Afghan president dismisses Pakistani training offer

[AZADPAKISTAN2009]

Kiyani Sahib lest just go in and clear terrrorist in Afghanistan , Karzai can be sent packing -Afgahanis are living in Pakistan

3 million in 70's came and now their population is 8-10 million Afghans , and that is also the total population of Pakistani Afghans and lets just call it a new province

All these bomb blasts are coming from Afghan affiliated borders and coincides with Karzai's departure

 

[Chappal Chor]

Kiyani Sahib lest just go in and clear terrrorist in Afghanistan , Karzai can be sent packing -

But whom do you identify as the terrorists. Taliban or the democratically elected government.

 

[Ahmad]

well i mean its not like he has any control over it, if he doesnt go our way he's screwed simple as that

Here you go, what a logic. Yesterday you were dancing that Karzai called Pakistan twin brother and today you are condemning the same Karzai because he doesnt want paksitan to train the army of afghanistan for the right and valid reasons. YOu cant dictate people, you guys have already pushed afghanistan too far and the trust deficit is too big for both countries. If you want to have good relationships, try to understand people and respect them.

 

[Chappal Chor]

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

Read it as i said we neither supported neither condemned i think it translates into being neutral.....

 

[Windjammer]

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.

Even so, it was Pakistan's internal matter, but India needed an opportunity to shed the ghost of 1965, now for the question of high morals, two statements by Indra Gandhi should clear any cobwebs.
1: "Indian forces have entered East Pakistan in ....... self defense. ??
2: "Second Liberation of India".

 

[Aslan]

Here you go, what a logic. Yesterday you were dancing that Karzai called Pakistan twin brother and today you are condemning the same Karzai because he doesnt want paksitan to train the army of afghanistan for the right and valid reasons. YOu cant dictate people, you guys have already pushed afghanistan too far and the trust deficit is too big for both countries. If you want to have good relationships, try to understand people and respect them.

Well then Karzai should also STFU and also not to whine like a b!t(h in heat and dance over the indian music when ever something goes wrong in his backyard. And should also leash up the raw dogs running wild in his country. Because as you are a muslim so are those who are being killed in Pakistan every day.

 

[Aslan]

Read it as i said we neither supported neither condemned i think it translates into being neutral.....

but still were whining about the below and also note that the no comments was an official stance, what did they do in the back gound is any ones guess. Now when you dont have an ally occuping Afg you have so many counslates around the Pakistan border. What I guess what going on then.

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.

 

[All-Green]

First of all Pakistan has alread started projects worth more than 500 Million USD.
Now considering the giant size of Indian economy and the fact that India has only pledged around 1 Billion USD, i wonder why India is holding back.

Pakistan will also stay for good and as more and more time passes, Pakistan will use its proximity to its advantage in order to ensure strong ties with Afghanistan.

We have clarified that we shall support the Afghan government and shall provide any possible help and assistance if sought.

Maybe politically Karzai cannot turn it around but eventually he will accord more and more importance to Pakistan.
Reason is very simple, Pakistan has a changed outlook towards Afghanistan after this terror storm.

In the past due to Afghanistan's hostility towards Pakistan we were forced to make alliances which were made very logical by the prevalent situation before and after Afghan Jihad.
The Taliban were the younger 2nd generation Mujahideen and were expected to be a reasonable choice since they brought unity, but eventually when they gained power they enforced draconian laws and lost all sense and purpose which they promised to their supporters.
Eventually the Taliban plotted the seeds of their own destruction and lost support of people.
However the current third generation which is gaining more and more cnntrol are the terror mafia which has no direct link with Afghan Jihad and has no more association with any party in the region, they are rich in ties with Al Qaeda.
They have brought enough destruction to ensure commonality between Pakistan and Afghanistan...in both nations the majority now eye the religious political and non political forces with great suspicion.

Now Pakistan has been taking the fight to Taliban and extremism, we have a long way to go but our efforts will help the entire region.

The way i see it, Karzai may reject the offer now but Pakistan is handling itself maturely and doing what needs to be done, this is a very good sign for the future.

 

[AZADPAKISTAN2009]

But whom do you identify as the terrorists. Taliban or the democratically elected government.

When 10 million-15 million Afghans are in Pakistan , getting 300 afghanis to cast vote in remote city of Afghanistan does not constitues elections even the Afghan's own leader condemmed the elections

 

[ramu]

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.

Good to know you are enlightened. Please read my posts and I don't have the habit of repeating myself. About answering other questions, if everyone answers the same question we get chaos and noise. If you need anything specific from me then let me know and stop your patronising statements. This thread can easily be derailed from silly comments that you are capable of.

 

[pakdefender]

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.

india will have to pack up and leave once the yanks leave or else face a slaughter of unimaginable proportions , its as simple as that.

India has no business setting up a military base in afghanistan under the guise of humanitarin aid and development. Such 'oppertunistic development initiatives' never work since the intentions are bad.

If you go around planting lilles next your neighbours house and tell the world that 'look we are only planting flowers' where as in reality you want the lilly pollen to cause allergy and respiratory problems to the neighbour then be rest assured the neighbor will cut down those lilles!

This ghataya chankiya mentallity is unfortunalty an indan trait and one that is greatly followed by even indian leaders.

India hedged their bets in afghanistan based on and extended stay of the yanks and the possibility of america attacking Pakistan.

None of this seems likely now and sooner or later the yanks will have to leave or face the possibility of an endless war that is sucking up resources even faster than Ben Benake can run those dollar printing presses.

The soviets made and even bigger investment in afghanistan and did much more than they get credit for in terms of development none of that served them well so India kiss khet ki muli ha that where a juggernaut like USSR could not reap the benefits from the 'oppertunistc development' that it did , that india will benefit ?

India did all this to give a decisive blow to Pakistan and in one form or the other all these efforts are now faltering now.

 

[All-Green]

Here you go, what a logic. Yesterday you were dancing that Karzai called Pakistan twin brother and today you are condemning the same Karzai because he doesnt want paksitan to train the army of afghanistan for the right and valid reasons. YOu cant dictate people, you guys have already pushed afghanistan too far and the trust deficit is too big for both countries. If you want to have good relationships, try to understand people and respect them.

It takes time to bridge the differences but i think the terrorists have unified the people on both sides.
Pak Afghan is a strange tale of love and hate...i think it will have a happy ending.
Karzai will tread carefully but we are right next door and have time.
Inshallah our efforts will bear fruit.

 

[Aslan]

Good to know you are enlightened. Please read my posts and I don't have the habit of repeating myself. About answering other questions, if everyone answers the same question we get chaos and noise. If you need anything specific from me then let me know and stop your patronising statements. This thread can easily be derailed from silly comments that you are capable of.

Well dont worry about me forcing you to derail this thread, you guys are born geniouses when it comes to trolling. As far as the question is concerned I never asked you specifically. You chose to take a point out of the conversation and answer that while ignoring the rest.

 

[ramu]

Even so, it was Pakistan's internal matter, but India needed an opportunity to shed the ghost of 1965, now for the question of high morals, two statements by Indra Gandhi should clear any cobwebs.
1: "Indian forces have entered East Pakistan in ....... self defense. ??
2: "Second Liberation of India".

WJ, we both know what Indian version is and what is the Pakistan version. I can post videos but you have your videos and invariably this will derail this thread. Do we go that route ?

 

[ambidex]

I am having fun. I shows how out of the context Pakistanis are?
First of all this thread has nothing for Pakistanis to blame on India.

Gen. Kayani is snubbed by Afghanistan cause the proposal was totally over optimistic. Why karzai the man in power will send his men for training in Pakistan who has been lobbying against his regime proactively by many means.

I can see Afghanistan rising as a nation. People who think he is not a decision maker is a severe under estimation of his power and international tempo for a stable govt in AF. Happy Karzai means NATO returning back home. Power sharing will only happen when US will ran out of patience and will stop interfering in Afghanistan by all means.

Pakistan can try its luck making US impatient and lobby in US for the same(power sharing). I have no doubts that Pakistan has more friends than India in US political arena.