It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

POLITICS: Karzai to Formally Propose Long-term U.S.-Afghanistan Relationship

page: 1
0

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 13 2005 @ 03:26 PM
link   
Afghan President Hamid Karzai announced that he will be sending a formal request to U.S. President George W. Bush proposing closer long-term ties between Washington and Kabul. The proposals include economic ties and a military alliance that may include placing permanent forward operating U.S. bases in Afghanistan. Afghanistan has become an important ally in the U.S. war on terror after the former Taliban government was defeated.
 



The New York Times (requires free registration)
KABUL, Afghanistan, April 13 - President Hamid Karzai of Afghanistan announced today that he will send a formal request to President Bush seeking a long-term, strategic relationship between the two nations, one that could include economic assistance as well as security guarantees and military cooperation.

At a news conference with Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld, Mr. Karzai said it was only natural that his nation would desire such a long-term relationship with the foreign power that had, he said, restored sovereignty to the Afghan people and already was at the forefront of assistance to rebuild its security and economy.

"The conclusion we have drawn is that the Afghan people want a long-term relationship with the United States," Mr. Karzai said. "They want this relationship to be a wholesome one, including a sustained economic relationship, a political relationship and, most important of all, a strategic security relationship that would enable Afghanistan to defend itself, to continue to prosper, to stop the possibility of interferences in Afghanistan."


Please visit the link provided for the complete story.


The U.S. needs to remain engaged in Afghanistan so that it doesn't fall back into the hands of extremists like the Taliban. Hopefully after some time, the Afghan people will prosper and build a strong democracy there and will become great allies to the U.S. and other Western nations

Related News Links:
ABC News


[edit on 4/13/2005 by djohnsto77]




posted on Apr, 13 2005 @ 08:51 PM
link   
Its not a big surprise and the US no doubt covets basing in the area for strategic reasons. Build ahuge base there and you can stage out to just about any ME country and Asia from somewhere other than the Pacific.



posted on Apr, 13 2005 @ 08:56 PM
link   
I completly agree. This is all I was thinking while reading the article. The U.S. has achevied its formost, yet unmentioned, goal of having long term access to these countries to be able to stage future overseas missions from airfields or naval yards in the countries that we are, ahem, liberating.



posted on Apr, 14 2005 @ 05:49 PM
link   
I vaguely remember President W saying that we weren't invading countries in order to establish bases after installing US-dependencies. (Okay, he didn't say dependencies, but...)

So, why am I not suprised that just a little over two years later...



posted on Apr, 14 2005 @ 06:04 PM
link   
Note that according to the article, these will not be large bases like those built in Germany during the cold war, but just small forward operating bases that could be used in an emergency situation.

[edit on 4/14/2005 by djohnsto77]



posted on Apr, 14 2005 @ 06:27 PM
link   
Karzai is nothing more than a mouthpeice for the Bush Administration, he was "installed" and worked for Unocal for christ sake. It comes as no suprise that he invites the United States to come and build a base in "his" country.

You see this as a good thing djohnsto77? I assume you are of the questioning type to frequent these boards but you seem to have swallowed the official line completely. Do you honestly think there were U.S reasons that were above securing a massively lucrative pipeline through Afghanistan and having a "friendly" nation within which to build bases in to further dominate the most condensed oil fields on the planet?

[edit on 14/4/05 by subz]



posted on Apr, 14 2005 @ 07:48 PM
link   
I am an American and I support our government's efforts to improve its strategic worldwide military position. Anything that help the U.S. secure our dominate position in world affairs is good news to me. And, although petroleum doesn't exist in abundance within Afghanistan, you still dragged it into this conversation so I'll add that, like it or not, oil is necessary to the economic stability of the U.S. and all industrialized nations, so I don't have a problem with our country flexing its military might to help assure the availability of this necessary commodity.



posted on Apr, 14 2005 @ 07:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by djohnsto77
I am an American and I support our government's efforts to improve its strategic worldwide military position. Anything that help the U.S. secure our dominate position in world affairs is good news to me.


That's a good point and I won't argue with that.

Still, Karzai "proposing" to the US some kind of collaboration or "relationship" is preposterous. The guy is there due to the US military presence. The "relationship" does not fit this highly unequal kind of relation.



posted on Apr, 14 2005 @ 09:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by djohnsto77
I am an American and I support our government's efforts to improve its strategic worldwide military position. Anything that help the U.S. secure our dominate position in world affairs is good news to me.


Anything, really?

So, invading countries under false pretenses in order to improve our strategic position is okay?

Allowing Osama to escape and arms to fall into the hands of terrorists because we had our troops concentrating on securing the oil ministry is okay because that improves our strategic worldwide military...? Oops, okay, bad example.

How about torture? Is it okay to violate international law in order to use torture to gain information? What if that really did improve our worldwide strategic blah blah blah?

You know, I'm not much given to quoting the Bible, but in this case, I see its point. "What profit a man if he gain the whole world, but loses his soul?"

Or, in this case, what profit to the United States if we gain a base but spend the next 20 years sending troops to the Middle East because we've made ourselves the enemies of entire populations?



posted on Apr, 15 2005 @ 05:56 AM
link   

Originally posted by djohnsto77
I am an American and I support our government's efforts to improve its strategic worldwide military position. Anything that help the U.S. secure our dominate position in world affairs is good news to me.

Fine, you are entitled to your opinion but you have no right trying to dress imperialistic and unilateral aggression off as spreading democracy and making out that your country is acting in Afghanistan's best interests.

Its the fact that America's foreign policy ideals are duplicitious which makes people not trust the United States any more. Come out and say you are doing it purely for your own national security and interests. Then the World can duely address your rogue nation in its entireity.



posted on Apr, 15 2005 @ 06:02 AM
link   
Oh great, another 'stan.

Jeez, arn't the bases in the other ones enough already?

guessing news headline 2008;

"The Iraqi government has asked the US to permanently station troops to safeguard Iraqis".

[edit on 15-4-2005 by rapier28]




top topics



 
0

log in

join