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.
Reuters:Karzai's trip to the Gulf Arab state, a U.S. ally which has mediated in conflicts in Arab or Muslim countries, follows years of stalled discussions among the United States, Pakistan and the Taliban about a possible Afghan settlement.
New York Times: During the 2010 surge ... the administration was conflicted and too cautious about pressing for talks. ... . Even after the administration decided in February 2011 to pursue talks ... ., , it took officials months to agree on the details.
The talks between the United States and the Taliban began early this year but soon collapsed when the administration, faced with bipartisan opposition in Congress, could not complete a proposed prisoner swap.
www.reuters.com...
Pakistani Taliban leader Hakimullah Mehsud, in a message to the group's spokesman, outlined plans for the attacks, including suicide blasts, in all four of the country's provinces on polling day on Saturday.
"We don't accept the system of infidels which is called democracy," Mehsud said in the letter, dated May 1, and obtained by Reuters on Thursday.
But they have not attacked the main opposition party led by former Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif, which has courted support from groups accused of supporting militancy.
Sharif, who is seen as favorite to become the next prime minister, says Pakistan should reconsider its support for the U.S. war on Islamist militancy and suggests he would be in favor of negotiations with the Taliban.
Sharif's Pakistan Muslim League has capitalized on widespread frustrations with the outgoing government led by the Pakistan People's Party.
Originally posted by charles1952
I'm really guessing here, but is it possible that Obama doesn't want to leave Afghanistan without some agreement with somebody? Terrorist attacks are up, and if we just walk away it will be seen (properly) as a clear victory for Taliban forces.
I hate to think this way, but could all of this be simply to make Obama look successful?
Originally posted by mike dangerously
The Taliban will soon go from being "terrorists" to "most favored commercial ally."All in the name of Unocal's pipeline which judging by these articles is not so farfetched.All part of the great game.
Originally posted by ChuckNasty
Sure the capitalistic ways of wealth and greed will overcome any Taliban thinking.
Once the top class get richer, they'll get the others aboard.
They won't call it democracy, but it'll still be capitalist none the less. Rich get richer, the poor become slaves with no rights.
de·moc·ra·cy [dih-mok-ruh-see] Show IPA noun, plural de·moc·ra·cies.
1. government by the people; a form of government in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised directly by them or by their elected agents under a free electoral system.
2. a state having such a form of government: The United States and Canada are democracies.
3. a state of society characterized by formal equality of rights and privileges.
4. political or social equality; democratic spirit.
5. the common people of a community as distinguished from any privileged class; the common people with respect to their political power.
Originally posted by justwokeup
Why were we there in the first place? Answer that question first.
The Taliban were originally (and probably are to a large extent) a proxy force for the Pakistani intelligence services. If you don't believe this look into the history of Afghanistan in the decade after the Russians left (the decade where the west didn't care). Look at the factions and who provided the backing.
The Taliban (while odious) were not the planners and perpetrators of 9/11. They were simply dumb enough not to hand offending Saudis and acolytes over immediately.
You cant eliminate the Taliban without eliminating the source. The source is Nuclear Armed Pakistan. The USA cannot play hardball with Pakistan as its an unstable nuclear nation with the potential to topple into Islamism (and a long history of war with nuclear india next door).
Given that the USA cannot 'beat' the Taliban for the reasons above, other than feeding troops into an entirely futile meat grinder ad infinitum what do you suggest?
I'm thinking that the US has absolutely no intention of going anywhere. Oh, "Combat Troops" are leaving....and that's going to be real painful for the "Non-Combat" people remaining, I'm guessing ...but America leaving? That seems to have been Election time talk to get the votes ...with no intention of doing any such thing. Why? Well... I have about a trillion guesses.
"U.S. Identifies Vast Mineral Riches in Afghanistan "
People at the time said that was going to make Afghanistan a long term strategic property for the U.S....and I really didn't buy it then.
US policy makers know this though.
Their real purpose is destabilization and control through military might and the continued reliance on the petro dollar.
This is all any of this is about.
Originally posted by Tuttle
Seems to me like they are pretty smart not wanting anything to do with our "democracy", I would not wish western style "democracy" on anyone.
Taliban: "Don’t accept the system of infidels called Democracy."
Seems to me like they are pretty smart not wanting anything to do with our "democracy", I would not wish western style "democracy" on anyone.
Since when is Pakistan governance "western style democracy?" Or Afghan?