Afghan president dismisses Pakistani training offer

[Spring Onion]

Last time it was US who had rejected any Indian role for training Afghan army.


US has assigned the task to Blackwater to train Afghan army.

Its simple why would US let go millions of dollars to anyone else when it can train as well as pocket the money and also earn a good name on pretext of allocating millions of dollars to train Afghan army.


calm down. Karzai has no role in selecting or rejecting

 

[ramu]

Building infrastructure, investing over 1.4 Billion $ and training Afghanistan security forces among other humanitarian aid including health care is an effort that some consider Afghanistan is better of without. However, no one is talking about how Pakistan can fill this void if India leaves as speculated.

The ground reality is India will stay put for 2 reasons.
1. Too much at stake.
2. India has a new assertive and confident outlook when compared to the 90s.

 

[Windjammer]

Very much correct.....

You tried to exploit them when ever you got the chance for pennies you got from US.

Today also you want a Taliban rule for them which you dont even want for yourself....

By the way till now God havent met me and told me so i dont know what he like and dislikes. and i m sure he is free from likes and dislikes. he just gives us chances and let us follow making our destinies and end results.

Now let us see what was India's stance when the Russians invaded Afghanistan, Your moral values were flushed down the toilet back then, however one wonders why the same Afghanistan is stuck in your throat now, those pennies from heaven must be tempting, or is it that India feels jittery being surrounded by hostile neighbours and looking towards Afghanistan as it's saving grace. God has given us something called a brain, you can exercise that to jump into the Ganges or in front of a train, but deep down we all know what's right and not and what the dear lord approves. Then again you belong in a different equation.

 

[Chappal Chor]

Now let us see what was India's stance when the Russians invaded Afghanistan, Your moral values were flushed down the toilet back then, however one wonders why the same Afghanistan is stuck in your throat now, those pennies from heaven must be tempting, or is it that India feels jittery being surrounded by hostile neighbours and looking towards Afghanistan as it's saving grace. God has given us something called a brain, you can exercise that to jump into the Ganges or in front of a train, but deep down we all know what's right and not and what the dear lord approves. Then again you belong in a different equation.

we were neutral. we were not preparing some extreme force and were not supporting which would devoid the common man from basic human rights for our own welfare. we dont have an habit of mingling others families till they dont ask us to interfere.


Yes down the lane we know we are correct in supporting the current government of pakistan because it was elected by the people unlike you who want a Taliban back there because they serve your interests though they may be a menace for the people. And if you guys love your good taliban so much why dont let the taliban rule your country.

 

[Aslan]

Now let us see what was India's stance when the Russians invaded Afghanistan, Your moral values were flushed down the toilet back then, however one wonders why the same Afghanistan is stuck in your throat now, those pennies from heaven must be tempting, or is it that India feels jittery being surrounded by hostile neighbours and looking towards Afghanistan as it's saving grace. God has given us something called a brain, you can exercise that to jump into the Ganges or in front of a train, but deep down we all know what's right and not and what the dear lord approves. Then again you belong in a different equation.

The same reason I asked the question, I wanted to see the stance of the Indians and I knew that there will be no answers. Cause they seem to try to lecture us all the time about morality. But they them selves have no morals nor a moral ground to stand on.

 

[mjnaushad]

As i told on other thread that he is only behaving good here. When he'll go back to his country things will starting to change. Just like before. When we honored him to be in our presidents oath taking cermony. I dont know what taking so long to give him his Anti Pakistan Statements.

 

[Chappal Chor]

The same reason I asked the question, I wanted to see the stance of the Indians and I knew that there will be no answers. Cause they seem to try to lecture us all the time about morality. But they them selves have no morals nor a moral ground to stand on.

As i said Neutral. we neither supported nor we objected. we dont have habit of poking our nose in matters of others till they dont ask for it or till they dont cause troubles for us.

 

[Aslan]

we were neutral. we were not preparing some extreme force and were not supporting which would devoid the common man from basic human rights for our own welfare. we dont have an habit of mingling others families till they dont ask us to interfere.


Yes down the lane we know we are correct in supporting the current government of pakistan because it was elected by the people unlike you who want a Taliban back there because they serve your interests though they may be a menace for the people. And if you guys love your good taliban so much why dont let the taliban rule your country.

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.

 

[Aslan]

As i said Neutral. we neither supported nor we objected. we dont have habit of poking our nose in matters of others till they dont ask for it or till they dont cause troubles for us.

Are u sure about that!!

 

[Chappal Chor]

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.

Your bangladeshi brothers were creating more pressure on our fragile economy and we did not had any other options. if the maoists are running over to china and asking their aid then it is upto china and india what stance we can take. Nothing to do with the topic by the way.

you were not able to control your citizens in bangladesh making them run for India. what we were supposed to do. Feed them chicken and send them back.

 

[ramu]

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.

Read about 1969 to 1974 in neutral forums. A leader who had won complete majority in East Pakistan in a keenly contested election is pushed into a prison. Who voted for him? Using that logic, each of those voted in favour of the traitor are traitors right? In my book, he is a leader who did not have any hidden agenda but had expressed his vision of provincial autonomy as early as 1965.

 

[Ahmad]

ASIA PACIFIC
Date Posted: 12-Mar-2010


Jane's Defence Weekly


Afghan president dismisses Pakistani training offer

Farhan Bokhari JDW Correspondent - Islamabad

Afghanistan's president, Hamid Karzai, has dismissed a proposal by Pakistan's army chief, General Ashfaq Kayani, to train recruits for the nascent Afghan National Army and police force, highlighting the underlying frictions between the two neighbours.

Speaking to a select group of journalists on 11 March on his first trip to Pakistan since his re-election last year, Karzai said his country continued to struggle with the legacy of its days under the former Soviet Union.

"Let me be very, very frank and clear here with you," said Karzai. "Afghanistan has an experience of training its troops with a neighbour and that neighbour was the Soviet Union and, in the memory of the Afghan people, training troops with neighbours mean subsequent trouble."

In February Gen Kayani for the first time publicly offered to train Afghan troops, signalling Pakistan's intention to become a key player in a future Afghan security regime.

Pakistani military and civilian government officials said after Gen Kayani spoke that Pakistan was keen to become involved in the establishment of a new Afghan security arrangement, in part to block any attempt by its arch-rival, India, to become more closely involved with Afghan security.

In response to Pakistan's concern over India's activities in Afghanistan, Karzai said his government will make certain that Afghan territory is not used to undermine Pakistan's interests. A senior official travelling with the Afghan delegation told Jane's that Karzai and other members of his regime saw closer Pakistani military involvement with the new Afghan security apparatus as a concern, since they believe it could facilitate the return of Islamic militants such as the Taliban.

In 1978 a communist coup in Afghanistan, which brought down the monarchy of Sardar Mohammad Daud, was widely seen to have been instigated in part by Soviet-trained Afghan army officers. The coup was followed just a year later by an invasion of Afghanistan by Soviet troops.

In the 1990s Pakistan's intelligence and military were widely seen to have created the Taliban, which subjected Afghanistan to six years of puritanical rule. The Taliban were ultimately ousted by the US-led intervention in Afghanistan that followed the 9/11 terrorist attacks on the United States.

so much for the 'twin-brother' theory!:rofl:

That is a valid point. I cant understand why some friends are so unhappy about it?

 

[Aslan]

Your bangladeshi brothers were creating more pressure on our fragile economy and we did not had any other options. if the maoists are running over to china and asking their aid then it is upto china and india what stance we can take. Nothing to do with the topic by the way.

you were not able to control your citizens in bangladesh making them run for India. what we were supposed to do. Feed them chicken and send them back.

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

 

[Windjammer]

we were neutral. we were not preparing some extreme force and were not supporting which would devoid the common man from basic human rights for our own welfare. we dont have an habit of mingling others families till they dont ask us to interfere.


Yes down the lane we know we are correct in supporting the current government of pakistan because it was elected by the people unlike you who want a Taliban back there because they serve your interests though they may be a menace for the people. And if you guys love your good taliban so much why dont let the taliban rule your country.

Have you lately heard yourself, it's we this, we that,

 

[Aslan]

Read about 1969 to 1974 in neutral forums. A leader who had won complete majority in East Pakistan in a keenly contested election is pushed into a prison. Who voted for him? Using that logic, each of those voted in favour of the traitor are traitors right? In my book, he is a leader who did not have any hidden agenda but had expressed his vision of provincial autonomy as early as 1965.

I knew that it was off topic but necessary to connect the chains. Every one in Pakistan then and now knew what had happen. And I would never dispute the fact that Mugib won, but there were other issues, and what ever they might have been. It was Pakistans internal matter then so on your way little indian. Try to answer other things as well and dont just pick and chose on what you might see fit to answer.