 20 years and a trillion for Afghans to grow up and achieve a sense of democracy and rule of law. It's the Afghans that failed not America IMO.

Reactions: Haha Haha:
3


----------



## Valiant

Protest_again said:


> When was it the American mission to kill off Taliban? It could easily do so.
> 
> America gave 20 years and a trillion for Afghans to grow up and achieve a sense of democracy and rule of law. It's the Afghans that failed not America IMO.



I mean, if I invest $200 in propping up a project and it falters, the failure is both mine and the venture's. It's quite simple

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Protest_again

Goritoes said:


> Political Victory and to a extent Military, but the latter is open for discussion. It depends on which definition of Victory you are subscribing for.


Nothing of the sort. Americans were never planning to stay there forever.

Reactions: Haha Haha:
2


----------



## AsianLion

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1427051060334583810

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Hamartia Antidote

Goritoes said:


> I'd rather have bad US image about a war which costs thousands of American lives and trillions of dollars gone to waste, US made the right decision and world can and must suck it up to it. American forces should only die for their homeland and country, not in fights of others, civil wars or opium wars , or regional conflicts.



This dumb nation-building notion should be left to the UN. As soon as Al-Quaeda became a non-issue we should have left. The Taliban wasn't even on the list.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Protest_again

Valiant said:


> I mean, if I invest $200 in propping up a project and it falters, the failure is both mine and the ventures. It's quite simple



America just provided money. It has no bone in the game. Dollar is cheap for America, they just need to print it. It's unfortunate that Afghans lost to terrorists.


----------



## Valiant

Protest_again said:


> America just provided money. It has no bone in the game. Dollar is cheap for America, they just need to print it. It's unfortunate that Afghans lost to terrorists.



Are you serious? The US lost over 3000 men, spent 2 decades in the country alongside allies and you're seriously saying it has no bone in the game. Does India not have a stake in Kashmir by that logic either?

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Hamartia Antidote

IbnAbdullah said:


> Salaam
> 
> 
> 
> I doubt mullah omar meant the Taliban would be conquering Washington at the end of the war.
> 
> The Americans were unable to end the Taliban and in fact after two decades and an unbelievably large amount of resources the Taliban are back stronger than ever. The Americans haven't even fully left yet.
> 
> So despite the massive difference in resources, the Americans were unable to decisively defeat the Taliban and finish them.
> 
> The Mission wasn't accomplished.



The mission was eliminating Osama and Al-Quaeda. I don't remember eliminating the Taliban as a requirement.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Haha Haha:
2


----------



## Beast

Protest_again said:


> Seriously how is this victory of Taliban over US?


LOL... Like India will claim 98% success for lunar soft landing mission when your tortoise rover flipped and KIA on Moon.

Reactions: Haha Haha:
2


----------



## Protest_again

Valiant said:


> Are you serious? The US lost over 3000 men, spent 2 decades in the country alongside allies and you're seriously saying it has no bone in the game. Does India not have a stake in Kashmir by that logic either?


I meant occupying Afghanistan was never the mission of US. It went there to eliminate a threat. It did so. Taliban or not, Afghanistan is no threat to US anymore. Yet still they spent money to provide freedom to Afghans. It is for Afghans to safeguard that freedom. However they lost. I don't see how this is loss for America. It's not like Americans lost their freedom. 

Your analogy of somebody has invested $200 and the business failed is not correct in this situation. America just invested in something that is available, it was not a informed business choice.


Beast said:


> LOL... Like India will claim 98% success for lunar soft landing mission when your tortoise rover flipped and KIA on Moon.


Don't know why Chinese are jumping up and down. Do you not care for normal Afghans having to suffer under Taliban?


----------



## Valiant

Protest_again said:


> I meant occupying Afghanistan was never the mission of US. It went there to eliminate a threat. It did so. Taliban or not, Afghanistan is no threat to US anymore. Yet still they spent money to provide freedom to Afghans. It is for Afghans to safeguard that freedom. However they lost. I don't see how this is loss for America. It's not like Americans lost their freedom.
> 
> Your analogy of somebody has invested $200 and the business failed is not correct in this situation. America just invested in something that is available, it was not a informed business choice.



The US is an imperial power. There was no benevolence in their ventures in Afghanistan, Iraq or elsewhere. It was strictly a business move, made after 9/11. The hunt for OBL could've ended in a year yet they dragged their heels and got sucked into the vortex. 

How was investing in the ANA not an informed business choice? They raised the army and trained them. It's their offspring.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Beast

Hamartia Antidote said:


> The mission was eliminating Osama and Al-Quaeda. I don't remember eliminating the Taliban as a requirement.


LOL.. Shift goalpost so fast!



https://fas.org/sgp/crs/row/R45122.pdf




Protest_again said:


> Don't know why Chinese are jumping up and down. Do you not care for normal Afghans having to suffer under Taliban?



I am happy, no more sicko Bacha Bazi practice happened in Afghanistan anymore.

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Love Love:
2


----------



## Pappa Alpha

Valiant said:


> The US is an imperial power. There was no benevolence in their ventures in Afghanistan, Iraq or elsewhere. It was strictly a business move, made after 9/11. The hunt for OBL could've ended in a year yet they dragged their heels and got sucked into the vortex.
> 
> How was investing in the ANA not an informed business choice? They raised the army and trained them. It's their offspring.


You will have better luck by arguing with pile of manure.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Haha Haha:
2


----------



## Goritoes

Hamartia Antidote said:


> This dumb nation-building notion should be left to the UN. As soon as Al-Quaeda became a non-issue we should have left. The Taliban wasn't even on the list.



I couldn't agree more, America shouldn't be there for nation built as its not possible, America might have better chance with a country from Europe for nation building but Afghanistan, its impossible even for Countries like KSA , Pakistan or Iran which has more similarities from culture to religion. But hey, at least the troops are now out, no more tax payers money goes in, America can easily work with Allies to keep a balance in Afghanistan.


beijingwalker said:


> This is what China suggests US do for decades, US just doesn't listen and insists on learning the lesson the hard way.



Pakistan before China was telling US the same thing, I think US super Power Ego was in the way to withdraw, or maybe there were some other under the table Missions which Americans wants done before finally withdrawing its forces. Allah knows best, but at least they are now going back and bringing the troops back, now its time for Afghan's to decide what to do with their country.


----------



## khail007

The evil occupational forces and their pets defeated politically, militarily. Time proved it. Definitely who were defeated and their pets are in pain and agony.
The big mouths of the past became the big farts of the present and still insisting and arguing. Shameless ...!

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Cash GK

Protest_again said:


> When was it the American mission to kill off Taliban? It could easily do so.
> 
> America gave 20 years and a trillion for Afghans to grow up and achieve a sense of democracy and rule of law. It's the Afghans that failed not America IMO.


When he said It is show his belive in devine power. You indian non believer will never understand. I give you reference to understand this.In history there were 300 against thousand conquest of holy city of Makkha then There were 20 thousand against 200k alp Arslan again great roman empair then 10 thousands against 100k conquest of spain. Then muhmmad bin Qasim conquest of Sindh subcontinent with small numbers. If you still dont see the humiliation India and usa has faced after this defeat. As student of history I must say it will be remembered for centuries to come. Their limitless believe in God defeated three history's best supper powers soviet usa nato in last 40 years. They used politics. First they used usa against soviet then they used Russia to defeat usa.. you think they are villagers with slippers with ak 47..they are smart

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Hamartia Antidote

Beast said:


> LOL.. Shift goalpost so fast!



I don't remember the Taliban being mentioned in the 9/11 attacks. I only remember them not handing over Osama.


----------



## Beast

Hamartia Antidote said:


> This dumb nation-building notion should be left to the UN. As soon as Al-Quaeda became a non-issue we should have left. The Taliban wasn't even on the list.


Taliban supported Al Qaeda. They host Osama Bin Laden and refuse to hand him to US. And now suddenly you claim Taliban isn't on the list just to save face?


----------



## Goritoes

I remember Bush once used the word Crusade against the Terrorists ( he was talking about Muslims ) well, Mr Bush Crusades did not achieve their goal and so did you. Terminologies like these help none other than the Taliban as they saw it as a Christian forces against Islam which gains them a lot of sympathy and recruits, Bush was a dumb President only to be succeeded by a even dumber Obama.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Beast

Hamartia Antidote said:


> I don't remember the Taliban being mentioned in the 9/11 attacks. I only remember them not handing over Osama.


So they are in cahoot but useless American cant do anything to caveman Taliban despite bragging to have sophisticated weapon and best train armed forces.


----------



## Hakikat ve Hikmet

The Empires can ill afford the losses....

Those at the top aren't as secured as those at the bottom....

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Hamartia Antidote

Beast said:


> Taliban supported Al Qaeda. They host Osama Bin Laden and refuse to hand him to US. And now suddenly you claim Taliban isn't on the list just to save face?



Yeah, but I don't remember Bush saying getting rid of the Taliban and doing nation-building when he announced the reasons for the Afghan invasion. I only heard attacking Al-Quaeda and any Afghan military support for them.

Scope creep.


----------



## Hamartia Antidote

Protest_again said:


> Yet still they spent money to provide freedom to Afghans. It is for Afghans to safeguard that freedom. However they lost. I don't see how this is loss for America. It's not like Americans lost their freedom.



The problem is like when Germany installed the Vichy government in France during WW2. It doesn't matter how supposedly good it is if the people don''t like it then it isn't going to last. You can't line all the people up infront of a firing squad who don't like it. Let the UN deal with nation-building..

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## NA71

Protest_again said:


> Seriously how is this victory of Taliban over US?



Seriously i doubt your health is not 100% ...at least read you post twice before posting


----------



## hualushui

Reichsmarschall said:


> Going to watch this movie tonight.
> View attachment 769956


*CCTV-6 will broadcast an American movie tonight: A Dog's Way Home*

Reactions: Haha Haha:
4


----------



## chinasun

*TALIBAN Captured Afghanistan | 15 august 2021*


----------



## Trango Towers

Goritoes said:


> I'd rather have bad US image about a war which costs thousands of American lives and trillions of dollars gone to waste, US made the right decision and world can and must suck it up to it. American forces should only die for their homeland and country, not in fights of others, civil wars or opium wars , or regional conflicts.


I think its all you lying cheating deceiving Americans who got fooled by AIPAC that's you are free and forced into invading countries where you practiced rape torture rendition flights and forced UN resolutions making you whiter than white ...

Remember mullah Omars promise to your Bush that victory will be God's....where is Bush...

Shame on you...shame on the armies of the world and most of all the world laughs at your military might...ragheads win and hillbillies inbreds lose..

Have a nice day .... continue name calling ....LOSER

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## rambro

They had it coming as they werent there for nation building but as invading looters etc.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Goritoes

Trango Towers said:


> I think its all you lying cheating deceiving Americans who got fooled by AIPAC that's you are free and forced into invading countries where you practiced rape torture rendition flights and forced UN resolutions making you whiter than white ...
> 
> Remember mullah Omars promise to your Bush that victory will be God's....where is Bush...
> 
> Shame on you...shame on the armies of the world and most of all the world laughs at your military might...ragheads win and hillbillies inbreds lose..
> 
> Have a nice day .... continue name calling ....LOSER



I think you quote the wrong person.


----------



## Protest_again

beijingwalker said:


> *Swift Taliban takeover leaves U.S. image in tatters*
> 
> 
> Aug 16, 2021
> 
> WASHINGTON – After two decades in Afghanistan, America’s longest war was ending with the image of the United States in tatters.
> 
> With the swift collapse Sunday of the government in Kabul, the 20th anniversary of the Sept. 11 attacks that triggered the U.S. invasion will be marked with the Taliban back in control of Afghanistan, despite a cost to the United States of nearly 2,500 lives and more than $2 trillion.
> 
> To some observers, *the debacle following the withdrawal of U.S. troops will inevitably weaken the United States on the global stage at a time when President Joe Biden was speaking of rallying democracies in the face of a rising China.*
> 
> “America’s credibility as an ally is diminished because of the way the Afghan government was abandoned beginning with the Doha talks,” said Husain Haqqani, Pakistan’s former ambassador to the United States, referring to the deal last year in the Qatari capital with the Taliban in which the United States set a pullout timeline.
> 
> Haqqani, now a senior fellow at the Hudson Institute, noted how U.S. diplomats in the end could do little more than send tweets urging the Taliban to stop.
> 
> “That envoys of the mightiest nation on Earth can be duped as they were in Doha, and its leaders ignored so easily as they have been in the final days, will encourage others to engage in duplicitous diplomacy,” Haqqani said.
> 
> Biden faced heated criticism that the withdrawal was mismanaged, with the United States racing to evacuate its sprawling embassy just a month after he played down fears the Afghan government would crumble quickly.
> 
> “It is going to have ramifications not just for Afghanistan,” said Rep. Liz Cheney, a Republican hawk.
> 
> “America’s adversaries know they can threaten us, and our allies are questioning this morning whether they can count on us for anything,” she said in an ABC interview.
> 
> *Mixed message to China*
> The Biden administration is quick to point out that former President Donald Trump negotiated the Doha deal on the withdrawal and that a majority of the U.S. public favors ending “forever wars.”
> 
> Trump has repeatedly put the blame on his successor, however, calling for him to resign on Sunday “in disgrace for what he has allowed to happen to Afghanistan.”
> 
> “What Joe Biden has done with Afghanistan is legendary. It will go down as one of the greatest defeats in American history!” he said in an earlier Sunday statement.
> 
> Secretary of State Antony Blinken, also speaking on ABC, said the United States had “succeeded” in its primary mission of bringing justice to the al-Qaida perpetrators of the Sept. 11 attacks.
> 
> “It’s also true that there’s nothing that our strategic competitors around the world would like more than to see us bogged down in Afghanistan for another five, 10 or 20 years. That is not in the national interest,” Blinken said.
> 
> China, which the Biden administration sees as the nation’s pre-eminent challenge, has already rhetorically pounced, with the nationalistic state-run Global Times publishing an analysis saying Afghanistan showed Washington to be an “unreliable partner that always abandons its partners or allies to seek self-interest.”
> 
> But Richard Fontaine, chief executive officer of the Center for a New American Security, said it was simplistic to think that China would be emboldened, for example, to move on Taiwan, a self-ruling democracy claimed by Beijing that depends on U.S. weapons.
> 
> China may instead see the high cost that the United States is willing to pay in exiting Afghanistan as a sign of seriousness in shifting to the Pacific, Fontaine said.
> 
> But Fontaine, who opposed the withdrawal, said the United States was taking major risks by effectively ceding Afghanistan to the Taliban, who never formally broke with al-Qaida.
> 
> “Now that it looks like the Taliban will be running the country, I think the chances of a terrorist threat are pretty high,” he said.
> 
> “If that’s the case, it could well increase distraction from our focus on the bigger strategic challenges in China.”
> 
> 
> *New era on military?*
> Some policymakers argued for maintaining a residual force of some 2,500 troops in Afghanistan, but Biden decided the war was over and he should not risk further U.S. lives.
> 
> Trita Parsi, executive vice president of the Quincy Institute for Responsible Statecraft, which supports U.S. military restraint, said the ones who have now lost credibility are advocates for a continued war.
> 
> “When you see that the whole thing falls apart in nine days, this was nothing more than a house of cards,” Parsi said.
> 
> He hoped the withdrawal would help end the view, in Washington but also among allies, that the U.S. military should be the first resort.
> 
> “Perhaps some of the external pressures on the United States to act as if it is the answer to everything in the world will reduce.”
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Article expired
> 
> 
> News on Japan, Business News, Opinion, Sports, Entertainment and More
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.japantimes.co.jp


Democracies by nature are unreliable as allies. Their involvement tends to sway by the mood of the public and internal politics. All countries are out their for themselves. Relying on others is foolish.


----------



## imadul

Bigger than a VICTORY..
History has turned a corner.
All US and European Media has paralyzed and Biden under most severe firestorm. 
India's 20 years hard investment to disable Pakistan and thus completely dissolving Kashmir has evaporated in 20 days.
Quad wont save India from a TWO-FRONT war.


----------



## hualushui

Goritoes said:


> American forces should only die for their homeland and country, not in fights of others, civil wars or opium wars , or regional conflicts.


Meaningless nonsense.
Is the US invasion of Afghanistan and Iraq for the Afghans and Iraqis?

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Goritoes

hualushui said:


> Meaningless nonsense.
> Is the US invasion of Afghanistan and Iraq for the Afghans and Iraqis?



What is nonsense ? that Americans should only fight for their homeland?  Do you even understand my post? I want Americans not to fight in others wars or conflicts..


----------



## Clutch

Protest_again said:


> Seriously how is this victory of Taliban over US?



Make a Bollywood movie about your version of reality.

Reactions: Haha Haha:
1


----------



## Baby Leone

Goritoes said:


> Political Victory and to a extent Military, but the latter is open for discussion. It depends on which definition of Victory you are subscribing for.


US got the same kinda victory Indians are feeded by their hindutva govt about their victory against Pakistan in all wars including 27 Feb 2019 dog fight  


Protest_again said:


> America just provided money. It has no bone in the game. Dollar is cheap for America, they just need to print it. It's unfortunate that Afghans lost to terrorists.


phul sapport sarrrrrrrr


----------



## hualushui

Hamartia Antidote said:


> Yeah, but I don't remember Bush saying getting rid of the Taliban and doing nation-building when he announced the reasons for the Afghan invasion. I only heard attacking Al-Quaeda and any Afghan military support for them.
> 
> Scope creep.


But American soldier fled Afghanistan like a wet dog


Goritoes said:


> What is nonsense ? that Americans should only fight for their homeland?  Do you even understand my post? I want Americans not to fight in others wars or conflicts..


I'm mocking you

Reactions: Sad Sad:
1


----------



## Cash GK

Goritoes said:


> I'd rather have bad US image about a war which costs thousands of American lives and trillions of dollars gone to waste, US made the right decision and world can and must suck it up to it. American forces should only die for their homeland and country, not in fights of others, civil wars or opium wars , or regional conflicts.


Agree. Every country must stay with in their limits and every men Must fight for their own nation not to occupy other countries and die there uselessly for Politicians and weapon makers.every country as self respect n they have right to self determination.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## 8888888888888




----------



## SQ8

@Windjammer it is very much being seen in this light and especially by the veterans who see their entire efforts essentially wasted.


----------



## master_13

gambit said:


> Do not forget Soviet and China trained Iraq. Re: Desert Storm.


china never even trained Iraqis, in fact, China and Iraq weren't even friends when US invaded.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Trango Towers

The Afghan Embassy in India sent out a tweet calling Afghan President Ashraf Ghani a 'traitor' who 'screwed and f---ed everything up'


In a now-deleted tweet, the official account of the Afghan Embassy said Ghani's legacy "will be a stain on our history."




uk.yahoo.com





The Afghan Embassy in India sent out a tweet calling Afghan President Ashraf Ghani a 'traitor' who 'screwed and f---ed everything up'
Cheryl Teh
Mon, 16 August 2021, 4:01 am·2-min read
FILE PHOTO: Afghanistan&#39;s President Ashraf Ghani speaks during a news conference in Kabul, Afghanistan March 1, 2020. REUTERS/Omar Sobhani
Afghanistan's President Ashraf Ghani speaks during a news conference in Kabul. Reuters
In a now-deleted tweet, the Afghan Embassy in India called President Ashraf Ghani a "traitor."

"He screwed and f---ed everything up," read the tweet.

Ghani fled his presidential palace in Kabul on Sunday in the midst of a Taliban takeover of Kabul.

See more stories on Insider's business page.

The Afghan Embassy in India tweeted harsh criticism of the country's President Ashraf Ghani, who fled his palace in Kabul on Sunday leaving the city vulnerable for a Taliban takeover.

Scroll to continue with contentAd
Ey Parthenon Brigge
Ghani left Afghanistan for Tajikistan while Taliban fighters entered Kabul, Afghanistan's capital and its largest city. The Taliban is now set to formally retake power in the country and rename it the Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan, following the withdrawal of American troops and a hurried evacuation of US diplomats.

Insider saw a now-deleted tweet from the Embassy's official Twitter account posted at around 7.30 p.m. on August 15, which read: "We are all banging our heads in shame. Ghani Baba @ashrafghani fled with his crooks."

"He screwed and f---ed everything up. We apologize to everyone for serving the fugitive. May Allah punish the traitor! His legacy will be a stain on our history," the tweet continued.

To view this content, you'll need to update your privacy settings.
Please click here to do so.
Ghani, an academic and economist who became president in 2014, made a post on Facebook on August 15 saying that leaving Afghanistan was a "hard choice."

"Should I stand to face the armed Taliban entering the palace or leave the dear country that I dedicated my life to protecting and protecting the past twenty years? If there were still countless countrymen martyred, and if we should face the destruction and destruction of Kabul city, the result would have been a disaster in this city of six million," Ghani wrote.

He added that to avoid a "flood of blood," he "thought it was best to get out."

"The Taliban have won the judgment of swords and guns. Now they are responsible for protecting our countrymen's honor, wealth, and self-esteem," Ghani wrote on Facebook.

The Afghan embassy in India did not immediately respond to a request for comment from Insider.

Afghanistan is currently in a maelstrom of chaos, with thousands of people swarming the airport in Kabul in a desperate bid to leave the country.

In the meantime, the US is completing its withdrawal from the embattled country, having removed the US flag from its embassy in Kabul. The US had maintained troop presence in Afghanistan since 2001.

Read the original article on Business Insider




LOOOOOOOL ....OH THE IRONY


----------



## Jazzbot

The afghan embassy in India conveyed exactly how Indians are feeling right now.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## 8888888888888

Wonder why only from India.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Salza

It was actually Indian sentiments

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## beijingwalker

gambit said:


> Do not forget Soviet and China trained Iraq. Re: Desert Storm.


Where did you learn this crap? US media?


----------



## Scorpio_26

Lol

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1427063665769938945


----------



## beijingwalker

Thousands of US servicemen also lost their young lives for this useless war.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## FuturePAF

Valiant said:


> The US is an imperial power. There was no benevolence in their ventures in Afghanistan, Iraq or elsewhere. It was strictly a business move, made after 9/11. The hunt for OBL could've ended in a year yet they dragged their heels and got sucked into the vortex.
> 
> How was investing in the ANA not an informed business choice? They raised the army and trained them. It's their offspring.



some Think it was more than that, even amongst right wing westerners, they think this is the motivation:


----------



## Bossman

Protest_again said:


> Seriously how is this victory of Taliban over US?


Trump is saying this is the worst defeat the US has suffered.


----------



## graphican

Protest_again said:


> Seriously how is this victory of Taliban over US?



You are right, USA has won and the Taliban are escaping Afghanistan in helicopters. Just wondering... aren't you from a beloved country of the planet called India?


Hamartia Antidote said:


> The mission was eliminating Osama and Al-Quaeda. I don't remember eliminating the Taliban as a requirement.



You are so right. America never said it will remove the Taliban regime, and for 21 years, American invested in building Taliban paying tax money of its people, and with its sweat, blood and souls. Today you've ready to ripe the fruit. Today your backed militia has made all Americans Proud! 

The world is clapping for youcountry. Today your flag is held up high!


----------



## Ahmet Pasha

SQ8 said:


> @Windjammer it is very much being seen in this light and especially by the veterans who see their entire efforts essentially wasted.


Americans moan and groan for their dead soldiers but never for millions killed by them in Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, Afghanistan.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Mentee

Protest_again said:


> . It's unfortunate that Afghans lost to terrorists.



@The Eagle @waz 


this indian is going against the state dept narrative by calling indigenous resistance movement like taliban terrorists. No idea who they think they gonna scare using 21 years Hollywood terminologies or who are they selling it to when all regional countries bordering Afghanistan seems pretty comfortable with the new afghan outcome.


May be the paranoia stems from the fear of retribution at the hands of afghan people for what indian agencies been doing there since the last two decades. Anyhow india is fast becoming what it accuses north Korea of . Perhaps it's necessary for the brahmans to keep the indian masses deluded ---------


----------



## JustAnotherPerson

gambit said:


> Do not forget Soviet and China trained Iraq. Re: Desert Storm.


As far i remember they provide old weapons that Saddam could afford but never training, In fact because Saddam purged the military after the Iranian war debacle most iraqui troops and commanders didn't have much training at all.


----------



## Arsalan Tauseef

AsianLion said:


> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1426994181738844160



Don't jump for joy my lad. They wouldn't be able to subjugate at all, had U.S not packed their bags,


----------



## MisterSyed

GHALIB said:


> Afghan forces will defeat taliban.


how's that holding up sweety?

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Avicenna

Protest_again said:


> When was it the American mission to kill off Taliban? It could easily do so.
> 
> America gave 20 years and a trillion for Afghans to grow up and achieve a sense of democracy and rule of law. It's the Afghans that failed not America IMO.



If you believe that, you're delusional.


----------



## StraightEdge

US killed millions of afgan civilians and looted the country. Nobody will ever make them responsible for those atrocities. So, if winning means US didn't drop another 1000 tons of ammunition and annihilate whatever is left of those civilians in afganistan, i am sure everyone will be happy. at most us will suffer from some funny memes in Twitter.


----------



## Avicenna

@Protest_again @Hamartia Antidote 

What was the US end goal again?

Note the date of this video clip.






The reality is the US lost this effort, whatever the end goal was.


----------



## Green disc

NA71 said:


> Seriously i doubt your health is not 100% ...at least read you post twice before posting


Bro, these are the same people who think India won the 27th February


----------



## Ali_Baba

One for the history books for and to also archive ...


----------



## MisterSyed

So many Duplicate Pages please removee them.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## beijingwalker

*China says respects Afghan people's choice amid changing situation*
Updated 20:10, 16-Aug-2021
CGTN

The Chinese Foreign Ministry on Monday said the situation in Afghanistan has changed and China respects the Afghan people's will and choice.

Hua Chunying, a spokesperson for the ministry, commented on the latest situation in Afghanistan, saying that China hopes that statements made by the Taliban can be implemented to ensure a smooth transition.

The Taliban said on Sunday evening that there is no danger to embassies, diplomatic missions and foreign nationals in Kabul, pledging that they will maintain security across the country and will announce the establishment of the "Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan" soon, according to media reports. 

The war in Afghanistan has lasted for over 40 years, Hua said, stressing that stopping the war and realizing peace is the shared aspiration of the over 30 million Afghan people and the common aspiration of the international community and countries in the region.

We hope all kinds of terrorism and crimes can be curbed so that the Afghan people can stay away from war and rebuild their homeland, Hua added.

When answering a reporter's question about whether China will recognize a Taliban government, the spokesperson said China expects that an inclusive political arrangement that is acceptable to all Afghan people will lay the foundation for lasting peace in the country.

"Based on fully respecting the national sovereignty of Afghanistan and the will of various factions in the country, China has maintained contact and communication with the Afghan Taliban and played a constructive role in promoting the political settlement of the Afghan issue," she said.

China welcomes the Taliban's promise that they will allow no force to use the Afghan territory to engage in acts detrimental to China and its expression of hope that China will be more involved in Afghanistan's peace and reconciliation process and play a bigger role in future reconstruction and economic development, Hua said.

China will continue developing good-neighborly, friendly and cooperative relations with Afghanistan, she added, stressing the importance of adhering to non-interference in Afghanistan's internal affairs and pursuing a friendly policy toward the entire Afghan people.

Meanwhile, the Chinese embassy in Afghanistan is operating normally and China will closely monitor the situation and provide Chinese nationals in Afghanistan with necessary services and help, according to Hua.









China says respects Afghan people's choice amid changing situation


The Chinese Foreign Ministry on Monday said the situation in Afghanistan has changed and China respects the Afghan people's will and choice.




news.cgtn.com

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## The Raven

How is this in any way a 'choice' made by the Afghan people?! lol 

The same way China respects the choice of the Uighur muslims?


----------



## jamahir

No surprise here. Already some days ago China had said that it would accept Taliban government "as long as the Taliban would engage in political settlement with the current government". Basically, indirect words calling for the then Ghani government to accept the Taliban.

And there is the matter of Afghan mineral deposits which China also desires.

Also, did this "Afghan people's choice" that China speaks of include acceptance statements by the ghosts of the 180 Afghan intellectuals and journalists that the Taliban assassinated between 2020 and 2021 ? Or of those women and Afghan people in general whose lives are going to be now made miserable by the new Taliban government ? Who are these Afghans whose "people's choice" that China speaks of ?

China is not a true leftist ideological state which would oppose the oppressive, regressive, cruel Taliban.


----------



## Leviza

The Raven said:


> How is this in any way a 'choice' made by the Afghan people?! lol
> 
> The same way China respects the choice of the Uighur muslims?


So welcoming people doesn’t count ? 
so cities are cities fall without firing a bullet doesn’t count ?
So people celebrating in Kabul doesn’t count ?

well they can get the same results in elections if conducted fair without manipulation of usa as seen last time

open your eyes
Talibans are not occupying forces they are local Afghans

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Haha Haha:
2


----------



## beijingwalker

*China says ready for 'friendly relations' with Taliban after rout*
Issued on: 16/08/2021 - 12:10 


Beijing (AFP)

China is ready to deepen "friendly and cooperative" relations with Afghanistan, a government spokeswoman said Monday, after the Taliban seized control of the country.

Beijing has sought to maintain unofficial ties with the Taliban throughout the US' withdrawal from Afghanistan, which spurred an advance by the Islamist hardliners across the country that saw them capture the capital Kabul on Sunday.

China shares a rugged 76-kilometre (47-mile) border with Afghanistan.


Beijing has long feared Afghanistan could become a staging point for minority Uyghur separatists in the sensitive border region of Xinjiang.

But a top-level Taliban delegation met with Chinese Foreign Minister Wang Yi in Tianjin last month, promising that Afghanistan would not be used as a base for militants.

In exchange, China offered economic support and investment for Afghanistan's reconstruction.

On Monday, China said it "welcomed" the chance to deepen ties with Afghanistan, a country that has for generations been coveted for its geo-strategic importance by bigger powers.

"The Taliban have repeatedly expressed their hope to develop good relations with China, and that they look forward to China's participation in the reconstruction and development of Afghanistan," foreign ministry spokeswoman Hua Chunying told reporters.

"We welcome this. China respects the right of the Afghan people to independently determine their own destiny and is willing to continue to develop... friendly and cooperative relations with Afghanistan."

Hua called on the Taliban to "ensure a smooth transition" of power and keep its promises to negotiate the establishment of an "open and inclusive Islamic government" and ensure the safety of Afghans and foreign citizens.

China's embassy in Kabul remains operational, Hua said, although Beijing began evacuating Chinese citizens from the country months ago amid the deteriorating security situation.

In a statement Monday, the embassy told Chinese citizens remaining in Afghanistan to "pay close attention to the security situation" and stay indoors.

US President Joe Biden promised a complete withdrawal of US troops by September 11, marking an end to two decades of war.

But Washington was left shocked by the rapid collapse of the Afghan government and the Taliban's sweeping advance.

China has repeatedly criticised what it sees as the US' hasty withdrawal from Afghanistan as a failure of leadership.









China says ready for 'friendly relations' with Taliban after rout - France 24


China says ready for 'friendly relations' with Taliban after rout




www.france24.com






The Raven said:


> How is this in any way a 'choice' made by the Afghan people?! lol


This means no foreign influence , are you dumb or something?

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## jamahir

beijingwalker said:


> China is ready to deepen "friendly and cooperative" relations with Afghanistan, a government spokeswoman said Monday



Of course. Please read post# 3.


----------



## The Raven

Leviza said:


> So welcoming people doesn’t count ?
> so cities are cities fall without firing a bullet doesn’t count ?
> So people celebrating in Kabul doesn’t count ?
> 
> well they can get the same results in elections if conducted fair without manipulation of usa as seen last time
> 
> open your eyes
> Talibans are not occupying forces they are local Afghans



Whoever said the Taliban was an occupying force?  If the Taliban are so popular and the people love them with open arms, why didn't they just take part in elections and be voted into power?


----------



## Dariush the Great

The Raven said:


> Whoever said the Taliban was an occupying force?  If the Taliban are so popular and the people love them with open arms, why didn't they just take part in elections and be voted into power?


You can keep your Western bullshit ideals to yourself. The ME region does not need your sort of ''democracy''


----------



## beijingwalker

The Raven said:


> Whoever said the Taliban was an occupying force?  If the Taliban are so popular and the people love them with open arms, why didn't they just take part in elections and be voted into power?


Why they have to? western system is not the only way of ruling. They can follow their own way of governing, outsiders have no rights to point fingers.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## The Raven

Dariush the Great said:


> You can keep your Western bullshit ideals to yourself. The ME region does not need your sort of ''democracy''



Hey, go for it man, if you guys and the people of Afghanistan are happy, then all is well.


----------



## jamahir

@beijingwalker, answer my posts.


----------



## Tak_Aman

beijingwalker said:


> Why they have to? western system is not the only way of ruling. They can follow their own way of governing, outsiders have no rights to point fingers.



There is a difference between Taliban and CCP.

On one hand, CCP is making China a modern, progressive and scientific thinking nation. Ahead in technology, innovation and power.

Taliban is backward thinking.

They banned COVID vaccine:








Taliban bans COVID-19 vaccine in Paktia: Report


COVID-19 vaccine ward closed for last three days, says health official




www.theweek.in





They beat women on streets even if they show their hands or feet in open:






If China is so welcoming to their rule, why not ask a group like Taliban to rule China !!


Communism is good only if it is progressive.


----------



## beijingwalker

jamahir said:


> @beijingwalker, answer my posts.


It's their own business, China has no bone in it. The corner stone of Chinese foreign policy is non interference.


----------



## khansaheeb

The Raven said:


> How is this in any way a 'choice' made by the Afghan people?! lol
> 
> The same way China respects the choice of the Uighur muslims?


There has been a revolution, Afghans have come out on to the streets to welcome the Taliban, the scums of the Northern alliance who were illegitimately installed have run off and abandoned their Afghanistan brethren. The Afghan people have made their choice and the world should accept it. Next it will be Kashmir.

Reactions: Haha Haha:
1


----------



## jamahir

beijingwalker said:


> It's their own business, China has no bone in it.



As I said China is no true Communist country and therefore doesn't care about relieving the burden of oppression anywhere in the world. China just cares about its economic interests, its selfish political interests and extracting raw minerals in many places by either colonizing that country or like in the case of Afghanistan joining hands with outright criminals / oppressors ruling that country.



beijingwalker said:


> The corner stone of Chinese foreign policy is non interference.



Then why did China support Al Qaeda in Afghanistan during the 1980s ?


----------



## khansaheeb

jamahir said:


> As I said China is no true Communist country and therefore doesn't care about relieving the burden of oppression anywhere in the world. China just cares about its economic interests, its selfish political interests and extracting raw minerals in many places by either colonizing that country or like in the case of Afghanistan joining hands with outright criminals / oppressors ruling that country.
> 
> 
> 
> Then why did China support Al Qaeda in Afghanistan during the 1980s ?


Which country has China colonised?


----------



## beijingwalker

jamahir said:


> As I said China is no true Communist country and therefore doesn't care about relieving the burden of oppression anywhere in the world. China just cares about its economic interests, its selfish political interests and extracting raw minerals in many places by either colonizing that country or like in the case of Afghanistan joining hands with outright criminals / oppressors ruling that country.
> 
> 
> 
> Then why did China support Al Qaeda in Afghanistan during the 1980s ?


In 1980's China couldn't even feed herself, how much help she can give to others. what's right and wrong in Afghanistan should be judged by Afghan people, neither the west nor China can make judgement for them based on foreign values and perspectives.


The Raven said:


> why didn't they just take part in elections and be voted into power?


Did US ask for an election to find out if Afghan people welcome their invasion when they invaded Afghanistan?


----------



## MH.Yang

The Taliban have been suppressed by the United States for 20 years. If the Taliban did not have the support of the Afghan people, they could not live until now.

China eliminated all terrorists in Xinjiang in only three years. If the CCP did not have the support of the Xinjiang people. It could not do so well. 

And how long did the Indian army stay in Kashmir?


----------



## HAIDER

One belt plan and mining untapped Afghanistan lithium resources.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## MH.Yang

The Raven said:


> How is this in any way a 'choice' made by the Afghan people?! lol
> 
> The same way China respects the choice of the Uighur muslims?





jamahir said:


> No surprise here. Already some days ago China had said that it would accept Taliban government "as long as the Taliban would engage in political settlement with the current government". Basically, indirect words calling for the then Ghani government to accept the Taliban.
> 
> And there is the matter of Afghan mineral deposits which China also desires.
> 
> Also, did this "Afghan people's choice" that China speaks of include acceptance statements by the ghosts of the 180 Afghan intellectuals and journalists that the Taliban assassinated between 2020 and 2021 ? Or of those women and Afghan people in general whose lives are going to be now made miserable by the new Taliban government ? Who are these Afghans whose "people's choice" that China speaks of ?
> 
> China is not a true leftist ideological state which would oppose the oppressive, regressive, cruel Taliban.


The Taliban have been suppressed by the United States for 20 years. If the Taliban did not have the support of the Afghan people, they could not live until now.

China eliminated all terrorists in Xinjiang in only three years. If the CCP did not have the support of the Xinjiang people. It could not do so well.

And how long did the Indian army stay in Kashmir?


----------



## beijingwalker

*Afghanistan's winners: Qatar, Russia, China, Pakistan, Turkey, Iran*
Most of these countries have hosted the Taliban or tacitly backed them.
By SETH J. FRANTZMAN 
AUGUST 16, 2021 16:51


The victors in Kabul will be those who benefit from the Taliban taking power. They will also be those who benefit or cheer as the US appears humiliated.

Among those “winners” are Qatar, Russia, China, Pakistan, Turkey and Iran. This can be seen in various ways. Most of these countries hosted the Taliban or tacitly backed them. Others, such as Turkey, have sought to have a role in post-American Afghanistan.

Iran’s media is full of stories arguing that the Taliban won’t export extremism or threaten anyone and that Iran has always helped the Afghan people. Iranian official Ali Shamkhani, for instance, has put out positive statements about Iran’s role in Afghanistan.


Meanwhile, Qatar’s Al Jazeera was on hand to showcase the Taliban taking the presidential palace in Kabul. It appears Qatar had advance knowledge of the Taliban’s plans because Doha has been hosting the Taliban for years.

Qatar has a large US military base but has always backed religious extremists, including Hamas and the Muslim Brotherhood, and has given red-carpet treatment to the Taliban. This is a big win for Qatar, and it will use it for leverage across the Middle East.

While Qatar and Turkey benefit because of their links to Islamist groups and general backing for far-right Islamic movements, Iran benefits from seeing the US leave its doorstep. Iran also wants the US out of Iraq and will use the Afghan chaos to push it to leave Iraq as well.

Turkey will be working with Russia and Iran in Syria to try to get the US to leave. All these countries agree that they want America gone from the region.

Russia and China have both hosted Taliban delegations in recent years and months. They want to have open channels to the Taliban and consider recognizing them as the new government. This is important at the United Nations Security Council. With backing from Russia and China, the Taliban can get the international clout they need and eventually obtain wider recognition.

The meetings between Taliban officials and Russian envoys this week, which have been reported, are important.

“Russian Ambassador to Afghanistan Dmitry Zhirnov will meet on Tuesday with the coordinator of the leadership of the Taliban movement [outlawed in Russia] to discuss ensuring the security of the Russian Embassy, Russian Presidential envoy to Afghanistan Zamir Kabulov said in an interview,” Russia’s TASS news agency reported.

“Our ambassador is in contact with representatives of the Taliban leadership,” he said. “Tomorrow, as he told me just 10 minutes ago, he will meet with the coordinator from the Taliban leadership for ensuring security, including our embassy.”

The Russian ambassador will discuss with the Taliban representative the details of the external protection of the diplomatic mission of the Russian Federation, Kabulov said.

This means that Russia may consider recognizing the Taliban at a future date. Russia could help put the wind in the sails of the Taliban.

But Russia has its own background in Afghanistan. It has noted that the US-backed Afghan government has fallen quickly. Russia wants to secure Central Asia as well, including its southern flank.

That means the chaos of Afghanistan must not spread. It will want to work with China, Pakistan, Turkey and Iran to make sure that the Taliban are contained and come to power in a stable way.

All these countries have common interests. They want the US gone from the region. They want America humiliated. They also want to share energy and mineral resources that may flow through Afghanistan. This is their invitation to help make the decline of the US and the West more rapid.

These countries have different ideological agendas. Turkey, Pakistan and Qatar have a far-right Islamic worldview of the world. They have wanted to work with Malaysia and even Iran on new concepts regarding an Islamic system of trade or television programs to confront “Islamophobia.”

Turkey and Qatar form an axis that backs the Muslim Brotherhood, and as such, there has been cheering in Syria and the Gaza Strip regarding the Taliban takeover. China and Russia have other ideas about how this may benefit them on the world stage.

For now, the Afghanistan debacle is a major setback for the US globally in terms of image and the perception that US-backed systems tend to be as weak and temporary as the grass that greens with the spring and withers in the fall.









Afghanistan's winners: Qatar, Russia, China, Pakistan, Turkey, Iran


Most of these countries have hosted the Taliban or tacitly backed them.




www.jpost.com

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## jamahir

Oh man, I have a headache explaining everything to naive and misguided people here. I will come back after dinner.

Reactions: Haha Haha:
1


----------



## beijingwalker

*China's state media mocked the US withdrawal in Afghanistan, saying the Taliban takeover was 'more smooth than the presidential transition in the US'*
Cheryl Teh 
11 hours ago

China's state media mocked the US troop withdrawal in Afghanistan, saying the Taliban's takeover of the country was "more smooth" than the presidential transfer of powers in the US. 

The opinion was tweeted out on August 15 by Hu Xijin, the editor-in-chief of the Global Times, a state-affiliated media outlet in China.


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1426949490380967937
Hu was referencing posts made on Weibo, the Chinese version of Twitter.

People made posts saying that the Taliban takeover was "peaceful" compared to the US Capitol riot on January 6. when a pro-Trump mob swarmed the Capitol, sieged the building, smashed and damaged property, and forced lawmakers into lockdown. 

Afghanistan's President Ashraf Ghani left Afghanistan for Tajikistan on August 15, leaving his presidential palace open to Taliban fighters entering Kabul. On Sunday, fighters were seen inside the presidential palace, holding assault weapons and posing behind desks.

Ghani, who became president in 2014, made a Facebook post upon his departure, saying he "thought it was best to get out" to avoid a "flood of blood" in Kabul, Afghanistan's capital and its largest city. 

The Taliban is now positioned to formally take hold of power in the country once again and declare it the Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan following a complete withdrawal of American troops and the evacuation of US diplomats.

"What a joke. In Kabul today, the new government takeover was even more stable than when the US changed presidents," wrote a Weibo user named Chen Zhen. 

Some Weibo users also poked fun at the blame game currently unfolding between Biden and Trump on who should take responsibility for the Taliban's swift takeover of Afghanistan's major cities, making predictions about "what will happen next" in US politics. 

One user with the ID DiGuaXiongLaoLiu wrote: "The script should read like this from here on. Step one: Trump asks Biden to resign and take responsibility for Afghanistan. Step two, Biden refuses to resign, and states supporting Trump will say if Biden doesn't resign, they'll leave the US! Step three, two years later the US government dissolves itself and becomes the Ameri-Russian Government." 










Chinese social media users mocked the US troop withdrawal in Afghanistan, saying the Taliban takeover was 'more smooth than the presidential transition in the US'


Hu Xijin, editor of China's state-affiliated Global Times, referenced posts on Weibo that compared the chaotic Capitol riot to the Taliban's takeover.




www.businessinsider.com

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Haha Haha:
4


----------



## Mentee

I urge every afghan neighbour to just do away with the suits and tuxedos and join the taliban oath taking ceremony in their traditional attires . What a sight to behold- -----!

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## gambit

JustAnotherPerson said:


> As far i remember they provide old weapons that Saddam could afford but never training, In fact because Saddam purged the military after the Iranian war debacle most iraqui troops and commanders didn't have much training at all.


Before all of this, Saddam Hussein was looking for Western arms, but none was willing to sell, so he went after the Soviets and Chinese. You do not sell sophisticated weaponry without providing training, and I do not mean just how to read and execute the user's manual. When I was active duty and on the F-111, the list of air forces that can fly a variable sweep wing aircraft can be counted on one hand minus the thumb. We did not sell the F-14 to Iran and left the Iranians on their own. At the time, the F-14 was a complex weapon system that required two human beings to operate.

Further, you train your customers based upon *YOUR* knowledge and experience of the system. You can scale down, but not scale up, meaning we did not train the Iranians on carrier operations for the F-14 because the Iranian Navy did not have an aircraft carrier, so if somehow Iran can make the F-14 and sell to someone else, the Iranians cannot train the customer on how to use the F-14 from ships, even though the Iranian version of the F-14 might be fully capable of withstanding carrier operations stresses. What this mean is that %99.999 of the time, you already know your customer's technical sophistication and will offer wares that you believe the client can understand and execute *AT YOUR LEVEL* of experience.

So for these PDF yahoos to insinuate that China did not train the Iraqi Army is absurd. But of course, none of them ever served a day in their countries' armed forces so they cannot talk with any understanding in the first place.


----------



## Globenim

beijingwalker said:


> Where did you learn this crap? US media?


The usual "_I said A, but when people are asking really meant B, where B is just an unsubstantial wall of a**pull or vapid opinions or appeals to my authority, beating around the bush and  not ever actually answering the question or proving the point_" American switch tactics with Vietnamese characteristics.


----------



## Solidify

Let's not ego boost ourselves until the chicks have been hatched

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## Globenim

No winners in Afghanistan. Just victims of American imperialism and terrorism.

Reactions: Like Like:
6


----------



## Areesh

Meanwhile supa puwa India:

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Haha Haha:
6


----------



## SQ8

Ahmet Pasha said:


> Americans moan and groan for their dead soldiers but never for millions killed by them in Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, Afghanistan.


There are protests on every war that reflect these same sentiments. The mass media brings it up when convenient and hides it up when not. 
You keep an American flag so why not use the system and protest? After all, either you participate in the system or only use it to benefit off it while complaining about it.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Ahmet Pasha

SQ8 said:


> There are protests on every war that reflect these same sentiments. The mass media brings it up when convenient and hides it up when not.
> You keep an American flag so why not use the system and protest? After all, either you participate in the system or only use it to benefit off it while complaining about it.


I do protest. Mass majority of people look at you as some sort of terrorist sympathizer when you do. This society is wired that way bro.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## nang2

hualushui said:


> View attachment 769952


Many American friends have been enjoying the friendship, Canada included. It is not that being a friend of America is fatal. It is when you let America shape you, you are doomed.


----------



## Pakistan Space Agency

Solidify said:


> Let's not ego boost ourselves until the chicks have been hatched


No ego boosting.

They won.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## SpaceMan18

nang2 said:


> Many American friends have been enjoying the friendship, Canada included. It is not that being a friend of America is fatal. It is when you let America shape you, you are doomed.



When you let anyone shape you , you're doomed


----------



## nang2

SpaceMan18 said:


> When you let anyone shape you , you're doomed


True! 

Wait. Actually I have to take it back a bit. It is not entirely true. Everyone is shaped by someone else one time or another. For example, parents certainly shape us during childhood and that often lasts much longer than that. Our friends certainly shape us. Even our enemies shape us. We are probably doomed when we consciously (or are forced to) allow to be shaped by someone who doesn't know us or has the best interests in us. That often includes America.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## SpaceMan18

Areesh said:


> Meanwhile supa puwa India:
> 
> View attachment 770381



Americans have accepted defeat , Indians will never be able to accept defeat cause they’re nothing but cockroaches

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Cash GK

Globenim said:


> No winners in Afghanistan. Just victims of American imperialism and terrorism.


Agree


----------



## Wood

I'd say that China is the real winner in Afghanistan. They stand a lot to gain in economic terms with little to no risk of security blowback. Kudos to the victors

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## khansaheeb

beijingwalker said:


> *Afghanistan's winners: Qatar, Russia, China, Pakistan, Turkey, Iran*
> Most of these countries have hosted the Taliban or tacitly backed them.
> By SETH J. FRANTZMAN
> AUGUST 16, 2021 16:51
> 
> 
> The victors in Kabul will be those who benefit from the Taliban taking power. They will also be those who benefit or cheer as the US appears humiliated.
> 
> Among those “winners” are Qatar, Russia, China, Pakistan, Turkey and Iran. This can be seen in various ways. Most of these countries hosted the Taliban or tacitly backed them. Others, such as Turkey, have sought to have a role in post-American Afghanistan.
> 
> Iran’s media is full of stories arguing that the Taliban won’t export extremism or threaten anyone and that Iran has always helped the Afghan people. Iranian official Ali Shamkhani, for instance, has put out positive statements about Iran’s role in Afghanistan.
> 
> 
> Meanwhile, Qatar’s Al Jazeera was on hand to showcase the Taliban taking the presidential palace in Kabul. It appears Qatar had advance knowledge of the Taliban’s plans because Doha has been hosting the Taliban for years.
> 
> Qatar has a large US military base but has always backed religious extremists, including Hamas and the Muslim Brotherhood, and has given red-carpet treatment to the Taliban. This is a big win for Qatar, and it will use it for leverage across the Middle East.
> 
> While Qatar and Turkey benefit because of their links to Islamist groups and general backing for far-right Islamic movements, Iran benefits from seeing the US leave its doorstep. Iran also wants the US out of Iraq and will use the Afghan chaos to push it to leave Iraq as well.
> 
> Turkey will be working with Russia and Iran in Syria to try to get the US to leave. All these countries agree that they want America gone from the region.
> 
> Russia and China have both hosted Taliban delegations in recent years and months. They want to have open channels to the Taliban and consider recognizing them as the new government. This is important at the United Nations Security Council. With backing from Russia and China, the Taliban can get the international clout they need and eventually obtain wider recognition.
> 
> The meetings between Taliban officials and Russian envoys this week, which have been reported, are important.
> 
> “Russian Ambassador to Afghanistan Dmitry Zhirnov will meet on Tuesday with the coordinator of the leadership of the Taliban movement [outlawed in Russia] to discuss ensuring the security of the Russian Embassy, Russian Presidential envoy to Afghanistan Zamir Kabulov said in an interview,” Russia’s TASS news agency reported.
> 
> “Our ambassador is in contact with representatives of the Taliban leadership,” he said. “Tomorrow, as he told me just 10 minutes ago, he will meet with the coordinator from the Taliban leadership for ensuring security, including our embassy.”
> 
> The Russian ambassador will discuss with the Taliban representative the details of the external protection of the diplomatic mission of the Russian Federation, Kabulov said.
> 
> This means that Russia may consider recognizing the Taliban at a future date. Russia could help put the wind in the sails of the Taliban.
> 
> But Russia has its own background in Afghanistan. It has noted that the US-backed Afghan government has fallen quickly. Russia wants to secure Central Asia as well, including its southern flank.
> 
> That means the chaos of Afghanistan must not spread. It will want to work with China, Pakistan, Turkey and Iran to make sure that the Taliban are contained and come to power in a stable way.
> 
> All these countries have common interests. They want the US gone from the region. They want America humiliated. They also want to share energy and mineral resources that may flow through Afghanistan. This is their invitation to help make the decline of the US and the West more rapid.
> 
> These countries have different ideological agendas. Turkey, Pakistan and Qatar have a far-right Islamic worldview of the world. They have wanted to work with Malaysia and even Iran on new concepts regarding an Islamic system of trade or television programs to confront “Islamophobia.”
> 
> Turkey and Qatar form an axis that backs the Muslim Brotherhood, and as such, there has been cheering in Syria and the Gaza Strip regarding the Taliban takeover. China and Russia have other ideas about how this may benefit them on the world stage.
> 
> For now, the Afghanistan debacle is a major setback for the US globally in terms of image and the perception that US-backed systems tend to be as weak and temporary as the grass that greens with the spring and withers in the fall.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Afghanistan's winners: Qatar, Russia, China, Pakistan, Turkey, Iran
> 
> 
> Most of these countries have hosted the Taliban or tacitly backed them.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.jpost.com



Let's not make this into an over complex fiasco. Colonialist western powers wanted to colonise Afghanistan and failed. Casting accusations and conspiracy theories against regional countries is just a cover for the humiliating defeat.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## jupiter2007

Areesh said:


> Meanwhile supa puwa India:
> 
> View attachment 770381



*India is also sending 50,000 troops to support ANA.*

Reactions: Haha Haha:
1


----------



## TNT

Afghanistan hasn't fallen, it has risen.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Wow Wow:
1


----------



## Maira La

Wood said:


> I'd say that China is the real winner in Afghanistan. They stand a lot to gain in economic terms with little to no risk of security blowback. Kudos to the victors



@Wood these days Pajeets burn better than wood. Just sayin..

Reactions: Haha Haha:
1


----------



## Wood

Maira La said:


> @Wood these days Pajeets burn better than wood. Just sayin..


I have no idea what you guys mean by Pajeet. Nor do I care


----------



## Protest_again

Pakistan really has floored America. Hopefully America understand this.


----------



## JustAnotherPerson

gambit said:


> Before all of this, Saddam Hussein was looking for Western arms, but none was willing to sell, so he went after the Soviets and Chinese. You do not sell sophisticated weaponry without providing training, and I do not mean just how to read and execute the user's manual.d on one hand minus the thumb. We did not sell the F-14 to Iran When I was active duty and on the F-111, the list of air forces that can fly a variable sweep wing aircraft can be counte and left the Iranians on their own. At the time, the F-14 was a complex weapon system that required two human beings to operate.
> 
> Further, you train your customers based upon *YOUR* knowledge and experience of the system. You can scale down, but not scale up, meaning we did not train the Iranians on carrier operations for the F-14 because the Iranian Navy did not have an aircraft carrier, so if somehow Iran can make the F-14 and sell to someone else, the Iranians cannot train the customer on how to use the F-14 from ships, even though the Iranian version of the F-14 might be fully capable of withstanding carrier operations stresses. What this mean is that %99.999 of the time, you already know your customer's technical sophistication and will offer wares that you believe the client can understand and execute *AT YOUR LEVEL* of experience.
> 
> So for these PDF yahoos to insinuate that China did not train the Iraqi Army is absurd. But of course, none of them ever served a day in their countries' armed forces so they cannot talk with any understanding in the first place.


Train to use a equipment that you sell is one thing and train soldiers for years on how to fight like an organized army like Americans did in Iraq, South Vietnam and in Afganisthan is another thing.Sorry but your excuses are pathetic. Why you don't say the truth? The Americans are a wheelchair, they do all the job.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## CIA Mole

lol so now they wanna leave people alone


----------



## Dalit

Protest_again said:


> Pakistan really has floored America. Hopefully America understand this.



LOL have you sobered up after the defeat?


----------



## SpaceMan18

nang2 said:


> True!
> 
> Wait. Actually I have to take it back a bit. It is not entirely true. Everyone is shaped by someone else one time or another. For example, parents certainly shape us during childhood and that often lasts much longer than that. Our friends certainly shape us. Even our enemies shape us. We are probably doomed when we consciously (or are forced to) allow to be shaped by someone who doesn't know us or has the best interests in us. That often includes America.



I guess lol


----------



## terry5

should’ve just listen to Rambo

Reactions: Haha Haha:
1


----------



## gambit

JustAnotherPerson said:


> Train to use a equipment that you sell is one thing and train soldiers for years on how to fight like an organized army like Americans did in Iraq, South Vietnam and in Afganisthan is another thing.Sorry but your excuses are pathetic. Why you don't say the truth? The Americans are a wheelchair, they do all the job.


I made no 'excuses' but only to point out the flaws of the PDF Chinese who said that China sold but did not train the Iraqi Army. You have a reading comprehension problem.


----------



## FairAndUnbiased

gambit said:


> I made no 'excuses' but only to point out the flaws of the PDF Chinese who said that China sold but did not train the Iraqi Army. You have a reading comprehension problem.



They are trained on operations, not necessarily on tactics and doctrine.

I have to say though, you were right about this being nothing like the Fall of Saigon.

At least back the Americans helped Vietnam refugees come to the US while now Americans put canine dogs above their human dogs.


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1427308696565125121

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## gambit

FairAndUnbiased said:


> They are trained on operations, not necessarily on tactics and doctrine.


Do you expect me to take that seriously? From someone who have no military experience and probably was too young when Desert Storm happened.

Clients shopping for sophisticated weaponry are not as stupid as you think. When they buy, the sellers will always provide 'consultants' or 'contractors' to see how the new weapons would fit with the client, and that includes analyzing intended usage, which includes tactics and doctrines. Give it a rest. Your China armed and trained the Iraqi Army.


----------



## JustAnotherPerson

gambit said:


> I made no 'excuses' but only to point out the flaws of the PDF Chinese who said that China sold but did not train the Iraqi Army. You have a reading comprehension problem.


There is not even a comparison, training individual pilots to fligth a recently bought fighter jet is very different from training an air force on the tactics of air combat. Training someone on how to operate, maintain and repair a tanks is very different than the training of a tank division in the tactics of tank warfare. and so on.
The training on how to operate and maintain the equipment that Iraqis bought from the Soviets in the 70s and 80s is very different from the tactical and warfare training of the new Iraqi army recieved after the fall of Saddam from the Americans.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## FuturePAF

Ghani was in Oman per some people on Twitter. In the way to the US. Might be going back to California or Long Island, NY. His countrymen will probably be looking for him to give him a piece of their minds. 

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1427170968536031233


----------



## MultaniGuy

So now the Afghan Taliban is back. 

What will the world say now 

People who were demonized like the Nazis of Germany were. 
In 2001, the entire world sympathized with USA. Now what?


FuturePAF said:


> Ghani was in Oman per some people on Twitter. In the way to the US. Might be going back to California or Long Island, NY. His countrymen will probably be looking for him to give him a piece of their minds.
> 
> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1427170968536031233


I thought Ashraf Ghani fled to Tajikistan?


----------



## JustAnotherPerson

gambit said:


> Do you expect me to take that seriously? From someone who have no military experience and probably was too young when Desert Storm happened.
> 
> Clients shopping for sophisticated weaponry are not as stupid as you think. When they buy, the sellers will always provide 'consultants' or 'contractors' to see how the new weapons would fit with the client, and that includes analyzing intended usage, which includes tactics and doctrines. Give it a rest. Your China armed and trained the Iraqi Army.


1-Most of the weapons were from the Soviet Union not China.
2- Consultation and analysis is not the training an entire army from the ground for a fight, the Soviets didn't train the Iraqi Army from zero, they sold them the military equipment, show them how to use it and maintain it. But The Soviets didn't teach the Saddam Army on how to fight the Iranians.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## 52051

gambit said:


> Before all of this, Saddam Hussein was looking for Western arms, but none was willing to sell, so he went after the Soviets and Chinese. You do not sell sophisticated weaponry without providing training, and I do not mean just how to read and execute the user's manual. When I was active duty and on the F-111, the list of air forces that can fly a variable sweep wing aircraft can be counted on one hand minus the thumb. We did not sell the F-14 to Iran and left the Iranians on their own. At the time, the F-14 was a complex weapon system that required two human beings to operate.
> 
> Further, you train your customers based upon *YOUR* knowledge and experience of the system. You can scale down, but not scale up, meaning we did not train the Iranians on carrier operations for the F-14 because the Iranian Navy did not have an aircraft carrier, so if somehow Iran can make the F-14 and sell to someone else, the Iranians cannot train the customer on how to use the F-14 from ships, even though the Iranian version of the F-14 might be fully capable of withstanding carrier operations stresses. What this mean is that %99.999 of the time, you already know your customer's technical sophistication and will offer wares that you believe the client can understand and execute *AT YOUR LEVEL* of experience.
> 
> So for these PDF yahoos to insinuate that China did not train the Iraqi Army is absurd. But of course, none of them ever served a day in their countries' armed forces so they cannot talk with any understanding in the first place.



Big difference:

First, I am sure you know not all training are the same:

If required, selling weapon involve only the training of how to properly operate that weapon, it has nothing to do with your army's tactics and strategic training. Whilst the US offer both weapon operating training as well as tactic training of the troop.

Secondly, the US give Iraq a desert storm when China provide minimum weapon training, if any at all, for Iraq's troop (I am sure Iraq army dont have much difficulties to operate Type-59 or 69 tanks which are basically T-54/55 variants they have for decades).

Taliban give the US-heavily trained (both weapon operating as well as tactics) troop a much quicker version of desert storm.

So even with your best effects to playing with words, the failure on the US side is still overwhelmingly pathetic.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## JustAnotherPerson

52051 said:


> Big difference:
> 
> First, I am sure you know not all training are the same:
> 
> If required, selling weapon involve only the training of how to properly operate that weapon, it has nothing to do with your army's tactics and strategic training. Whilst the US offer both weapon operating training as well as tactic training of the troop.
> 
> Secondly, the US give Iraq a desert storm when China provide minimum weapon training, if any at all, for Iraq's troop (I am sure Iraq army dont have much difficulties to operate Type-59 or 69 tanks which are basically T-54/55 variants they have for decades).
> 
> Taliban give the US-heavily trained (both weapon operating as well as tactics) troop a much quicker version of desert storm.
> 
> So even with your best effects to playing with words, the failure on the US side is still overwhelmingly pathetic.


What desert storm? i least the Saddam army put a fight in the Gulf War. Both the American founded Iraqi and Afghanistan armies they just surrendered without even fighting. They just threw their weapons and run the other way.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## FairAndUnbiased

gambit said:


> Do you expect me to take that seriously? From someone who have no military experience and probably was too young when Desert Storm happened.
> 
> Clients shopping for sophisticated weaponry are not as stupid as you think. When they buy, the sellers will always provide 'consultants' or 'contractors' to see how the new weapons would fit with the client, and that includes analyzing intended usage, which includes tactics and doctrines. Give it a rest. Your China armed and trained the Iraqi Army.



They'd have to listen to the consultants. For instance, the Saudi military failing to properly use their Patriots batteries and F-15s doesn't mean the US would too, since it is well known that Saudi (and many Gulf Arab) trainees don't absorb knowledge very well and may not follow the taught doctrine in real situations.

In addition, Iraqi forces had French and Soviet doctrine which is often at odds with Chinese doctrine.

Some simple examples of Iraqi doctrine being far different that Chinese doctrine:

1. They set up static trenches which is what France did in WW2, while Chinese doctrine has always been mobile and offensive since the Korean War and Chinese Civil War.

2. They failed to preemptively attack the US buildup during Desert Shield just like how Soviets failed to preemptively attack Hitler in Poland, but unlike how Chinese preemptively attacked US/SK forces during the Korean War.

3. They had poor morale due to allowing war crimes to happen against Kuwaitis and most soldiers being conscripts which is Soviet doctrine and conflicts with Chinese doctrine of highly motivated volunteers with severe punishment for war crimes.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## JustAnotherPerson

FairAndUnbiased said:


> They'd have to listen to the consultants. For instance, the Saudi military failing to properly use their Patriots batteries and F-15s doesn't mean the US would too, since it is well known that Saudi (and many Gulf Arab) trainees don't absorb knowledge very well and may not follow the taught doctrine in real situations.
> 
> In addition, Iraqi forces had French and Soviet doctrine which is often at odds with Chinese doctrine.
> 
> Some simple examples of Iraqi doctrine being far different that Chinese doctrine:
> 
> 1. They set up static trenches which is what France did in WW2, while Chinese doctrine has always been mobile and offensive since the Korean War and Chinese Civil War.
> 
> 2. They failed to preemptively attack the US buildup during Desert Shield just like how Soviets failed to preemptively attack Hitler in Poland, but unlike how Chinese preemptively attacked US/SK forces during the Korean War.
> 
> 3. They had poor morale due to allowing war crimes to happen against Kuwaitis and most soldiers being conscripts which is Soviet doctrine and conflicts with Chinese doctrine of highly motivated volunteers with severe punishment for war crimes.


I think a big mistake was fighting a superior army in a open desert instead of using the city to slow the Allies.

Reactions: Like Like:

1


----------



## FairAndUnbiased

JustAnotherPerson said:


> I think a big mistake was fighting a superior army in a open desert instead of using the city to slow the Allies.



Iraq was doomed because they fought against a country with 50x the GDP and 10x the population at the time. No doctrine could've given them the win.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## JustAnotherPerson

FairAndUnbiased said:


> Iraq was doomed because they fought against a country with 50x the GDP and 10x the population at the time. No doctrine could've given them the win.


I agree but they would have lost no matter what but causing heavy cuasualities and damage to the Allies forces would have been a major political victory for Saddam in the Arab world.


----------



## MH.Yang

If you mean that to study military theory, China has only taught the armies of North Korea, Tanzania and Vietnam. During the wars in Iraq and Iran, both countries bought Chinese weapons, but China did not train and taught them.


----------



## jamahir

Tak_Aman said:


> Communism is good only if it is progressive.



China is not Communist nor does it seem to want to be at some point. True Communist society will have people's rule ( which Libya had until 2011 and Venezuela has now ) and will have a progressive economic system. China is a one-party dictatorship with the CCP retaining the historical name for political convenience. What kind of Communist country will allow stock markets and where people will gamble and lose money and will be allowed to commit suicide by jumping off buildings or jumping into steel furnaces ?


----------



## Globenim

FairAndUnbiased said:


> They'd have to listen to the consultants. For instance, the Saudi military failing to properly use their Patriots batteries and F-15s doesn't mean the US would too, since it is well known that Saudi (and many Gulf Arab) trainees don't absorb knowledge very well and may not follow the taught doctrine in real situations.
> 
> In addition, Iraqi forces had French and Soviet doctrine which is often at odds with Chinese doctrine.
> 
> Some simple examples of Iraqi doctrine being far different that Chinese doctrine:
> 
> 1. They set up static trenches which is what France did in WW2, while Chinese doctrine has always been mobile and offensive since the Korean War and Chinese Civil War.
> 
> 2. They failed to preemptively attack the US buildup during Desert Shield just like how Soviets failed to preemptively attack Hitler in Poland, but unlike how Chinese preemptively attacked US/SK forces during the Korean War.
> 
> 3. They had poor morale due to allowing war crimes to happen against Kuwaitis and most soldiers being conscripts which is Soviet doctrine and conflicts with Chinese doctrine of highly motivated volunteers with severe punishment for war crimes.


Nah, when American systems repeatedly fail to just do what they are supposed to do out of the box at the click of a button as advertised, even in the most basic symetric scenarios = Arab pilot/training/maintenance/command fail

When a handful neither strategic nor cutting edge Chinese export systems in some hundred international primarily Russian, but also American, European and South African weapon systems in an already suboptimal scenario with limited and dated intelligence, radar coverage, targeting system, dated Western implemented command chain and structures etc are obliberated primarily by overwhelming airwarfare and cant change the final outcome of a war between an long economically isolated and undermined nation against the entire Imperial West plus Saudis ganging up on it = China fails

You are wasting your breath on a selfevidently not just ignorant but dishonest troll.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## gambit

FairAndUnbiased said:


> They'd have to listen to the consultants. For instance, the Saudi military failing to properly use their Patriots batteries and F-15s doesn't mean the US would too, since it is well known that Saudi (and many Gulf Arab) *trainees don't absorb knowledge very well and may not follow the taught doctrine in real situations.*


You are correct there -- the highlighted.

The point here is that if you want to sell, naturally you would want to know if the client is capable of at least knowing how to operate the machinery, then you sell. But the product is not a car but weapons of war and wars are about survival, not just getting from point A to point B. The client will want to know if the weapon system will mesh with his current doctrines or force changes.

Your PLA is perfect example. Here is the PLA in the 1980s...





__





1980's PLA questions?


Could someone give me a quick overview of all the basic equipment used by the People's Liberation Army in the late 70's early 80's? Another friend of mine (fallout2077) also had questions, so he will post some of his own in this thread. -Was the type 56 AK or SKS used more by infantry? -Were the...



www.sinodefenceforum.com





The China - Viet Nam border war was a fight between two peers. The PLA may have had some advantages in specific weapons systems such as in the air force area, but overall, the two militaries were essentially peers. Objective analyses had the PLA lost but the Vietnamese were too weak to press further so it was called a draw.

Now look at the PLA today and you will see US signatures all over. *But did the US and China got into a war? No, the PLA indirectly fought the US via the Iraqi proxy and saw the disaster that was the 'The Mother Of All Battles'.* Throughout the Cold War, the proxy conflicts were low key. Any perception of technical superiority of one weapon system and its associated combat doctrine over the opponent's remained at best 50/50. The technological leaders -- the USSR and the US -- continued to press their progress despite that perception. The Vietnam War did not proved anything. At best, the Vietnam War was an experiment for both technology leaders to test their wares under controlled conditions.

Desert Storm pushed those perceptions beyond the 50/50 threshold over to the US side. The US did not used a proxy but its own forces. Its allies were minor participants in manpower and and zero contributors in technology. The bulk of combatants and technology executors was US. Unlike the Vietnam War, US forces were not restrained to the same degrees in terms of battles and how to use its technological advantages. The result was so lopsided to the US side that the PLA was forced to change itself.

*The PLA did not used the excuses so common on Internet forums, such as PDF, that it was their clients that failed, and not their weapons systems and the associated combat doctrines.* In the Iran-Iraq War, China sold to both sides and the three parties knew it. Iran and Iraq were peers in doctrines and technology. Did China said to Iraq: "The Iranians do this and that, so you should respond with these" ? And did China said similar to Iran ? We may never know. But we do know that China played both sides.

Maybe the Russian/Chinese weapons systems and their associated combat doctrines would have fared better *IF* the Iraqis were better executors like how their Russian/Chinese trainers wanted. Maybe Desert Storm would have turned out to be a stalemate because the US-led alliance incurred so much casualties...Maybe...Maybe...And so on...

The Iran-Iraq War that ended in a stalemate convinced Russia and China that what they have and exported worked.

But after Desert Storm, the PLA changed because the PLA's own perception was over the 50/50 threshold to the US side. And without fighting the US.


----------



## JustAnotherPerson

gambit said:


> You are correct there -- the highlighted.
> 
> The point here is that if you want to sell, naturally you would want to know if the client is capable of at least knowing how to operate the machinery, then you sell. But the product is not a car but weapons of war and wars are about survival, not just getting from point A to point B. The client will want to know if the weapon system will mesh with his current doctrines or force changes.
> 
> Your PLA is perfect example. Here is the PLA in the 1980s...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> __
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1980's PLA questions?
> 
> 
> Could someone give me a quick overview of all the basic equipment used by the People's Liberation Army in the late 70's early 80's? Another friend of mine (fallout2077) also had questions, so he will post some of his own in this thread. -Was the type 56 AK or SKS used more by infantry? -Were the...
> 
> 
> 
> www.sinodefenceforum.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The China - Viet Nam border war was a fight between two peers. The PLA may have had some advantages in specific weapons systems such as in the air force area, but overall, the two militaries were essentially peers. Objective analyses had the PLA lost but the Vietnamese were too weak to press further so it was called a draw.
> 
> Now look at the PLA today and you will see US signatures all over. *But did the US and China got into a war? No, the PLA indirectly fought the US via the Iraqi proxy and saw the disaster that was the 'The Mother Of All Battles'.* Throughout the Cold War, the proxy conflicts were low key. Any perception of technical superiority of one weapon system and its associated combat doctrine over the opponent's remained at best 50/50. The technological leaders -- the USSR and the US -- continued to press their progress despite that perception. The Vietnam War did not proved anything. At best, the Vietnam War was an experiment for both technology leaders to test their wares under controlled conditions.
> 
> Desert Storm pushed those perceptions beyond the 50/50 threshold over to the US side. The US did not used a proxy but its own forces. Its allies were minor participants in manpower and and zero contributors in technology. The bulk of combatants and technology executors was US. Unlike the Vietnam War, US forces were not restrained to the same degrees in terms of battles and how to use its technological advantages. The result was so lopsided to the US side that the PLA was forced to change itself.
> 
> *The PLA did not used the excuses so common on Internet forums, such as PDF, that it was their clients that failed, and not their weapons systems and the associated combat doctrines.* In the Iran-Iraq War, China sold to both sides and the three parties knew it. Iran and Iraq were peers in doctrines and technology. Did China said to Iraq: "The Iranians do this and that, so you should respond with these" ? And did China said similar to Iran ? We may never know. But we do know that China played both sides.
> 
> Maybe the Russian/Chinese weapons systems and their associated combat doctrines would have fared better *IF* the Iraqis were better executors like how their Russian/Chinese trainers wanted. Maybe Desert Storm would have turned out to be a stalemate because the US-led alliance incurred so much casualties...Maybe...Maybe...And so on...
> 
> The Iran-Iraq War that ended in a stalemate convinced Russia and China that what they have and exported worked.
> 
> But after Desert Storm, the PLA changed because the PLA's own perception was over the 50/50 threshold to the US side. And without fighting the US.


No there was NO proxy war between China and the US in Iraq in the 80-90s, the Chinese sell weapons to anyone willing to buy it with the only condition "do not support Taiwan or any separatist", there was absolutely nothing ideological for the Chinese to gain in the Middle East, were most countries are theocracies and the Chinese are mostly secular - non religious and much less in the 85-90s when the China was becoming capitalist and attracting Western invesment. in fact the Americans have to many times to press the Chinese not to sell missiles to Iran or even nuclear capable missiles to Saudi Arabia, an American Ally, because the Chinese have little restrictions on who they sell their weapons. That Chinese did learn from the Gulf War but in the same way that they learned from the Malvidas War, Kosovo or Iraq war in 2003, they learned that war has changed from a large scale land conflict to a full spectrum technological conflict. But there was not "proxy war".

OK lets ignore all that and asume that for some miracle you are correct, IS STILL NOT COMPARABLE to the recent events in Iraq and Afghanistan.Those were probably or maybe advisors and consultants, but we are talking about US FOUNDED ARMIES that didn't even manage to put a fight against inferior forces, they just surrendered.


----------



## master_13

gambit said:


> You are correct there -- the highlighted.
> 
> The point here is that if you want to sell, naturally you would want to know if the client is capable of at least knowing how to operate the machinery, then you sell. But the product is not a car but weapons of war and wars are about survival, not just getting from point A to point B. The client will want to know if the weapon system will mesh with his current doctrines or force changes.
> 
> Your PLA is perfect example. Here is the PLA in the 1980s...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> __
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1980's PLA questions?
> 
> 
> Could someone give me a quick overview of all the basic equipment used by the People's Liberation Army in the late 70's early 80's? Another friend of mine (fallout2077) also had questions, so he will post some of his own in this thread. -Was the type 56 AK or SKS used more by infantry? -Were the...
> 
> 
> 
> www.sinodefenceforum.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The China - Viet Nam border war was a fight between two peers. The PLA may have had some advantages in specific weapons systems such as in the air force area, but overall, the two militaries were essentially peers. Objective analyses had the PLA lost but the Vietnamese were too weak to press further so it was called a draw.
> 
> Now look at the PLA today and you will see US signatures all over. *But did the US and China got into a war? No, the PLA indirectly fought the US via the Iraqi proxy and saw the disaster that was the 'The Mother Of All Battles'.* Throughout the Cold War, the proxy conflicts were low key. Any perception of technical superiority of one weapon system and its associated combat doctrine over the opponent's remained at best 50/50. The technological leaders -- the USSR and the US -- continued to press their progress despite that perception. The Vietnam War did not proved anything. At best, the Vietnam War was an experiment for both technology leaders to test their wares under controlled conditions.
> 
> Desert Storm pushed those perceptions beyond the 50/50 threshold over to the US side. The US did not used a proxy but its own forces. Its allies were minor participants in manpower and and zero contributors in technology. The bulk of combatants and technology executors was US. Unlike the Vietnam War, US forces were not restrained to the same degrees in terms of battles and how to use its technological advantages. The result was so lopsided to the US side that the PLA was forced to change itself.
> 
> *The PLA did not used the excuses so common on Internet forums, such as PDF, that it was their clients that failed, and not their weapons systems and the associated combat doctrines.* In the Iran-Iraq War, China sold to both sides and the three parties knew it. Iran and Iraq were peers in doctrines and technology. Did China said to Iraq: "The Iranians do this and that, so you should respond with these" ? And did China said similar to Iran ? We may never know. But we do know that China played both sides.
> 
> Maybe the Russian/Chinese weapons systems and their associated combat doctrines would have fared better *IF* the Iraqis were better executors like how their Russian/Chinese trainers wanted. Maybe Desert Storm would have turned out to be a stalemate because the US-led alliance incurred so much casualties...Maybe...Maybe...And so on...
> 
> The Iran-Iraq War that ended in a stalemate convinced Russia and China that what they have and exported worked.
> 
> But after Desert Storm, the PLA changed because the PLA's own perception was over the 50/50 threshold to the US side. And without fighting the US.



Stating china "lost" to vietnam immediately invalidated your so called "objective assessment", it was only right wing propaganda at most. During China / Vietnam war, Chinese troops went all the way to Hanoi before retreating, took back multiple islands which china still controlling and Vietnamese still crying to this today and occupied northern Vietnamese territory for decades until 1988 when China finally returned those lands back to Vietnam as relationship improved. If you call that china "lost", we will take that loss each and every single day.

And no, China never provided much training to Iraqis, selling weapons are not the same as "training" in the American sense of "training". American troops were on the ground in Afghanistan for 20 years, built up the entire Afghan army from ground up, yet it lost to Taliban in 2 weeks. Just admit it, the American training is inferior, the army that American built from ground up just collapsed in 2 weeks. Yes, the Afghan army was essentially built by the American. So don't even compare that with China simply selling weapons to Iraq, the two "trainings" are not even comparable in terms of scale, depth, involvement and investment. Chinese "training" of Iraq was essentially non-existent, US training of Afghan army was extensive, trillions of dollars of investment and essentially built that army.


----------



## gambit

master_13 said:


> Stating china "lost" to vietnam immediately invalidated your so called "objective assessment", it was only right wing propaganda at most.


Sure, let us take that a bit further.

I am USAF veteran. F-111 Cold War. F-16 Desert Storm.

By what standing do *YOU* have for *YOUR* assessment of anything related to military issues in general?



master_13 said:


> And no, China never provided much training to Iraqis, *selling weapons are not the same as "training" in the American sense of "training".*


The highlighted is interesting. From what personal experience do *YOU* have in anything to say that? Do you sell Windows 10 *WITHOUT* providing to the client at least some familiarization of the operating system? Same question for the new model of a farm tractor.

On the client side, why should I buy anything from you if you refuse to provide training on your product? Why should I waste my money on buying something that I have at best %50 understanding of how to use it, how to incorporate the product into my existing infrastructure, how it would affect my employee efficiency and productivity, etc...etc...? Why should I buy from you?

Think about this for a moment. Before Saddam Hussein bought from the Soviet and China, he tried the Western countries. Why? Because he understood that the Western countries would provide training more in-depth than just the user's manual, which *YOU* pretty much implied, without any basis, that China did exactly just that.



master_13 said:


> Just admit it, the American training is inferior, the army that American built from ground up just collapsed in 2 weeks.
> 
> Chinese "training" of Iraq was essentially non-existent,...


Inferior *COMPARE* to what? Do you not see the contradiction in your own argument?

Why did the PLA reformed itself using the US military as model? We provided US-style training. You claimed the PLA does not do the same for its clients, an argument that would be laughed at in the real world, and yet, after seeing the result of Desert Storm, your PLA decided it had to change and change fast because all potential enemies, such as South Korea, JPN, and Taiwan, received US-style training.


----------



## master_13

gambit said:


> Sure, let us take that a bit further.
> 
> I am USAF veteran. F-111 Cold War. F-16 Desert Storm.
> 
> By what standing do *YOU* have for *YOUR* assessment of anything related to military issues in general?
> 
> 
> The highlighted is interesting. From what personal experience do *YOU* have in anything to say that? Do you sell Windows 10 *WITHOUT* providing to the client at least some familiarization of the operating system? Same question for the new model of a farm tractor.
> 
> On the client side, why should I buy anything from you if you refuse to provide training on your product? Why should I waste my money on buying something that I have at best %50 understanding of how to use it, how to incorporate the product into my existing infrastructure, how it would affect my employee efficiency and productivity, etc...etc...? Why should I buy from you?
> 
> Think about this for a moment. Before Saddam Hussein bought from the Soviet and China, he tried the Western countries. Why? Because he understood that the Western countries would provide training more in-depth than just the user's manual, which *YOU* pretty much implied, without any basis, that China did exactly just that.
> 
> 
> Inferior *COMPARE* to what? Do you not see the contradiction in your own argument?
> 
> Why did the PLA reformed itself using the US military as model? We provided US-style training. You claimed the PLA does not do the same for its clients, an argument that would be laughed at in the real world, and yet, after seeing the result of Desert Storm, your PLA decided it had to change and change fast because all potential enemies, such as South Korea, JPN, and Taiwan, received US-style training.



so you can't provide any counter argument, and essentially by saying being a veteran somehow makes your assessment "objective"? By your logic, there are tons of Chinese foot soldier who fought in Vietnam would have much better standing than you are in terms of their assessment. China took multiple islands from Vietnam during that war, FACT; China controlled norther territories for decades, FACT; china marched all the way to Hanoi, FACT; if you call that loss, we will take that loss each and every day. The fact that you are trying to use your veteran status(you probably made it up, but regardless) for argument actually *gives you 0 standing* in vietnam/china war assessment, because you can't refute any of the things I said earlier, so you trying to divert.

China did what training to Iraq exactly? By selling weapons? The training was only limited to help them operating weapons and machines. It's not "training" in the sense of American version of "training", in terms of depth, investment, collaboration...

So somehow you are saying Afghanistan troops built from ground up by American military which collapsed in 2 weeks is not "inferior"? no matter how you spinning it, American training is inferior, that's why they collapsed. "inferior" compare to what you ask? Compare to Afghanistan trained Taliban, why do you even ask. No one questioned US military as being the strongest in the world today. No one is questioning American military strength, but that doesn't deny the fact that the strongest military in the world provided some of the crappiest training and built one of the crappiest military in Afghanistan even after trillion dollar investment, which basically collapsed in merely two weeks against sandal wearing Taliban. You understand the difference, veteran? *Or you going to say because you are veteran, therefore Afghan army built from ground up by the US is not crap and they didn't lose to Taliban, and you have the best standing to claim such?*


----------



## gambit

master_13 said:


> so you can't provide any counter argument,...


Common sense debunked your argument.



master_13 said:


> ...and essentially by saying being a veteran somehow makes your assessment "objective"?


At least my experience provided me with a solid foundation of military issues. Yours?



master_13 said:


> By your logic, there are tons of Chinese foot soldier who fought in Vietnam would have much better standing than you are in terms of their assessment.


Hah...It is not my assessment that China performed poorly in the border war. It was the assessment of objective observers who actually have combat experience, not just relevant experience. Their assessment is that the PLA had poorly planned tactics, incompetent leadership, and just overall bad communication. China should have done better given the size of the PLA. Using rounded figures, the PLA amassed over 300,000 soldiers, 1200 hundred tanks, and hundreds of artillery of various calibers. The Vietnamese People's Army (VPA) was outnumbered three to one but the casualties they inflicted on the PLA was disproportionate. General Wu Xiuquan (伍修权) admitted it.



master_13 said:


> China did what training to Iraq exactly? By selling weapons? The training was only limited to help them operating weapons and machines. *It's not "training" in the sense of American version of "training", in terms of depth, investment, collaboration...*


How do you know that? Common sense expect the opposite of what you posited and common sense came from experience, of which you do not have even basic military training. So why should anyone take you seriously?



master_13 said:


> ...American training is inferior, that's why they collapsed. "inferior" compare to what you ask? Compare to Afghanistan trained Taliban, why do you even ask.


Really? Let US know when your China invite the Taliban to provide training to the PLA troops.


----------



## master_13

gambit said:


> Common sense debunked your argument.
> 
> 
> At least my experience provided me with a solid foundation of military issues. Yours?
> 
> 
> Hah...It is not my assessment that China performed poorly in the border war. It was the assessment of objective observers who actually have combat experience, not just relevant experience. Their assessment is that the PLA had poorly planned tactics, incompetent leadership, and just overall bad communication. China should have done better given the size of the PLA. Using rounded figures, the PLA amassed over 300,000 soldiers, 1200 hundred tanks, and hundreds of artillery of various calibers. The Vietnamese People's Army (VPA) was outnumbered three to one but the casualties they inflicted on the PLA was disproportionate. General Wu Xiuquan (伍修权) admitted it.
> 
> 
> How do you know that? Common sense expect the opposite of what you posited and common sense came from experience, of which you do not have even basic military training. So why should anyone take you seriously?
> 
> 
> Really? Let US know when your China invite the Taliban to provide training to the PLA troops.



Yes, common sense tells us that China clearly won the Vietnam/china war, China took multiple islands, took northern Vietnamese territory for decades, and china marched all the way to Hanoi. If that's a loss, China will take that loss each and every day.  Looks like your fake made up military training gave you 0 standing, LOL. Yes, the assessment of objective observer and military strategist who have combat experience clearly stated that China had won over Vietnam during that war. The only thing China failed was at its objective of forcing Vietnam retreating from Cambodia, which was the real purpose of Chinese incursion into Vietnam. So looks like you just lost credibility with your made up your military experience, you can't even argue based on facts, all you can talk about is your made up so called military experience, and can't provide any counter argument, so why should anyone take you seriously?

And here's quote from General Wu Xiuquan (伍修权) you just mentioned,
" 1979年5月副总参谋长_伍修权_透露，中国军队伤亡两万左右，越军五万左右。中国伤多于死， ... "
Translation, China had 20,000 wounded and casualties, Vietnam had 50,000 wounded and casualties, yet china had more wounded than death, Vietnam had more death than wounded, meaning Vietnam suffered a lot more death. There, you just lost your credibility. Right, fake veteran?

Lol, with Taliban beating trillion dollar invested American trained Afghan army in merely 2 weeks, maybe US should invite Taliban for its own training first.  Right? Your fake made up veteran status is just so convincing, LOL.


----------



## FuturePAF

master_13 said:


> Yes, common sense tells us that China clearly won the Vietnam/china war, China took multiple islands, took northern Vietnamese territory for decades, and china marched all the way to Hanoi. If that's a loss, China will take that loss each and every day.  Looks like your fake made up military training gave you 0 standing, LOL. Yes, the assessment of objective observer and military strategist who have combat experience clearly stated that China had won over Vietnam during that war. The only thing China failed was at its objective of forcing Vietnam retreating from Cambodia, which was the real purpose of Chinese incursion into Vietnam. So looks like you just lost credibility with your made up your military experience, you can't even argue based on facts, all you can talk about is your made up so called military experience, and can't provide any counter argument, so why should anyone take you seriously?
> 
> Lol, why would China even need to train Taliban, when Taliban can beat trillion dollar invested American trained Afghan army in merely 2 weeks.


What is the thinking in China about the Taliban? And what do Chinese people think about Chinese companies or the government doing business with them?


----------



## gambit

master_13 said:


> Yes, common sense tells us that China clearly won the Vietnam/china war, China took multiple islands, took northern Vietnamese territory for decades, and china marched all the way to Hanoi. If that's a loss, China will take that loss each and every day.  Looks like your fake made up military training gave you 0 standing, LOL. Yes, the assessment of objective observer and military strategist who have combat experience clearly stated that China had won over Vietnam during that war. The only thing China failed was at its objective of forcing Vietnam retreating from Cambodia, which was the real purpose of Chinese incursion into Vietnam. So looks like you just lost credibility with your made up your military experience, you can't even argue based on facts, all you can talk about is your made up so called military experience, and can't provide any counter argument, so why should anyone take you seriously?
> 
> And here's quote from General Wu Xiuquan (伍修权) you just mentioned,
> " 1979年5月副总参谋长_伍修权_透露，中国军队伤亡两万左右，越军五万左右。中国伤多于死， ... "
> Translation, China had 20,000 wounded and casualties, Vietnam had 50,000 wounded and casualties, yet china had more wounded than death, Vietnam had more death than wounded, meaning Vietnam suffered a lot more death. There, you just lost your credibility. Right, fake veteran?
> 
> Lol, with Taliban beating trillion dollar invested American trained Afghan army in merely 2 weeks, maybe US should invite Taliban for its own training first.  Right? Your fake made up veteran status is just so convincing, LOL.


The point that you missed was that the casualties that the PLA incurred was disproportionate compared to how much the PLA fielded against the VPA. All you have to do is use keywords search and find out for yourself but the reason you stuck on my comment is because you are afraid of finding out other analyses that does not comport to Party propaganda.

But here are your words: _The only thing China failed was at its objective of forcing Vietnam retreating from Cambodia, which was the real purpose of Chinese incursion into Vietnam._

So if the PLA failed its primary objective despite killing more Vietnamese, how does this make it a 'win'?

Remember your reasoning here, that despite the US killing more Taliban, the US 'lost' in Afghanistan because we failed to achieve our main goal: the removal of the Taliban from Afghanistan.


----------



## Cthulhu

LMAO, Losers!


----------



## FairAndUnbiased

FuturePAF said:


> What is the thinking in China about the Taliban? And what do Chinese people think about Chinese companies or the government doing business with them?



Chinese believe they are undesirable radicals due to their stance on women's education and religion.

However government is trying to whitewash them a little. People are pushing back though.

Official stance is ambivalence. Need to see how it works out

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## khansaheeb

Pakistan should send PIA and military aircraft to help with the evacuation of foreigners and Afghans to Islamabad and then allow foreign carriers to take the refugees to other destinations. Islamabad is only 1 hours away from Kabul by air. After this we should start repatriating all the Afghans who want to return to Afghanistan. 









As Taliban fighters swarmed Kabul, two friends looked for the fastest route out | CNN


Zahra shelters in her Kabul apartment, anxiously peering through the window at Taliban fighters. Just two weeks ago she was partying with her friend Sara in a city they fear will never be the same.




edition.cnn.com






'That was a newborn baby': CNN reporter reveals dire situation at airport
CNN


'That was a newborn baby': CNN reporter reveals dire situation at airport03:41
*As Taliban fighters swarmed Kabul, two friends looked for the fastest route out*
By Hilary Whiteman, CNN
Updated 0220 GMT (1020 HKT) August 21, 2021
(CNN)Zahra shelters in her Kabul apartment, anxiously peering through the window at Taliban fighters in the parking lot below. She hasn't dared to leave her house for days.
Only two weeks ago, she and her friend Sara were drinking and laughing at a party in Kabul. The Taliban were approaching -- but a return to their repressive rule still seemed far away.
In the days since the Taliban retook Kabul on August 15, plunging Afghanistan's capital into chaos, thousands of women like Zahra and Sara have faced the harrowing decision -- to stay or to go.
CNN is using aliases for the friends for their own safety, and that of their families, who are in Kabul and vulnerable to reprisals from Taliban fighters after the US decision to withdraw its troops.
Although the Taliban have pledged a more moderate and "inclusive" government, many fear the same brutal regime of two decades ago, when women were forced to stay at home, banned from school and work.
Millions of Afghans face an uncertain future, but for women the risks are extreme. Staying could mean a life of veiled subservience. Attempting to flee could end in death on Kabul's volatile streets -- or freedom with the risk of never seeing their families again.





Taliban fighters patrol Kabul on Thursday, Afghanistan's Independence Day.

*"Things happened so unexpectedly"*
Zahra and Sara were children when the Taliban last ruled Afghanistan in the 90s. After the US and its allies invaded in 2001, both left the country to study abroad, returning years later with ambitions of making their homeland a better place for girls and women.
When they saw each other at the party two weeks ago, Taliban fighters had started conquering provincial cities, but they still seemed a long way from the capital. The pair and their friends wanted to enjoy their freedom while they could.
"Some of them were like, 'We know this is the last party, so let's do this,'" said Zahra, remembering the rooftop soirée where they listened to live music late into the night.
Within days, life would change.
On Sunday, the women were stuck in separate traffic jams as thousands of Kabul residents rushed home amid reports Taliban fighters were on the outskirts of the city. Zahra queued for hours to withdraw cash before the city shut down.
"All the ATM machines have run out of money... people are panicking," Zahra told CNN on Sunday.
That night, the Taliban occupied the Presidential Palace, taking photos of themselves crowding around the wooden desk of departed President Ashraf Ghani. Monday brought more confusion, as the Taliban reinstalled themselves as the country's leaders for the first time in 20 years and promised to be an "inclusive government."





Spokesman Zabihullah Mujahid conducts the Taliban's first news conference since they seized power in Afghanistan.

Few believed their assurances.
By Tuesday, Sara and her husband had packed up their apartment, taking what they could carry in two backpacks and leaving the rest of their possessions with relatives.
As they drove to the airport, they spotted a few Afghan flags representing the former US-backed government, giving them some comfort that not all was lost.
Outside the airport, a Taliban fighter fumbled with a road sign in an attempt to direct traffic.
"We laughed, and the Taliban saw us," she said. "They got angry. They were saying, 'Why are you thinking that he cannot guide traffic here? Why are you laughing?'"
"We were like, 'No, no, he's doing a really good job, we are not laughing at him,'" she said.
The young fighter had given the impression he had never seen a busy city before, Sara said.





Sara spent Tuesday night standing in crowds outside Kabul's international airport, trying to get a flight out.

For years, the Taliban had hidden in remote mountain ranges as the US, Afghan and allied armies repelled them with air strikes and ground forces. Now in the center of Kabul, some seemed out of place -- wild-eyed teenagers, wearing flip flops and carrying Kalashnikovs on their shoulders. The older fighters were calmer, Sara said, more in control.
But at Kabul's airport, the militants' anger flared as thousands of people massed outside the external gate, desperate to get inside the airport and then out of the country, Sara said.
Commercial flights out of the airport have been halted since Monday, although some diplomatic flights are still leaving.
A number of countries have promised to take Afghan refugees, but that still requires getting out of Afghanistan -- and for most, that means passing armed Taliban guards at Kabul's Hamid Karzai International Airport.





Afghan security guards stand on a wall as hundreds of people gather outside Kabul's international airport on Tuesday.

At 7 p.m. on Tuesday, Sara estimates about 3,000 people were jostling to get closer to the terminal, clutching whatever documents -- legitimate or otherwise -- they thought might convince the Taliban to let them through the gate.
Many were told they wouldn't be saved and should go home, but they didn't listen and made a run for it.
"When you run to the gate, the military have to react," Sara said.
The Taliban started firing in the air, and when people disobeyed their order sit on the ground, they started lashing people with whips. "A French guy sitting beside me was kicked on the ground by a Talib, twice," she said.
"It doesn't matter if you have a US passport, if (you) are a diplomat. It doesn't matter if you're a military guy -- that doesn't matter, you still have to go that route," Sara said. "There is no comfortable route that you can use to get to the airport."
For 11 hours through the night, Sara and her husband pushed alongside others in the crowd. They refused orders to leave and tried to avoid being lashed or beaten by scurrying out of the way of angry guards.



> "You see war movies, and people are just running in the corners to stay alive, that's how it was."SaraAfghan woman



"We didn't want to be removed by force, because a lot of people were removed by force," she said. "You see war movies, and people are just running in the corners to stay alive, that's how it was."
*"I am a Muslim too, but maybe a very moderate one"*
Zahra stayed awake all Tuesday night, at home in her Kabul apartment, waiting for a message from Sara to confirm she was on a plane. By 4 a.m., she couldn't keep her eyes open any longer.
She hadn't left her apartment in three days, but had been communicating with friends in a WhatsApp group in which they shared photos of Taliban fighters outside their windows, debating when it might be safe to go outside.
"It's so calm that people are afraid," she said, before referring to a saying in Farsi that translates to "the silence ahead of the storm."
She'd seen the fighters confiscating cars, but that was before the Taliban's deputy leader Maulvi Mohammad Yaqub issued orders not to take cars or enter homes. But she still heard reports of the Taliban searching houses, looking for government workers, activists, journalists and people with foreign links, despite assurances of an amnesty for those who supported US and allied forces.
No one has come to Zahra's door yet. She watches the news, but like much of the world, she doesn't know how the Taliban intend to rule Afghanistan. The Taliban have insisted women will still have rights this time -- within the framework of Islamic law.



> "Their interpretation of Islamic rules and regulations are very different than we have. I am a Muslim too, but maybe a very moderate one."ZahraAfghan woman



"Their interpretation of Islamic rules and regulations are very different than we have. I am a Muslim too, but maybe a very moderate one," Zahra said.
Already, it's clear life will be different from the decades spent under the US-backed government. Roads are closed and guarded by the Taliban, who say they'll be guided by Sharia law, but haven't specified crimes and punishments. When they were last in power, those included stonings, lashings and public executions.
In the past week, reports suggest women have been turned away from work and school, and beaten for not covering up or venturing out without a male guardian.
Until the Taliban takeover, Zahra worked in education. Now, she's not sure if she'll be able to continue her work, or even how long they'll have to stay inside. "The fear is there, so no one gets out of their houses," she said.
*"The gate is the point when people die"*
On Thursday, Zahra's phone pinged with a message. Sara was in Poland.
She and her husband had been hustled into a group with a few dozen others by a Polish journalist who liaised with the Taliban to get them through the gate at Kabul airport.
Sara has a US passport, but she has contacts in Poland, so they were able to get a seat on a Polish military plane to took them first to Uzbekistan, before they boarded a flight to a refugee center outside the Polish capital Warsaw.


In Poland, they were shuttled into dormitories to go into Covid-19 quarantine. Afghanistan has reported more than 150,000 coronavirus cases since the start of the pandemic, and although Sara has been vaccinated against Covid-19, she lost the vaccination card to prove it.
Sara and her husband didn't have time to withdraw their money from the bank before they fled -- they have $100 between them and the few possessions they could carry, she said.
But she worries more about her mother still in Kabul, who was too ill to consider running the gauntlet of the Taliban guards at the airport gate.



Afghans desperate to flee their country meet resistance 02:23
"Getting into the gate was extremely hard. That is the point where people are actually getting killed or die, especially vulnerable people, especially kids," Sara said. As of Thursday, at least 12 people had been killed in and around Kabul airport, Reuters reported, citing NATO sources and Taliban officials.
Two days after her friend fled, Zahra decided it was time to leave, too.
Her mother had been urging her to go, telling her she would "kill her with worry." Her teenage sister had already fled with her mother's blessing. So Zahra -- who has an Afghan passport -- packed her belonging and headed to the airport, hoping to get on one of the rare flights leaving the country.
But when she arrived, she found she couldn't get anywhere near the airport gate. The crowds were too thick, so she reluctantly returned home
On Friday, she tried again.


The last message on her progress came from Sara as the clock ticked over to Saturday, Kabul time: "She is in the airport. I heard that she may leave soon."


----------



## master_13

gambit said:


> The point that you missed was that the casualties that the PLA incurred was disproportionate compared to how much the PLA fielded against the VPA. All you have to do is use keywords search and find out for yourself but the reason you stuck on my comment is because you are afraid of finding out other analyses that does not comport to Party propaganda.
> 
> But here are your words: _The only thing China failed was at its objective of forcing Vietnam retreating from Cambodia, which was the real purpose of Chinese incursion into Vietnam._
> 
> So if the PLA failed its primary objective despite killing more Vietnamese, how does this make it a 'win'?
> 
> Remember your reasoning here, that despite the US killing more Taliban, the US 'lost' in Afghanistan because we failed to achieve our main goal: the removal of the Taliban from Afghanistan.



I wasn't even referring to US "lost" in Afghanistan, I was referring to US "trained" Afghan army lost to inferior equipped Taliban in 2 weeks. Yes, China failed its objective, but won in battles. I never said US never won in battles. And what exactly is "disproportionate", I already translated the text, using the name of the general you referred to earlier, that it wasn't disproportionate, while China had more injuries compare to its casualties, Vietnam had more deaths proportionate to its number of soldiers vs. Chinese soldiers. Apparently your right wing propaganda about Chinese "lost" in battle against Vietnam doesn't hold up.


----------



## Foinikas

*"Every day your war machines lose ground to a bunch of poorly armed,poorly equipped freedom fighters" 





*
Rambo III in restrospective 😂 😂 😂


----------



## Hack-Hook

master_13 said:


> I wasn't even referring to US "lost" in Afghanistan, I was referring to US "trained" Afghan army lost to inferior equipped Taliban in 2 weeks. Yes, China failed its objective, but won in battles. I never said US never won in battles. And what exactly is "disproportionate", I already translated the text, using the name of the general you referred to earlier, that it wasn't disproportionate, while China had more injuries compare to its casualties, Vietnam had more deaths proportionate to its number of soldiers vs. Chinese soldiers. Apparently your right wing propaganda about Chinese "lost" in battle against Vietnam doesn't hold up.


what win ,what war . Taliban forces announced their presence in one cities and Ghani forces escaped .the funny part with Afghanistan roads it take two days from one city to another and what in news we heard one city fall in the morning and the other fall in the evening


----------



## Super Falcon

Ghani was puppet liar and coward
Today new probleum emerging to create propganda against islam

There is hadiths that one lasker will lead from khorasa Afghanistan to whom no power on earth can stop hadith of beloved PROPHET MOHAMMAD PBUH
and jews knew that will happen

This is why ISIS K launched today

Must watch to understand this video guy sums up very well


----------

