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.

 

Former US envoy calls for Afghanistan's partition

page: 1
4

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 9 2010 @ 12:59 AM
link   

Former US envoy calls for Afghanistan's partition


www.dawn.com

Robert D. Blackwill, a former US ambassador to India, warns that the Obama administration’s counter-insurgency strategy in Afghanistan “seems headed for failure” and the best option for Washington is to partition Afghanistan.
(visit the link for the full news article)




posted on Jul, 9 2010 @ 12:59 AM
link   
It is obvious that the US is failing, the world's most powerful killing machine is failing against home made bombs. Why is that, does anyone ask?

And what right does the US have in dividing Afghanistan?

People who talk about Democracy this, Democracy that, here you are, show me your damn Democracy, show me that the empire is not expansionist, that the empire is not oppressive, aggressive, and tell me that the empire doesn't use terrorism as its tool.

And please tell me if the empire isn't using you as a tool against accountability and justice.

You are the problem


www.dawn.com
(visit the link for the full news article)



posted on Jul, 9 2010 @ 01:10 AM
link   
It's failing because the politicians are trying to run the war instead of letting the troops do their jobs. They didn't learn a damn thing from Vietnam, they're making the same mistakes all over again.

What right do we have to partition Afghanistan? Well, if the British hadn't screwed up that entire region by arbitrarily drawing lines in the sand, we might not even be over there.

When the British left, they just drew lines on the map. They never took into consideration the local history. If they had followed historical ethnic borders, Afghanistan and Pakistan would have been at least 4 different countries. Iraq would have been 3.

It's part of the reason there's always been so much tension in that part of the world between the different ethnic and religious groups forced to live together with each other and/or separated from there brethren in another country.



posted on Jul, 9 2010 @ 04:50 AM
link   
The war in Afghanistan is and always has been a Lame Duck event. This is just a way for them (the politicians) to try to walk away with some sort of Win in their ledger.
There is nothing in this respect that benefits the region at large. It basically sets up another scenario like the Koreas. It will divide a nation and give the US a long term strategic placement center in the Middle East region near Pakistan, Russia and Iran.
If this is agreed upon, it will be hailed as Obama's solution and promise of withdrawal and ending of the war in Afghanistan. This is a ploy that will be played out on a distinct timeline condusive to that of election year in a bid for 4 more years. At that time, the US and Isreal can team up and wipe Iran off the map, since they will be fully entrenched in the area and surrounding the country. From there, the oil and energy pipelines to Russia and China (if they survive the incursion) can be held hostage for money or just turned off as a means to weaken both nations simultaneously.

And there you have it, one of the largest supplies of oil, along with the natural gas and minerals in the area, are under the boot of the New Masters and every nation will now bow down to Unified Global Domination by the power elite.



posted on Jul, 9 2010 @ 05:09 AM
link   
reply to post by LittleSecret
 


Man I cannot help but remember how Britishers partitioned India & Pakistan and Palestine into Israel - Gaza/West bank. How is that working out till now? This US envoy is the most retarded guy I have come across in sometime. He should be shot on face point blank for trying to divide a country and it's people.



posted on Jul, 9 2010 @ 05:33 AM
link   
reply to post by LittleSecret
 



And what right does the US have in dividing Afghanistan?


They have the same rights as any other conquering nation. Al Qaeda, with the ruling Taliban's support, directly attacked America. The Taliban refused to hand over Bin Laden and the rest of his crew.

The direct result of that play was they that got invaded and thrown out of power. After that, they are under America's control until such time as the Americans decide to give control back to the Afghan people.

This is the same outcome as was for the Germans, the Japanese and most recently also the Iraqis.

Whether you think it was all justified or not (either 9/11 or the American response), these are the rules of armed conflict...even if you buy into the idea that the U.S. actually attacked itself.

Afghanistan was conquered by America and its allies. They lost. Now certain elements in that country are deciding to not play nice...to continue the conflict, trying to reverse the outcome.

So whether America/NATO/UN decides to partition the Country or not...they can and they will if they believe that it will result in a lasting peace, and will restore stability in the area.

In my opinion, Countries like Iraq, Afghanistan and Iran should just count themselves lucky that they are dealing with a "kinder gentler" America, a superpower with a conscience.

The USA could have completely obliterated any one of these Countries inside of anywhere from 15 minutes to 15 days (depending on the hardware they decided to employ). They could have completely suspended all rights and freedoms of the population...directly taken over the education of the children and the re-education of the population for a generation to ensure a complete change of customs and attitudes.

This (and more) has been the practice of every conquering force in human history. So far as I know (and some may correct me perhaps) the USA has be the first superpower to not completely dominate by force...regardless of the toll this took on local populations.

Look at the English in North America (and other places). Look at France, and Spain. Look at the Romans, the Ottomans, the Mongols, Chinese Warlords, the Japanese, on and on and on.

What right does the USA have? Every right.

It is only through their (and the West's in general) recent liberal thinking that the on-going resistance in Afghanistan is tolerated in the least. In any other time, the Afghan population would have been wiped out methodically until such time as all resisters were killed or turned in.



posted on Jul, 9 2010 @ 03:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by mobiusmale
reply to post by LittleSecret
 



And what right does the US have in dividing Afghanistan?


They have the same rights as any other conquering nation. Al Qaeda, with the ruling Taliban's support, directly attacked America. The Taliban refused to hand over Bin Laden and the rest of his crew.

((snip))



Not so, there are dozens of articles other than this.. the Taliban asked for "proof" and bush refused. An American virtue is "innocent until PROVEN guilty", unless a delusional party leader has king george flash-backs and announced guilt ahead of due process, a fair trial and all that pre-911 founding father junk.

www.guardian.co.uk...
"A senior Taliban minister has offered a last-minute deal to hand over Osama bin Laden during a secret visit to Islamabad, senior sources in Pakistan told the Guardian last night."

"But US officials appear to have dismissed the proposal and are instead hoping to engineer a split within the Taliban leadership"

Hey, here is an idea.. let the Afghan people decide, if they vote "get out".. so be it.



posted on Jul, 9 2010 @ 09:14 PM
link   
reply to post by GovtFlu
 


Hi GovtFlu:

Yes, you are right. When it became obvious that they were going to be handed their hats, they then offered to hand over Bin Laden. As the article says, though, whether they could have actually pulled this off is another question.

If we could peer into alternate universes, it would be interesting to know how different the last 9 years would have been if the Taliban had done so...

Just as has happened in Iraq, this will ultimately be the case...that the Afghan people will vote to ask the U.S. to go home again. Something similar is happening in Japan right now as well.

The resistance there might be better served if they let everything totally cool down, in exchange for their being able to re-form as a legal political party. Then, after the U.S. hands back control they can try to regain power at the ballot box...of course if they did, then Afghanistan would slide back into the hell it was prior to the invasion (but would be their private matter at that point).



posted on Jul, 10 2010 @ 08:20 AM
link   
More of the same old failed u.s policies.. Afghanistan will end up another n. korea a dragged out conflict in order for the u.s to continue to profit from war...

[edit on 10-7-2010 by Expat888]



posted on Jul, 13 2010 @ 09:42 PM
link   
reply to post by mobiusmale
 




Yes, you are right. When it became obvious that they were going to be handed their hats, they then offered to hand over Bin Laden. As the article says, though, whether they could have actually pulled this off is another question.


They were asking for evidence, which any rational/logical human being would.

Why didn't the US provide evidence? And did you know, Osama bin Laden is still only a suspect, no guilty of any crimes?

The accuser provides evidence of the accused's guilt.

Keep that in mind next time you comment.

You don't invade/occupy/bombard countries based on speculations.

What if China invaded the US based on speculations without providing any evidence.



posted on Jul, 13 2010 @ 09:48 PM
link   
reply to post by oozyism
 


They were stalling for time and before I go any further one question...


They were asking for evidence, which any rational/logical human being would.


Are you saying that the Taliban were/are rational and logical people?

Actually, make that two questions...

When did you leave Afghanistan, before or after the Taliban took control of the country?



posted on Jul, 13 2010 @ 09:57 PM
link   
reply to post by GAOTU789
 


Ohh jeeese, the statement is self clarified:



They were asking for evidence, which any rational/logical human being would.


Read it carefully, over and over again until you understand what that statement means.

Now let me break it down:



They were asking for evidence[/e]

And



which any rational/logical human being would.

You are telling me a rational human being wouldn't ask for evidence? A logical human being wouldn't ask for evidence?

The statement means, that the Taliban asking for evidence was a rational/logical thing to do, which any rational/logical human being would do..

 


Do you believe asking for evidence is stalling? Hey let's assume everyone is guilty until proven innocent because everyone is stalling for time. We should bomb each other to dust based on that ideology.

 


"when did I leave Afghanistan?"

Just before 9/11, although before that I was in Pakistani refugee camp (PESHAWER).

Are you gonna talk about the Western propaganda now lol did you know they are trying the same propaganda now against Iran and they are failing lol.

It is sooo funny, but hey, who knows, Westerners have been fouled so many times, the track record makes us believe they will be fouled again.



posted on Jul, 17 2010 @ 11:41 PM
link   
reply to post by oozyism
 



They were asking for evidence, which any rational/logical human being would.

Why didn't the US provide evidence? And did you know, Osama bin Laden is still only a suspect, no guilty of any crimes?


Well, sir, the so-called rational/logical thinking leader(s) of Afghanistan at the time should have run the entire equation through their computer...assuming they had one.

New York City, Washington and Pennsylvania had just been attacked. Right or wrong, the U.S. believed that Al Qaeda (and by extension, the Taliban) were directly behind it. They were hell-bent on apprehending Bin Laden and making him stand trial for the attack.

Any "rational/logical thinker" would have determined that either they handed Bin Laden over...or their very regime was going to be over. This should have been a very easy decision to make. They could have handed him over to a third party, like the Hague, to at least give the appearance that they wanted to enssure that he would be given a fair trial. Heck, at the time, Omar could have probably wrangled 20 or 30 million dollars for himself for putting the pinch on Bin Laden.

Bin Laden had previously admitted to being behind various other terrorist attacks (like the Embassy bombings in Africa), so he was then already a known terrorist and was an internationally wanted man.

But, instead, they chose to act like they were the ones holding the cards...that they could actually play games with the U.S. - a very angry U.S. at the time - and avoid their own destruction. Omar, like many other piss-ant dictators had an inflated sense of his power and indestructability because he held sway over his backward little country.

Sort of like Saddam Hussein, when he self-described his coming war with the U.S. (and others) after he invaded Kuwait, as the "mother of all battles". It was only to become the mother of all butt-kickings...he was powerful in his own country, but powerless against a real world power like America.

In any event, Omar was being far from logical by taking the stance that he did. The results speak for themselves.

Bin Laden, of course, since the invasion of Afghanistan has admitted that indeed he planned and executed the attacks on 9/11...so I will take his confession as adequate proof of guilt.

www.pbs.org...

There is an old saying in the West. If you play with a bull, you will get the horns. The Taliban/Al Qaeda did...and they did.


Yes, in our system of justice a person is presumed to be innocent until proven guilty. However, if someone is suspected of committing a crime - especially one as heinous as 9/11 - they can and will be arrested and held pending a full investigation and then trial.

You are suggesting that, somehow, a person needs to be found guilty prior to being arrested and held over for trial.

I would also like to point out that in a time of war - again, rightly or wrongly - the rules are quite different. After the attack, and up to the present day, the U.S. will attack and kill any suspected enemy combatant wherever they find them. The rules of evidence are for the most part suspended during hostilities.


You don't invade/occupy/bombard countries based on speculations.


Ummm...I beg to differ. Throughout history, countries have been invaded and occupied and bombarded based on speculation as to the "enemy's" intentions or actions. If you know anything about history, a belligerent country will often not even require actual speculation to justify launching an attack. They will completely fabricate something...or just do it because they want something the other country has (as many here suspect the U.S. did in this case).


What if China invaded the US based on speculations without providing any evidence


Given the geography and many other factors, not that they could of course. But if they did, they would need to play all of their aces on the first day...or else they would very quickly be returned to the days of the warlords, in whatever parts of the country were not still glowing every night.


"when did I leave Afghanistan?"

Just before 9/11, although before that I was in Pakistani refugee camp


Well then, as a resident of the area prior to the invasion, you should be well aware of the insanity that was life under Taliban rule. Unless, of course, you were one of the crew that enjoyed shooting women in the head in front of cheering crowds at football stadiums...for dress code violations, or wanting to be educated (oh, sorry, for that you would only get acid thrown in your face).

Hopefully, when all is said and done in a few years, the younger generation in Afghanistan will have a freer and more affluent lifestyle as an indirect result of the Taliban death wish that brought the wrath of the West to bear on the country. But, for that to happen, the people themselves will have to turn their backs on the crazies that did - and hope to again - rule over them.



[edit on 17-7-2010 by mobiusmale]



posted on Jul, 18 2010 @ 12:58 AM
link   
reply to post by mobiusmale
 


There is no debate here, America didn't want Osama bin Laden tried, If they did, they would have provided evidence, daaaaah.

Then there would have been a justification for the murder of thousands of Afghanis, the sons, the daughters, the mothers, the fathers, etc.

Thousands perished, but hey, I never expected America to act responsibly, nor did I ever expect America to give a damn about human life, it is an out of control monster.

Once again, you don't think a logical/rational human being would ask for evidence?

A coward would hand over their guest to an aggressive, terroristic world bully (who doesn't even have the decency to provide evidence to back their accusations), Afghans are not cowards, they are proving it right now, by making the biggest terrorist of this world, and the strongest killing machine shake in their boots.

And all they are using is home made bombs AKA IEDs.



posted on Jul, 18 2010 @ 04:08 AM
link   
Originally posted by oozyism
reply to post by mobiusmale
 



There is no debate here, America didn't want Osama bin Laden tried, If they did, they would have provided evidence, daaaaah.


Well, you may be right on this one point...partially. Bin Laden alive to stand trial would have been good. Dead, just as good.

Evidence, schmevidence...he was and is the prime suspect in the attacks of 9/11. He needed to be arrested and handed over for questioning and further processing. The Taliban had a suspected mass murderer under their protection, and they needed to hand him over for questioning/justice, or face the consequences.

So, they faced the consequences. Now the Taliban are the former rulers of Afghanistan. So, brilliant call on the part of your logical former rulers...


Then there would have been a justification for the murder of thousands of Afghanis, the sons, the daughters, the mothers, the fathers, etc.


Mullah Omar and his followers are directly responsible for whatever collateral war casualties that occurred as a result of their bizarre siding with a band of lawless kiilers (Al Qaeda)...despite what they knew would happen to their regime, and their hapless citizens as a result.


Thousands perished, but hey, I never expected America to act responsibly, nor did I ever expect America to give a damn about human life, it is an out of control monster.


Thousands perished in Afghanistan because Afghanistan gave safe haven to a band of moronic murderers (just like the Taliban) who elected to directly attack the most powerful nation in the history of mankind.

How many people did America kill in Afghanistan before 9/11? Zero. How much did America do to actually try to stop the wanton killings and oppressions visited upon the Afghan people prior to 9/11? Almost nothing (except to support the Northern Alliance).

I have already told you, you cannot expect (unless you are a complete idoiot) to punch the biggest kid on the block in the nose, without expecting that he is then going to knock your head off.

Any rational/logical person would know this.


Once again, you don't think a logical/rational human being would ask for evidence?


Come on...seriously. This was a ploy. The Taliban did not need evidence, because they knew full well that Al Qaeda was behind the attacks. Because they were politically naive, they thought this "demand" would give the U.S. pause...and then later they could say, "sorry, guess Bin Laden escaped before we could get him."


A coward would hand over their guest to an aggressive, terroristic world bully (who doesn't even have the decency to provide evidence to back their accusations), Afghans are not cowards, they are proving it right now, by making the biggest terrorist of this world, and the strongest killing machine shake in their boots.

And all they are using is home made bombs AKA IEDs.


You really are quite delusional. Shaking in their boots? The only reason that the remnants of the Taliban still exist...and are able to be like a fly on the elephants backside...is because the USA is trying its best to avoid civilian casualties.

Between the USA, Britain, Canada, Germany, Australia and the other western powers that are now there trying to re-build the country...they could reduce the entire country to rubble in a matter of weeks (without using nukes). They could then plunder the country with impunity, if they wanted - as in your fantasies you think is happening.

But instead, they are rebuilding roads and schools, trying to rid the country of corruption, implementing democracy and the rule of law.

All the while, because the West has a heart and believes in the value of human life, we continue to lose our brave young men and women to the simple blunt instruments that are IEDs.

Don't give yourself so much credit.

Anytime we really want to end the chaos through force, rather than trying to reason with the homicidal elements in Afghan society, we can.

The fact that we haven't yet done so, only proves that your idea that we in the west are "monsters" is just BS.

Having said all of that, thanks for the debate. At least you have courage to speak bluntly about your side of the conflict.



posted on Jul, 18 2010 @ 04:51 AM
link   
The bottom line is that the US, despite it's massive perceived military might just cannot win there. This was never about bringing western style democracy and peace, but was all about securing oil and gas pipeline routes.

Before the events of 9/11, negotiations were underway with the Taliban by the pipeline consortium UNOCAL. The Taliban leadership were even invited to the US for talks, including a visit to the residence of then Texas Governor George W. Bush. They tried stiffing the Taliban on transport tariffs and the talks broke down. The UNOCAL front man in Afghanistan was one Mr. Karzai, who after the invasion was installed as president. That's all just pure coincidence of course!


Then there is the drugs situation. The Taliban all but eradicated the opium production, removing a hell of a lot of lucrative drug money from certain economies. Money used, when laundered through the offshore banking systems, for greasing the wheels of politics and providing untraceable funds for lots of dirty little black ops around the world, free of political oversight and auditing.

The staged events of 9/11 were the pretext used for grabbing the land routes for the pipelines and getting the drugs / money flowing again...nothing more, nothing less. The "official" stance that it was in retaliation for the attacks was just so laughable to anyone who had been watching prior events unfolding, something the government and it's mass media buddies try to ignore.

So, we have an invasion, once again, on behalf of big banks and corporations, being sold to the masses as somehow noble in it's cause, bankrupting the country and responsible for untold suffering on both sides. And for what? So that big business can gouge the taxpayers for the cost of the war and it's corporate objectives? That is sick and twisted, but when did anything right and good ever trump making money?



posted on Jul, 18 2010 @ 04:59 AM
link   
reply to post by Britguy
 


Everything you said is well documented, but hidden.

Thanks for the input.



posted on Jul, 18 2010 @ 05:07 AM
link   
reply to post by oozyism
 


The deliberate dumbing down of the masses is all part of a concerted effort by the governments and their big money / corporate backers. They don't want people seeing or remembering what got us to these events, which might scupper their plans. Best to dumb down the population and manipulate them into baying for blood when they are attacked. Get them all riled up in some idiotic patriotic fervour instead of allowing any critical thinking, and shouting down or persecuting anyone who opposes them and tries to wake up the masses.

To any thinking person who doesn't follow the herd, it all becomes very transparent and obvious very quickly who the real threat is, and it's not some turbaned nomad thousands of miles away, but our own suited corporate leaders.

[edit on 18-7-2010 by Britguy]



posted on Jul, 18 2010 @ 05:20 AM
link   
reply to post by Britguy
 


Hi Britguy:

The real bottom line is that this forum is a haven of Western hating, American hating, Israeli hating, pro-Islamic garbage.

Everything that America and its Allies do is evil, or a false flag, or part of the Illuminati plot to control the colour of your underwear.

9/11 was a plot perpetrated by the U.S....no, wait, perpetrated by the Zionists...no, wait perpetrated by the big beer Companies.

No, wait, there were no planes involved in the 9/11 attacks...we only thought we saw them...really it was the CIA or the FBI that set off secret laser weapons...or some other rubbish.

No, wait, it was because we knew there were trillions of dollars worth of precious metals in Afghanistan that we could scoop up...no, wait, trillions of dollars worth of oil in Iraq and Iran that we can abscond with.

Oh, I'm sorry, it's really because George Bush is a shape shifting alien...no, I mean the Queen of England...

I am still a relative newcomer here, but quite frankly I have had already had my fill of the insanity that passes for discourse here.

So, you and and all of your bleeding heart liberal friends who believe that the U.S., Canada, England, Australia and all of our other Allies are the bad guys can just literally kiss my anterior regions - and I hope you enjoy the world you are hoping for (if it ever comes to pass).

I, for one, am done with this wretched place. Don't bother to say good bye. I know i won't be missed.

Logic and common sense are out the window here.



posted on Jul, 18 2010 @ 05:50 AM
link   
reply to post by mobiusmale
 


I will bother to say goodbye... just to get the last word in and annoy you further.

Your generalisations are also way off the mark.

I am neither pro Islam, nor pro Christian, Judaism, Buddhist or the great green monkey god. I call it how I see it.

I am not anti USA / UK / Canada / Australia...etc....etc....yadda yadda yadda...
What I am against is blatant manipulation of thought, speech and it's influence on resulting actions. As I said, I call it how I see it and I am against ANY violence for corporate profit. I refuse to "support the boys oversees" when they are being used to push corporate agendas for private profit, killing and maiming many in the process. If my own government happens to be involved in such actions then yes, I am anti government.

To say I would be anti-UK is insulting. I care more about my own country and it's people than any bought and paid for politicians, who will hand over power to unelected entities with their own money making and power agendas, and put them ahead of their own people. I am sick of the constant BS spouted by western politicians, trying to defend the indefensible meddling in foreign lands for corporate greed. That does not make me traitor or turncoat, but shows I care a hell of a lot more for my own country and it's welfare and people than those who rule us.

Basically, I have morals, ethics and principles by which I live and will NOT bow down to corruption, or follow the herd for the sake of convenience and trying to fit in.



new topics

top topics



 
4

log in

join