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.

 

Afghan Leader Hamid Karzai gives up Trying to Talk to Taliban

page: 1
2
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 2 2011 @ 03:37 AM
link   

Afghan Leader Hamid Karzai gives up Trying to Talk to Taliban


abcnews.go.com

President Hamid Karzai has given up trying to talk to the Taliban, saying in a video released Saturday that Pakistan holds the only key to making peace with insurgents and must do more to support a political resolution to the war.

Karzai revealed his tougher stance against Pakistan, which he claims is harboring militants, on the same day that the Afghan intelligence service said it has hard evidence that the assassination of former President Burhanuddin Rabbani was planned on the southern outs..
(visit the link for the full news article)




posted on Oct, 2 2011 @ 03:37 AM
link   
So now what? Right because the Taliban always be there no matter what. All the work that NATO done was going down the drain once we leave by 2014. We cannot sustain our troops there any longer.

Afghanistan had been an unstable nation and Pakistan is backing the Taliban to attack NATO and Afghan civilians.


abcnews.go.com
(visit the link for the full news article)



posted on Oct, 2 2011 @ 03:46 AM
link   
Don't pretend this was a forgone situation; it wasn't. It's a situation we - the US - intentionally created. We fomented the civil war in the 70's, in the interest of toppling a government that was too "leftist" four our government's liking. We then gave Pakistan carte blanche to spend US money with no US oversight to support "our guys" - bin Ladin and the other Mujahadeen. We then abandoned any and all involvement in Afghanistan, and happily watched it descend into bloody chaos until the Taliban took over - and then we gave them millions - so what if they were beating people to death and actually trying to lynch television sets (no, that's not a joke) they also burned poppy fields, and THAT'S what's important. We then refused their offer to hand bin Ladin over to a third party, and happily went in and roflstomped the Taliban. And then we spent eight years doing something completely unrelated, allowing the situation we saw in the 1980's to make a comeback. we refused to offer any aid to men like Abdul Haq who could have rallied the many factions into a cohesive entity because he did not meet our economic agenda (He's dead by the way; the CIA equipped him with some emergency phones, then failed to respond to his emergency use of the emergency phones.)

This situation is too FUBAR to have been accidental. The goal is to have a destabilized state. The goal is to have a violent state. This goal is because Afghanistan shares borders with Pakistan, China, and Iran; we pull out, Afghanistan becomes their problem, a resource drain at their borders.

Aided and enabled by the American people, of course.



posted on Oct, 2 2011 @ 03:50 AM
link   

Originally posted by TheWalkingFox
Don't pretend this was a forgone situation; it wasn't. It's a situation we - the US - intentionally created. We fomented the civil war in the 70's, in the interest of toppling a government that was too "leftist" four our government's liking. We then gave Pakistan carte blanche to spend US money with no US oversight to support "our guys" - bin Ladin and the other Mujahadeen. We then abandoned any and all involvement in Afghanistan, and happily watched it descend into bloody chaos until the Taliban took over - and then we gave them millions - so what if they were beating people to death and actually trying to lynch television sets (no, that's not a joke) they also burned poppy fields, and THAT'S what's important. We then refused their offer to hand bin Ladin over to a third party, and happily went in and roflstomped the Taliban. And then we spent eight years doing something completely unrelated, allowing the situation we saw in the 1980's to make a comeback. we refused to offer any aid to men like Abdul Haq who could have rallied the many factions into a cohesive entity because he did not meet our economic agenda (He's dead by the way; the CIA equipped him with some emergency phones, then failed to respond to his emergency use of the emergency phones.)

This situation is too FUBAR to have been accidental. The goal is to have a destabilized state. The goal is to have a violent state. This goal is because Afghanistan shares borders with Pakistan, China, and Iran; we pull out, Afghanistan becomes their problem, a resource drain at their borders.

Aided and enabled by the American people, of course.


Afghanistan has been always an unstable region for thousands of years like that before the Americans got involved in the late 1980s. You can thank Pakistan and Saudi Arabia for contributing to this. We let them do the rebuilding for their own country.



posted on Oct, 2 2011 @ 04:00 AM
link   
I really wish our President and the puppet we have in Kabul would remember a couple important facts in all this. Pakistan is a sovereign nation and proven Nuclear power with the full spread of weapons capability. Second, and right along with the first, Pakistan was struggling to remain out of radical hands in the best of times when the U.S. wasn't making matters infinitely worse by undermining what little friendship and moderation there is. This only makes it more likely that Pakistan falls into a Nuclear armed version of the Afghan taliban leadership.

Then again...Pakistan was running war games with the People's Liberation Army of China along their common border. Perhaps Pakistan has thought all this through after all. Either way, it's on the wrong side of the planet for the U.S. to keep meddling in. Time to come home.



posted on Oct, 2 2011 @ 04:02 AM
link   
Did we expect anything else?

Afghanistan has been the lynchpin in the region for a long long long time, going back before the new world was even discovered. With Iran on one side and Pakistan on the other, its only a given that they are going to vie for influence in that country.

Relations between Iran and Pakistan arent friendly in the least, and neither country wants a US presence at all (espcially Iran since they have US forces on both borders now).

Chinahas an interest in how Afghanistan plays out due, agian to proximity to certain countries (and closer to the Middle East) as well as resources.

Did anyone expect negotiations with the Taliban to actually achieve anything? They assasinated Karzias brother a few months back and have been targeting other members of the Afghan government.

The Taliban doesnt want to be part of the government. They want to BE the government, and if that comes to pass Afghanistan will be returned to the 3rd century.



posted on Oct, 2 2011 @ 04:21 AM
link   

Originally posted by Xcathdra
Did we expect anything else?

Afghanistan has been the lynchpin in the region for a long long long time, going back before the new world was even discovered. With Iran on one side and Pakistan on the other, its only a given that they are going to vie for influence in that country.

Relations between Iran and Pakistan arent friendly in the least, and neither country wants a US presence at all (espcially Iran since they have US forces on both borders now).

Chinahas an interest in how Afghanistan plays out due, agian to proximity to certain countries (and closer to the Middle East) as well as resources.

Did anyone expect negotiations with the Taliban to actually achieve anything? They assasinated Karzias brother a few months back and have been targeting other members of the Afghan government.

The Taliban doesnt want to be part of the government. They want to BE the government, and if that comes to pass Afghanistan will be returned to the 3rd century.


I agree, especially once we leave Afghanistan, then the Taliban will just regain control of the country again like it was before 9/11 attacks and after the Soviet-Afghan war. We should leave Afghanistan immediately and as soon as possible. Then we need to have time to monitor the middle east because right now, they are at war with us now and they never figured out when to stop the carnage.

This may go on for a very long time.



posted on Oct, 2 2011 @ 07:43 AM
link   

Originally posted by Paulioetc15

Originally posted by Xcathdra
Did we expect anything else?

Afghanistan has been the lynchpin in the region for a long long long time, going back before the new world was even discovered. With Iran on one side and Pakistan on the other, its only a given that they are going to vie for influence in that country.

Relations between Iran and Pakistan arent friendly in the least, and neither country wants a US presence at all (espcially Iran since they have US forces on both borders now).

Chinahas an interest in how Afghanistan plays out due, agian to proximity to certain countries (and closer to the Middle East) as well as resources.

Did anyone expect negotiations with the Taliban to actually achieve anything? They assasinated Karzias brother a few months back and have been targeting other members of the Afghan government.

The Taliban doesnt want to be part of the government. They want to BE the government, and if that comes to pass Afghanistan will be returned to the 3rd century.


I agree, especially once we leave Afghanistan, then the Taliban will just regain control of the country again like it was before 9/11 attacks and after the Soviet-Afghan war. We should leave Afghanistan immediately and as soon as possible. Then we need to have time to monitor the middle east because right now, they are at war with us now and they never figured out when to stop the carnage.

This may go on for a very long time.


I agree that this will continue for years to come. I'm not sure what direction the U.S. should go with this one. I think you're right, if we leave the Taliban will seize control of the government and the country will return to pre-9/11. I don't think that's the best idea, however, if other countries played a more prominent role in securing Afghanistan, we could drawn down forces. Its clear Pakistan supports pro-Taliban militants.

The key to stabilizing Afghanistan is pressuring Pakistan to cut ties with the Taliban. But you're right, our relationship with Pakistan right now is tenuous at best. We can't trust them. They have their own motives. No one wants a U.S. presence, but they readily accept the billions of dollars we send them in aid and military goods. We will continue to pressure them politically, however, as long as we support Indian interests, they will continue to distrust us. Its an intricate and complicated issue. We do not want a nuclear confrontation between India and Pakistan. Its such a mess! But leaving right now would be a mistake. It would just be another example of the U.S. intervening somewhere and leaving before anything constructive gets accomplished...how many Viet Nams can we afford?

Of course, I do subscribe to the fact that the Military-Industrial Complex is responsible for the major conflicts in the world. We keep feeding the machine. There is little incentive for us to pull out of Iraq or Afghanistan because there is a lot of money in government contracts that are making a lot of people rich. It seems we've created quite the mess!



posted on Oct, 2 2011 @ 07:56 AM
link   
reply to post by Cosmic911
 





I think you're right, if we leave the Taliban will seize control of the government and the country will return to pre-9/11. I don't think that's the best idea, however, if other countries played a more prominent role in securing Afghanistan, we could drawn down forces. Its clear Pakistan supports pro-Taliban militants.


Afghanistan has already fallen back to Taliban hands.
The taliban already have a vice-like grip on many parts of Afghanistan... which they have demonstrated through their ability to launch attacks, even on places like Kabul, which is supposedly "secured".

Has it gone back to being "pre-9/11"? Well, how do you define a "pre-9/11" Afghanistan"
edit on 2-10-2011 by sk0rpi0n because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 2 2011 @ 08:18 AM
link   
reply to post by sk0rpi0n
 


All good points. The country is such a mess. Its heart-breaking really. How do we measure success? What defines progress? Schools? Infrastructure? Finances? But are these Western benchmarks of success? Clamping down on Pakistan is the key to breaking the Taliban. We know the ISI clearly supports Taliban militants. How well have we equiped and trained Afghany troops to defend their own country? If we leave now all the supplies, equipment, training, and arms will just be used against us again. When do we "call it quits" there? I don't know.....



posted on Oct, 2 2011 @ 08:19 AM
link   
There really is no point in talking to the Taliban whilst the Pakistani government and security service are the ones giving the orders? Until the basket case known as Pakistan is sorted out there will never be peace in that region. or the world for that matter, especially as every major terrorism case seems to involve either Pakistani people or people who have been trained in Pakistan.



posted on Oct, 2 2011 @ 08:54 AM
link   
Karzai's been in power for a suspicious amount of time considering we were meant to be bringing democracy to that country, or was that Iraq?



posted on Oct, 2 2011 @ 08:55 AM
link   
reply to post by Johnze
 


And I think we have concluded he is an ineffective leader at that...



posted on Oct, 2 2011 @ 08:57 AM
link   
reply to post by solidshot
 


Unfortunately, you are correct. We continue to make passive gains at best while Pakistan support the Taliban leadership.



posted on Oct, 2 2011 @ 09:35 AM
link   
Talking to the Taliban is like talking to a bunch of rocks. I am glad Karzai has figured that out. The only thing that gets their attention is lead or prison. We are not talking about Western diplomats, and round table discussions, but mountain men hell bent on superiority in Afghanistan. No holds barred approach to warfare. Civilians, and infrastructure is all fair game. They offer no sympathy or condolences to whom they may maim or mutilate. I suppose now they can get down to business by smoking them out, and destroying them. As for Pakistan and their support of the Taliban?

That is another subject and a strange one at that. The US has no ground to stand on at the moment, as combat operations continue in Afghanistan. They cannot afford to lose access to Pakistan. The reason being is the simple fact that most if not all logistics travels over land through Pakistan. The conflict in Afghanistan is already a costly affair and to lose Pakistani support would make the cost skyrocket. The ISAF would be for practical reasons cut-off, and support would have to be brought in by air as a result of Afghanistan being a landing locked country. It would prove more costly since the Taliban are getting better with shoulder fired missiles. That is why the US is handling the Pakistan situation in a delicate manner. The situation in Pakistan is a far bigger mess than Afghanistan will ever be, because of the leverage they have over the international force operating in Afghanistan and their reliance on Pakistan to resupply themselves. It seems to be a no win scenario at the moment? All there is to gain from this is perpetual warfare for all involved, and another chapter to Afghanistan's long history of such activity.



posted on Oct, 2 2011 @ 09:38 AM
link   
reply to post by Jakes51
 


You're right...after 10 years we're still not any closer to a stable or secure Afghanistan. Its a mess. Pakistan cant be trusted but they are the key to stability (or instability) in the region.



posted on Oct, 2 2011 @ 09:48 AM
link   
reply to post by Cosmic911
 


My sentiments exactly. Pakistan is indeed to the key to the region. How they are to be dealt with is another story? They continue to have substantial leverage over the countries fighting in Afghanistan, influence over Afghan government officials, and sway over militant groups. At present, I hate to admit it, but they seem to be holding all the cards. It is like playing a game of chess, and a diplomatic nightmare. Thanks for the reply!



posted on Oct, 2 2011 @ 10:09 AM
link   
reply to post by Jakes51
 


A chess game...you're right...it's also what Capt. Jean-Luc Picard said of the Romulians! lol haha



posted on Oct, 2 2011 @ 11:01 AM
link   

Originally posted by Cosmic911
I agree that this will continue for years to come. I'm not sure what direction the U.S.


The reason for going into Afghanistan was to end Bin Laden.

Mission accomplished there.

If the Afghans want our help in their country, why not.

If they dont want us in their country, off we go.

At the rate the Afghan government is going, its time to cut our losses and leave. When the citizens of that country get fed up with the Taliban or whoever else is in trouble, they can make the changes to the goverment on their own.

If they dont wish to fight for their freedom, like they did with the Soviets, and to an extent the US, then why bother?

They will make their bed, and will have to lay in it also.



posted on Oct, 2 2011 @ 11:22 AM
link   

Originally posted by Xcathdra
The reason for going into Afghanistan was to end Bin Laden.
Mission accomplished there.


Is that code for "Secure the gas and smack supplies"?


IRM



new topics

top topics



 
2
<<   2 >>

log in

join