S-2
PROFESSIONAL
- Joined
- Dec 25, 2007
- Messages
- 4,210
- Reaction score
- 0
"Like i said, you are trying to police lands that are totally foreign to you."
There is an Afghan government that is there trying to do the same. The U.N., America, and forty other nations think that your thoughts are a bunch of self-serving pap meant to maintain a choke-hold on afghan political discourse.
"You dont know the culture or history of this region."
Actually, I'm stunned by how little Pakistanis here understand about Afghanistan and the thoughts most Afghans have. This naturally stems from the notion that pashtu perspectives are AFGHAN perspectives and speaks to the disregard Pakistanis have for the Uzbeks, Tajiks, Turkomen, and Hazara of Afghanistan.
"Americans think they can apply some kind of "Iraq formula" to Afghanistan (for whatever that is worth)."
I hope you've actually read McChrystal's redacted assessment and aren't simply repeating trite media-driven labeling? If so, you'd know far better that the operating parameters of Afghanistan are clearly understood by the ISAF leadership and there's no mistaking Afghanstan's differences to Iraq.
Foolish and simplistic for a military man. You should know better.
"Taleban werent your enemy until you invaded the already destroyed country."
The taliban were NEVER recognized by the United States. That should tell you enough. Only KSA, UAE and yourselves-all with something to gain at the afghans expense. We were hardly friends and 9/11 was the culmination of a series of deadly attacks by Al Qaeda under the protection of the taliban gov't.
This is pure theatre by you right here-
"All you had to do was use diplomatic pressure on them, and isolate them from the AQ-allied extremists existing in the area."
Pull your head out of the sand. We weren't going to NEGOTIATE. We were going to make war. We don't believe that the taliban represent ANYTHING redeemable. Nothing.
"You obviously had no problems inviting these same people to Houston to discuss pipeline projects."
Speak to UNOCAL about that. Didn't get very far. Don't see how we recognized their government but I do see that you did and sponsored those blood-curdling loons.
"You need our cooperation."
I'm still waiting for some that doesn't come with a bill of lading.
"You want our cooperation? You will take things on our terms, and based on our conditions."
Actually, no. I wish for you to cut our supply lines and shoot down a PREDATOR or two. Our relationship is a sham and nothing will improve for anybody until we get this out in the open, fight the war that's evidently got to happen and settle matters in a way that will allow for progress to move forward in Afghanistan or forever be denied.
That's what I think needs to happen because I think Pakistan really does hold proxy forces against the day ISAF leaves, and we do intend to leave. Pakistan does so because it can't compete economically nor diplomatically with India in Afghanistan. So it does by promoting insurgency through surrogates.
You have no ability to garner favor in Afghanistan beyond the pashtu because Pakistan has intentionally alienated itself from the hazara, tajik, uzbek, and turkomen of that nation. As such, you can't be viewed as a good-faith broker.
"We are the ones suffering economically and in numbers of lives lost -- thanks partly to your short sightedness and betrayal."
Actually, its the Afghans that have been the long-suffering and manipulated here. That's thanks to your short-sightedness and betrayal. How dare you foist the taliban upon them and then try to do so again.
We've data that shows that, if afghans had a choice, the taliban pull about 7-8% of the country's freely-expressed favor. Less than 10%. The Afghan people HATE these men.
"...by the way, not all anti-American elements in FATA are taleban or pro-taleban. Some are just sympathetic to the very same "Afghan brothers" who were being bombarded by soviet gunships...READ HISTORY! "
Your simplistic allusions lack factual accuracy. There's no comparison between the slaughter that the Afghan-Soviet war brought forth, particularly from the Soviet Union, and now. None and I welcome any data that you wish to provide that contradicts and puts this on the same plain.
You ignore that, unlike the Afghan-Soviet war, forty nations and the U.N. are arrayed against allowing your "afghan brothers", as you put it, gaining their chokehold on the social fabric of Afghanistan again.
Big difference. You've no moral authority this time. The taliban aren't the mujahideen nor do they represent the multi-ethnic composition of the mujahideen.
Most of the world thinks stabilizing Afghanistan under the U.N. mandate is a good endeavor and worthy of support. Only muslim nations are notably absent from helping the afghans.
Go figure.
Your sense of history seems skewed, especially if I'm supposed to rely upon phrases like "shortsightedness and betrayal" for their scholarship.
I won't do so. Meanwhile, I'll keep my own counsel on your knowledge as a regional historian.
There is an Afghan government that is there trying to do the same. The U.N., America, and forty other nations think that your thoughts are a bunch of self-serving pap meant to maintain a choke-hold on afghan political discourse.
"You dont know the culture or history of this region."
Actually, I'm stunned by how little Pakistanis here understand about Afghanistan and the thoughts most Afghans have. This naturally stems from the notion that pashtu perspectives are AFGHAN perspectives and speaks to the disregard Pakistanis have for the Uzbeks, Tajiks, Turkomen, and Hazara of Afghanistan.
"Americans think they can apply some kind of "Iraq formula" to Afghanistan (for whatever that is worth)."
I hope you've actually read McChrystal's redacted assessment and aren't simply repeating trite media-driven labeling? If so, you'd know far better that the operating parameters of Afghanistan are clearly understood by the ISAF leadership and there's no mistaking Afghanstan's differences to Iraq.
Foolish and simplistic for a military man. You should know better.
"Taleban werent your enemy until you invaded the already destroyed country."
The taliban were NEVER recognized by the United States. That should tell you enough. Only KSA, UAE and yourselves-all with something to gain at the afghans expense. We were hardly friends and 9/11 was the culmination of a series of deadly attacks by Al Qaeda under the protection of the taliban gov't.
This is pure theatre by you right here-
"All you had to do was use diplomatic pressure on them, and isolate them from the AQ-allied extremists existing in the area."
Pull your head out of the sand. We weren't going to NEGOTIATE. We were going to make war. We don't believe that the taliban represent ANYTHING redeemable. Nothing.
"You obviously had no problems inviting these same people to Houston to discuss pipeline projects."
Speak to UNOCAL about that. Didn't get very far. Don't see how we recognized their government but I do see that you did and sponsored those blood-curdling loons.
"You need our cooperation."
I'm still waiting for some that doesn't come with a bill of lading.
"You want our cooperation? You will take things on our terms, and based on our conditions."
Actually, no. I wish for you to cut our supply lines and shoot down a PREDATOR or two. Our relationship is a sham and nothing will improve for anybody until we get this out in the open, fight the war that's evidently got to happen and settle matters in a way that will allow for progress to move forward in Afghanistan or forever be denied.
That's what I think needs to happen because I think Pakistan really does hold proxy forces against the day ISAF leaves, and we do intend to leave. Pakistan does so because it can't compete economically nor diplomatically with India in Afghanistan. So it does by promoting insurgency through surrogates.
You have no ability to garner favor in Afghanistan beyond the pashtu because Pakistan has intentionally alienated itself from the hazara, tajik, uzbek, and turkomen of that nation. As such, you can't be viewed as a good-faith broker.
"We are the ones suffering economically and in numbers of lives lost -- thanks partly to your short sightedness and betrayal."
Actually, its the Afghans that have been the long-suffering and manipulated here. That's thanks to your short-sightedness and betrayal. How dare you foist the taliban upon them and then try to do so again.
We've data that shows that, if afghans had a choice, the taliban pull about 7-8% of the country's freely-expressed favor. Less than 10%. The Afghan people HATE these men.
"...by the way, not all anti-American elements in FATA are taleban or pro-taleban. Some are just sympathetic to the very same "Afghan brothers" who were being bombarded by soviet gunships...READ HISTORY! "
Your simplistic allusions lack factual accuracy. There's no comparison between the slaughter that the Afghan-Soviet war brought forth, particularly from the Soviet Union, and now. None and I welcome any data that you wish to provide that contradicts and puts this on the same plain.
You ignore that, unlike the Afghan-Soviet war, forty nations and the U.N. are arrayed against allowing your "afghan brothers", as you put it, gaining their chokehold on the social fabric of Afghanistan again.
Big difference. You've no moral authority this time. The taliban aren't the mujahideen nor do they represent the multi-ethnic composition of the mujahideen.
Most of the world thinks stabilizing Afghanistan under the U.N. mandate is a good endeavor and worthy of support. Only muslim nations are notably absent from helping the afghans.
Go figure.
Your sense of history seems skewed, especially if I'm supposed to rely upon phrases like "shortsightedness and betrayal" for their scholarship.
I won't do so. Meanwhile, I'll keep my own counsel on your knowledge as a regional historian.