Afghan president dismisses Pakistani training offer

[RobbieS]

I think its good that Pakistan stays away from Afghan National Army.

Afghan National Army are almost all Tajiks, Uzbeks, and Hazaras, theres no Pashtuns in the Afghan National Army. Afghan Taliban is mostly Pashtun.

Pashtuns are the warrior race, even Pakistanis call Pathans the warrior race.

Afghan National Army will never succeed if they dont have Pashtuns serving in the army.

Oh yeah...the martial race theory....! That will probably be the best reason why ANA wouldn't succeed.

And 1 Pakistani is equal to 10 Hindus right?

 

[EjazR]

Can the indians shed some light on what was their gov official stance on the Russian occupataion of Afghanista.

Morarji Desai was the PM during who unfortunately passed away in July 1979. He had visited USSR in June 1979 and had publicly stated that India is opposed to Soviet invasion of Afghanistan. Infact, the USSR had also asked India to invade Pakistan from the east at the same time but Morarji Desai refused to comply. If he had not passed away within two years, he was moving towards a policy of righting the "non-alignment" tilt towards USSR that had developed under Indira Gandhi post 1971 by developing better relations with the US. And was forcefully opposing any USSR invasion of Afghanistan. Incidentally he is the only Indian who was awarded the Nishan-e-Haider as well as Bharat Ratna.

After his death there was a period of instability with Indira Gandhi finally coming back to power. And although her criticism was muted, the stance was still neutral. This what happens when you are burdened by aid with other countries and India had to listen to USSR. Still the perception that India provided any material support to soviet invasion of Afghanistan is wrong.

For example, when in 1980 US led around 64 countries to boycott the Olympics in Moscow in protest of the invasion, India still participated declaring it a sporting event. In retaliation when USSR led a soviet bloc boycott in 1984, India again participated ignoring the Soviets.

It was only post 94-95 that India started getting involved in supporting the NA and that too the material support was much less when compared to Russia or the Muslim majority countries like Iran, or CARs.

Desai, Morarji

1980 Summer Olympics boycott - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

1984 Summer Olympics boycott - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I hope that GoI declassifies documents regarding Afghanistan in the period 1978-1988 and I'm sure that it would clarify more the same sentiment I have mentioned above.

I still hold that Indira Gandhi should have been more vocal against USSR and followed Morarji Desais' foreign policy with respect to US and Afghanistan.

 

[PakiPashtun]

Oh yeah...the martial race theory....! That will probably be the best reason why ANA wouldn't succeed.

And 1 Pakistani is equal to 10 Hindus right?

Why are you twisting his views? All Omar is trying to say is, ANA is not Pashtun hence they are so unsuccessful so Pakistan is not supporting ANA since they have historically supported and were allies with Pashtuns only.

Pashtuns are great warriors, no doubt about that. Those Pashtuns from Afghanistan have ruled Afghanistan since its inception and have conquered India,Persia and they also ruled modern day Pakistan. so don't think of us pashtuns as any low force people. We Pashtuns love both Pakistan and Afghanistan equally and simply ask for other countries not to mess up our relationship.

 

[EjazR]

Great that you said that now tell me why did u think that we had to interfere in Afghanistan when more then 3 million Afghans crossed into PAksitan. So do you think that we were wrong when we took the side of the normal Afghani when your own gov was still busy paying the cheap political card against Pakistan.

India's Position on the Occupation
India was the one major noncommunist state that maintained amicable relations with Afghanistan in the mid-1980s. Although the Indian government called for a withdrawal of Soviet troops on December 31, 1979 it also expressed its apprehensions about United States military commitments to Pakistan. New Delhi feared that newly acquired United States arms could be used against India, rather than to secure the Afghan border. Its close ties with the Soviet Union, highlighted by a treaty of friendship in 1971, were another factor in its relative reluctance to issue public condemnations of the occupation. Leaders voiced support for apolitical resolution of the crisis and deplored the use of "cold war rhetoric" to describe the situation.

An Indian observer notes that on two occasions Prime Minister Indira Gandhi, in meetings with Soviet leaders in 1980 and 1982, privately urged a pullout of Soviet troops. But before her assassination in October 1984, member nations of the Nonaligned Movement repeatedly criticized Gandhi's reluctance to publicly condemn Soviet actions. Her son, Rajiv Gandhi, elected prime minister in December 1984, was equally circumspect. He avoided criticism of the Soviet Union in his address before the UN in October 1985. As on five previous occasions, India's representative to the UN abstained in the November 13 1985, vote on the General Assembly resolution on withdrawal.
Afghanistan Country Study

This again bolsters the viewpoint that India had to reluctantly mute its criticism of USSR. It never "supported" the invasion.

Personally, I don't think that it was "wrong" for Pakistan to support the Afghans. Afterall it was the Afghans themselves who ACTUALLY fought the Soviets.

But the problem is that towards the end and particularly post Soviet withdrawal, instead of being abotherly country and helping Afghanistan come back on its feet, it tried to dominate it and keep it as a vassal state. No the Pakistani people are not to blame, it was the policy of hte PA/ISI on which the elected representative had no input. Later on the Taliban were supported with thousands of Pakistani fighters and even PA/ISI officers retired as well as serving in their battle against other Afghan groups. This is when Pakistan went from helpful to unhelpful. In the process, Pakistan has hurt itself as much as its policies had hurt Afghanistan. The sad part is, the people of Pakistan and their elected reps never made the decision for which the current situation exists.

Even, now I'm sure people-to-people relations between Afghans and Pakistanis could be amicable, but institutional relations will take some time, particularly in the security field.

Even if you want to compare this to Bangladesh, you can see that once it was created, India withdrew and did not interfere in any domestic polictics of Bangladesh, even when a military coup took place, India did not support some anti-coup participants in Bangladesh to establish a govt. favorable to it and gain strategic depth. Hence the hostility is less even though the Indian army actually military intervened and occupied Bangladesh for a period of two months.

 

[EjazR]

Y
afghanistan along with india opposed the very creation of Pakistan

India voted FOR the membership of Pakistan to the UN. Afghanistan was the only country to vote against the UN membership of Afghanistan.

Sure initally many Indians-Hindus and Muslims opposed the creation of Pakistan. But once it was done, there was no "opposition". Afghanistan continued to oppose the creation of Pakistan because it perceived the ruling of Pakistan as British agents which it did not trust and hence the hostility.

It would be good to research WHY a Muslim country would have oppose the creation of a country ostensibly in the name of Islam.

 

[TOPGUN]

Screw his a$$ he acts to big for his post he is american puppit we don't wana train and if anything thing srew em too lolz............ let them learn from the pain since they seem to act so big jerkssssssssssssssssss

 

[RobbieS]

Why are you twisting his views? All Omar is trying to say is, ANA is not Pashtun hence they are so unsuccessful so Pakistan is not supporting ANA since they have historically supported and were allies with Pashtuns only.

Pashtuns are great warriors, no doubt about that. Those Pashtuns from Afghanistan have ruled Afghanistan since its inception and have conquered India,Persia and they also ruled modern day Pakistan. so don't think of us pashtuns as any low force people. We Pashtuns love both Pakistan and Afghanistan equally and simply ask for other countries not to mess up our relationship.

Where did I say that Pashtuns are "low force people" ! I simply dont believe in the martial prowess of one race over the other. And thats because wars are much more than just about physical courage.

And I wouldn't count much for history. If historical empires and invasions would have stood for a lot, the Greeks and the Italians would be the strongest powers in this world. And the Jews would have never stood for much by the martial race theory. But they did beat the cr@p out of the "martial" Arabs a number of times. How would you explain that?

 

[jbond197]

You hindus are are not that 'massom' that you wish to see this and that in afghanistan , ever since the creation of Pakistan its been a hindu plan to join up with afghanistan in its vile aims of breaking up Pakistan

.

Stop your BS.. no need to involve religion into each and every argument you make and control your imaginations about any hindu plan to break pakistan or something. Rather it's been Pakistan's dream to induce 1000 cuts on India.

we have no desire to dictate anything to afghans , its been subsequent afghan governments who have been trying their luck against Pakistan ever since 1947.
afghanistan along with india opposed the very creation of Pakistan and later BOTH tried to fan seperatist flames and since 2001 , hiding under America's ball , both felt that they have yet another chance to inflict the blow to Pakistan that they had always dreamed of but all that failed and they can see the writing on the wall.

Enlighten us all how Afghans tried to break pakistan since 1947. Did they send any body to break Pakistan or was it other way around and it actually was pakistan that was party to complete destruction of Afghanistan? Fact is that Pakistan has never given up the aspiration to run Afghanistan as a client or dependent or proxy state and for fullfilling these aspirations Pakistan with US support sent Mujahideen to fight Soviets and then later planted Taliban regime to control Afghanistan.

We have always had better relations with the people of Afghanistan as compared with the government of Afghanistan and for Iran we have had better relations with the government of Iran than the people of Iran and with india we have niether had good relations with its government nor its people and the only true friend we have had since 1947 with which we have good relations both at people and government level is China

You have good relations with Afghans thats good for you.. Govt can change but if the people's trust is there then you don't need to worry about anything.

So coming back to Afghanistan , if they keep trying their luck against us they'll go further and further back into the stone age and remain an open air toilet that will be at our disposal to take a leak on when ever we like.

You are contradicting urself here just now u mentioned that Pakistan has better relations with Afghanistani people then how can they go against Pakistan and why would Pakistan even think of pushing them back in stone age after all you have good relations with people of afghanistan. isn't it?

If the afghan government ( puppet or other wise ) improves its aproach towards Pakistan likewise Pakistan will reciprocate however getting in bed with india to support terrorist activity will get them in trouble

Contradiction again if afghan govt is puppet (Assuming it is US puppet) then how a puppet govt can take side with India in any activities against Pakistan. US has interests in Pakistan why it would let any such thing happen and if it letting these things happen then why doen't Paksitan stop cooperating with them.

Kharzai and his hindu financers are sadly mitaken if they think that Pakistan can be brought down by bunch of fags that like stuffing explosives in their back sides to blow up innnocent by standers in Pakistani cities.

Back up your claims with some evidences. These are pakistans cultivations who have now turned their guns against you. So stop blaming anybody for your own mistakes and failed policies.

 

[dvk1982]

So by that logic the indian stance of interference in Bangladesh was that a traitor asked them and you interfered. So if the miosts will ever ask the chinese to come to their aid you will not mind.

why do u piggy back china every time... try do that urself

 

[dvk1982]

I mean, he talks with US supervision, so whatever he says is like what the USA is saying.

And I actually agree with what he said in that link you provided, that will not help yet will create an uproar in our Pashtun community in Pak And Afg.

and what do u think zardari talks... ? I thought he too is no different than Karzai ... or sud i say small brother ?? US controls Afghan and pak politics... degrees of control may vary !!

 

[ice_man]

and what do u think zardari talks... ? I thought he too is no different than Karzai ... or sud i say small brother ?? US controls Afghan and pak politics... degrees of control may vary !!

yes no pakistani & i mean NO PAKISTANI thinks zardari is his president!!!!

 

[Omar1984]

Oh yeah...the martial race theory....! That will probably be the best reason why ANA wouldn't succeed.

The two largest ethnic groups in Pakistan are Punjabis and Pashtuns. Punjabis and Pashtuns make the largest number in the Pakistan army.

The two largest ethnic groups in Afghanistan are Pashtuns and Tajiks. Tajiks, Uzbeks, and Hazaras make up the Afghan National Army, while the largest ethnic group of Afghanistan are not represented in the Afghan National Army at all. How will the majority of Afghanistan trust their army, when their people are not represented in their army at all?

Also read the book by Imran Khan, Warrior Race: A Journey Through the Land of the Tribal Pathans.

Pakhtuns/Pashtuns/Pathans are historically known as the warrior race. Why is the "superpower" of the world having such a tough time fighting Afghan Taliban (most of Afghan Taliban are Pashtuns).

And 1 Pakistani is equal to 10 Hindus right?

India's population is more than 8 times the size of Pakistan's population. If 1 Pakistani was equal to 1 Hindustani then Azad Kashmir and Gilgit-Baltistan would've been part of india today, and also Lahore would've been part of india today. Remember Battle of Lahore, September 6, 1965.

 

[ice_man]

Karzai is an imported president! & he will go once the Americans go! he has no power base in afghanistan & he definitely doesn't have control over all the provinces his power is only in KABUL! just like the soviet puppet government did in the 80s!!!

 

[Chappal Chor]

India's population is more than 8 times the size of Pakistan's population. If 1 Pakistani was equal to 1 Hindustani then Azad Kashmir and Gilgit-Baltistan would've been part of india today, and also Lahore would've been part of india. Remember Battle of Lahore, September 6, 1965.

What about east pakistan, siachin, kashmir, kargil?

 

[Omar1984]

India's population is more than 8 times the size of Pakistan's population. If 1 Pakistani was equal to 1 Hindustani then Azad Kashmir and Gilgit-Baltistan would've been part of india today, and also Lahore would've been part of india. Remember Battle of Lahore, September 6, 1965.

What about east pakistan, siachin, kashmir, kargil?

If India had the same population size as Pakistan's population, then Pakistan would've had Bangladesh, Siachen, all of Kashmir, and Kargil.

India is more than 8 times the size of Pakistan's population (always had been since 1947) and still Pakistan has almost half of Kashmir and in 1965 when your Indian chief declared that he would have a drink and celebrate in the Gym Khana Club Lahore, we hit his head and brought him back to reality.