Pak US; Tranactional Relationship

[Tiki Tam Tam]

Dude, the US army is seen as an invading, conquering force in the region. It's got nothing to do with how good you are! You could be angels and genuinely be interested in the welfare of Afghans, but as soon as you start going to Afghanistan as foreign rulers, they aren't going to stop until you've left! It's their mentality, I'm sure General Gramov would agree!

Given the terrorist threat that has developed around the world and increasingly it is targeting without differentiation i.e. Moslem countries included, the US is hardly seen as an invading force.

In fact, the US is doing what others should have done, unless of course, they are of the opinion that terrorists are doing the right thing. I wonder if that type of a sentiment i.e. terrorists are right will be supported by any person who values his country's stability and who values the right to one's life and property.

The attack on Iraq was for far reaching strategic goals and not for Oil as is normally believed. even if it was one of the strategic inputs. The US presence in the centre of the Middle East was essential since it is a very volatile area which could put the world in a tailspin. The presence of the US in the Middle East does deter forces from going into adventures that they could have done otherwise if the US was not there. Therefore, the presence of the US in the Middle East is for the better and not for the worse.

As far as Afghanistan is concerned, the fountainhead of the terrorism, OBL was being given shelter and the Taliban was going upsetting the world order. Therefore, there was a need to bring stability to this part of the region. The article S2 has put in another thread on the Taliban issue is worth a read even though it is a huge article and a long haul. True, that stability in Afghanistan would also help the TAP, but then, given the environment, it will take sometime. Dispassionately analysed, TAP may assist the US, but then it will bring economic advancement to Pakistan itself and bring down the cost of transit for countries like China and India. It is mutually beneficial.

One may think that overland routes for oil is a boon and that the railway and road link from Gwadar to China would solve the problems. Indeed, such a suggestion is perfect for those who only gaze at maps. Those who operate on high altitude roads and railways will tell you that maintaining such roads and railways is a high cost exercise. The movement over such terrain is equally expensive. Therefore, one should be calm and analyses the pros and cons before getting into raptures.

There is no foreign rulers in Afghanistan. It is a Afghan govt that calls the shots. True, it is being assisted by the West, but what is the other option for sustaining Afghanistan? Leave it to the drug barons and warlords? Leave it to the Taliban so that Afghanistan remains in the Middle Ages, floundering into nowhere? Don't the Afghans have the right to march shoulder to shoulder with other nations into the next century? They can, if there is peace and stability. Can they guarantee that for themselves? Can any other country guarantee the same for them?

If Karzai is a puppet, then many others could also be termed so.

It is a matter of perceptions.

 

[Tiki Tam Tam]

Don't forget that it is US government that supported a host of dictators. Here are easily some:

Syngman Rhee,
Park Chung-hee,
Ngo Dinh Diem,
Saddam Hussein,
Lon Nol,
Suharto,
Ferdinand Marcos,
Francisco Franco,
Augusto Pinochet.

Under the name of US national interest, democracy doesn't worth even a crap.

US Government owes a big sorry to the whole world before it trumpets shamelessly the "democracy" in high moral, or just shuts up and harvests profit quietly.

Well, indeed they are dictators.

But, who elected them?

As for the China Oil bid is concerned, there is nothing wrong, except that China does not allow foreign companies to bid for their assets.

If can't be a one way street!

 

[roadrunner]

Given the terrorist threat that has developed around the world and increasingly it is targeting without differentiation i.e. Moslem countries included, the US is hardly seen as an invading force.

Perhaps not by the world, but by the Afghans they are seen as an invading force. In any way you look at it, the US is an invading force. Whether their cause is justified is another matter. To the Afghans, like I said, it doesn't matter, they are simply an invading force trying to establish supremacy.

In fact, the US is doing what others should have done, unless of course, they are of the opinion that terrorists are doing the right thing. I wonder if that type of a sentiment i.e. terrorists are right will be supported by any person who values his country's stability and who values the right to one's life and property.

Not sure what you're on about

The attack on Iraq was for far reaching strategic goals and not for Oil as is normally believed. even if it was one of the strategic inputs. The US presence in the centre of the Middle East was essential since it is a very volatile area which could put the world in a tailspin. The presence of the US in the Middle East does deter forces from going into adventures that they could have done otherwise if the US was not there. Therefore, the presence of the US in the Middle East is for the better and not for the worse.

BS. Why is the presence of the US in the "centre of the Middle East" going to prevent a "tailspin"? Petrodollars to PetroEuros is all it's about. Controlling the oil. The only reason the Middle East is important is because of its oil. Else noone, least of all the US, would be there.

As far as Afghanistan is concerned, the fountainhead of the terrorism, OBL was being given shelter and the Taliban was going upsetting the world order. Therefore, there was a need to bring stability to this part of the region. The article S2 has put in another thread on the Taliban issue is worth a read even though it is a huge article and a long haul. True, that stability in Afghanistan would also help the TAP, but then, given the environment, it will take sometime. Dispassionately analysed, TAP may assist the US, but then it will bring economic advancement to Pakistan itself and bring down the cost of transit for countries like China and India. It is mutually beneficial.

Caspian Sea oil has huge reserves. The Soviets wanted to use it = war in Afghanistan, the Americans wanted to utilize it = war in Afghanistan. Do you see a pattern here, perhaps?

One may think that overland routes for oil is a boon and that the railway and road link from Gwadar to China would solve the problems. Indeed, such a suggestion is perfect for those who only gaze at maps. Those who operate on high altitude roads and railways will tell you that maintaining such roads and railways is a high cost exercise. The movement over such terrain is equally expensive. Therefore, one should be calm and analyses the pros and cons before getting into raptures.

The Karakoram highway is used regularly without any problems.

There is no foreign rulers in Afghanistan. It is a Afghan govt that calls the shots. True, it is being assisted by the West, but what is the other option for sustaining Afghanistan? Leave it to the drug barons and warlords? Leave it to the Taliban so that Afghanistan remains in the Middle Ages, floundering into nowhere? Don't the Afghans have the right to march shoulder to shoulder with other nations into the next century? They can, if there is peace and stability. Can they guarantee that for themselves? Can any other country guarantee the same for them?

You don't follow it seems. The Americans are PERCEIVED by the Afghans as invaders. It doesn't matter if they're there to help them, or to do nothing and just sit looking pretty. They have their army in Afghanistan. When they leave and a bit of bloodletting is over, things will stabilize for themselves.

The Americans are trying to stabilize Afghanistan to build TAP. Whether they have much influence on other matters pertaining to Afghanistan is another matter. Probably they do.

If Karzai is a puppet, then many others could also be termed so.

Karzai wouldn't be in charge of Afghanistan if there had been no 2001 invasion. So he's a puppet.

 

[S-2]

"The Americans are PERCEIVED by the Afghans as invaders."

Please provide polls as proof because, unless you're an Afghan, you don't count. Even then, you'd only be representing the opinion of one lonely Afghan.

Those links to polls will sure be helpful. Remember, "Perceived by the Afghans as invaders", is pretty absolute. Tajiks, Uzbeks, Harzaris, Persians, Pashtuns, and a whole slew of others who are afghans.

Should be interesting.

Won't matter, though. America is there by the request of the Afghan government and the approval of the U.N., along with a host of other nations trying to make things better than they've been for a millenium or two.

Afghanistan deserves all the help it can get from anywhere. So does Pakistan.

 

[roadrunner]

"The Americans are PERCEIVED by the Afghans as invaders."

Please provide polls as proof because, unless you're an Afghan, you don't count. Even then, you'd only be representing the opinion of one lonely Afghan.

Those links to polls will sure be helpful. Remember, "Perceived by the Afghans as invaders", is pretty absolute. Tajiks, Uzbeks, Harzaris, Persians, Pashtuns, and a whole slew of others who are afghans.

Should be interesting.

Won't matter, though. America is there by the request of the Afghan government and the approval of the U.N., along with a host of other nations trying to make things better than they've been for a millenium or two.

Afghanistan deserves all the help it can get from anywhere. So does Pakistan.

As you know polls are easily skewed. They mean very little, especially in Afghanistan given the corrupt nature of NGOs and so on. A better indicator is the guerilla insurgency. Why has it not died out, and why is it getting stronger? Because the people of Afghanistan are helping it. All guerilla movements need help from the people. They cannot survive without it. Some parts of Afghanistan are now more dangerous than Iraq.

It is just their (Afghan Pashtun) nature, supposedly tribal law. Why did the previous superpower, the British, not establish rule over the tribal areas, why has Pakistan not? Why are there no soldiers during peacetime in the tribal areas? It's just the mentality. On the other hand, the Afghan Tajiks need external help to get into power, so usually will try and side with invading forces.

 

[S-2]

"As you know polls are easily skewed. They mean very little, especially in Afghanistan given the corrupt nature of NGOs and so on."

No. Actually they mean a lot-even in Afghanistan. As you know, in most democratic nations they are, in fact, a critical component of assessing temporal public moods. What do NGOs, even were they "corrupt", have to do with polls?

Finally, without polls and, if not an afghan, you've no ability to determine afghani perceptions. As such, your suggestion lacks substance.

Independant Panel On Canada's Future Role In Afghanistan

This recently released document from Canada would indicate that most metrics of progress are dramatically on the uptick, despite increases in opium production and taliban activity. A larger and more important question might be why the Taliban hasn't been able to reverse Afghanistan's trendline towards a stable and functioning nation-state.

Finally, I sense, Road Runner, that you'd be pleased with the failure of NATO in Afghanistan. Is this true? Would you welcome the return of the taliban to power in Afghanistan? If so, why?

 

[roadrunner]

"As you know polls are easily skewed. They mean very little, especially in Afghanistan given the corrupt nature of NGOs and so on."

No. Actually they mean a lot-even in Afghanistan. As you know, in most democratic nations they are, in fact, a critical component of assessing temporal public moods.

Polls can be skewed easily anywhere in the world. It depends on who you select and how the questions are phrased. In Afghanistan, the trouble with polls is that the people will say what the person interviewing them will want to hear. Because they fear for their lives, that is if you value your life.

What do NGOs, even were they "corrupt", have to do with polls?

NGOs will usually carry out the groundwork for the polls. They tend to be a bit corrupt.

Finally, without polls and, if not an afghan, you've no ability to determine afghani perceptions. As such, your suggestion lacks substance.

I can determine it on the basis of their mentality, which I know. History shows it, plus I've interacted with enough to know.

Independant Panel On Canada's Future Role In Afghanistan

This recently released document from Canada would indicate that most metrics of progress are dramatically on the uptick, despite increases in opium production and taliban activity. A larger and more important question might be why the Taliban hasn't been able to reverse Afghanistan's trendline towards a stable and functioning nation-state.

Oh BS. What has improved? The Afghan National Army? They're a shambles. They can't even shoot straight or do press ups. Taliban as of 2 months ago had captured more than half of Afghanistan. How is this progression?

Think Tank Report: Over Half of Afghanistan under Taliban Control - International - SPIEGEL ONLINE - News

Finally, I sense, Road Runner, that you'd be pleased with the failure of NATO in Afghanistan. Is this true? Would you welcome the return of the taliban to power in Afghanistan? If so, why?

Just because someone is not optimistic about the US's role or success in Afghanistan, does not mean they are irrationally biased one way or the other. Many Western reports have given poor predictions for NATO success in Afghanistan, with some predicting not if, but when, the Taliban retake Kabul. Does it mean they would like to see the Taliban back in power, and NATO out of Afghanistan too? Use some dispassionate reasoning.

The cold hard facts might not be pretty, but does not mean that there is some conspiracy against you. I'm just telling it you from a neutral point of view. If you can't accept it now, you'll find it out sooner or later. Though I would say being Pashtun myself, I don't like the idea of Tajik rule in Afghanistan. The US, NATO have very little to do with it.

 

[Tiki Tam Tam]

Perhaps not by the world, but by the Afghans they are seen as an invading force. In any way you look at it, the US is an invading force. Whether their cause is justified is another matter. To the Afghans, like I said, it doesn't matter, they are simply an invading force trying to establish supremacy.

The US is not looked upon as the invaders. The current situation is but the fallout of the radicalisation of Afghanistan by the Mujhaideens and the Taliban.

The Taliban are as invading a force as the Mujahideens who were also foreigners and repressive at that.

It is ridiculous to feel that Moslem women have no aspirations in life. They have and they also have the craving for education and equality. The Taliban repressed them into an illiterate existence.

Therefore, to feel that the Taliban is welcomed, is another false premise,

BS. Why is the presence of the US in the "centre of the Middle East" going to prevent a "tailspin"? Petrodollars to PetroEuros is all it's about. Controlling the oil. The only reason the Middle East is important is because of its oil. Else noone, least of all the US, would be there.

Apart from the word BS, do you have any proper word in your repertoire?
Aparently, you do not read the posts and just take off on your favourite hobby horse. But then I admit that geostrategy is not your subject and hence you cannot understand except for very simplistic angles of the mundane.

Caspian Sea oil has huge reserves. The Soviets wanted to use it = war in Afghanistan, the Americans wanted to utilize it = war in Afghanistan. Do you see a pattern here, perhaps?

That is no marvellous discovery. It is a well known fact. Again, you do not read the posts and do not understand strategy. I don't have to see any pattern, even the blind can see!

The Karakoram highway is used regularly without any problems.

Again, you have no clue about High Altitude road management and costs.

You don't follow it seems. The Americans are PERCEIVED by the Afghans as invaders. It doesn't matter if they're there to help them, or to do nothing and just sit looking pretty. They have their army in Afghanistan. When they leave and a bit of bloodletting is over, things will stabilize for themselves.

Much that you may like the Americans to leave, they are not quitting in a hurry. Again, it shows you do not read posts and you surely do not understand geostrategy.

The Americans are trying to stabilize Afghanistan to build TAP. Whether they have much influence on other matters pertaining to Afghanistan is another matter. Probably they do.

When Afghanistan stabilises it is not only TAP that will be undertaken, but many other issues that are of geostrategic interest to the US.

Karzai wouldn't be in charge of Afghanistan if there had been no 2001 invasion. So he's a puppet.

If Aunty had.......

If he is a puppet, then many could also be termed so!

 

[S-2]

"The cold hard facts might not be pretty, but does not mean that there is some conspiracy against you."

I'll admit that your Spiegel source seems depressed about prospects. I still haven't seen anything definitive. Neither has Spiegel. You'll note that at least the Canadians don't agree. We probably don't either.

An Afghan Province Points The Way

Here's something new from WAPO about Nangahar province. Of course, just because the Americans are having some success doesn't mean that the Canadians and British in the south have seen the same results or that matters are under control in Pakistan across the border from Nangahar.

I am convinced that there's a real good chance that Afghanistan will slip back into the 10th Century without help. Pakistan should contribute foreign aid and civilian advisors to assist the afghan citizens and farmers. We can't let that happen, wouldn't you agree? It would be money well spent.

 

[roadrunner]

Good God, this is so ignorant. I'll correct some of it now, the rest later

The US is not looked upon as the invaders. The current situation is but the fallout of the radicalisation of Afghanistan by the Mujhaideens and the Taliban.

The US is seen as invaders by the Pashtun majority of Afghanistan. The Tajiks perhaps do not see them as invaders, but then the Tajiks don't see any foreigners that help them reach power as invaders.

The Taliban are as invading a force as the Mujahideens who were also foreigners and repressive at that.

The Taliban ARE the Mujahideen. Mullah Omar was a commander in the Mujahideen, Gulbuddin Hekmatyar, another, Jalal-ud-din Haqaani another. These were ALL AFGHANI Pashtun commanders that were part of the Mujahideen, but later became the Taliban.

How can the Mujahideen have been foreign when they were Afghani?

It is ridiculous to feel that Moslem women have no aspirations in life. They have and they also have the craving for education and equality. The Taliban repressed them into an illiterate existence.

True. If true that the Taliban were against women's education because they felt women didn't have a right to it, then they were stupid.

Therefore, to feel that the Taliban is welcomed, is another false premise,

Like I said, IF. Not only that, you aren't thinking broadly enough. In a country where the Northern Alliance were raping, looting, murdering, and stealing whilst in power, the Taliban came along and changed all that enforcing their version of Sharia. Therefore for a woman to lose out on education, but to gain security was a good swap (though women weren't being educated before the Taliban came to power anyway so they didn't lose anything in the swap). Here are some reports that demonstrate what I'm saying is exactly what happened, and what you're saying is simple bogus.

Afghans, weary of the mujahideen's excesses and infighting, generally welcomed the Taleban.

Their early popularity was largely due to their success in stamping out corruption, curbing lawlessness and making the roads and the areas under their control safe for commerce to flourish.
BBC NEWS | World | South Asia | Who are the Taleban?

These are what ordinary Afghans want. Law and order. Women's education would be nice, but is secondary.

Apart from the word BS, do you have any proper word in your repertoire?
Aparently, you do not read the posts and just take off on your favourite hobby horse. But then I admit that geostrategy is not your subject and hence you cannot understand except for very simplistic angles of the mundane.

More wind. Ask an economist.

That is no marvellous discovery. It is a well known fact. Again, you do not read the posts and do not understand strategy. I don't have to see any pattern, even the blind can see!

More wind

Again, you have no clue about High Altitude road management and costs.

More wind. Karakoram Highway is functioning and costs are being made easily enough.

Much that you may like the Americans to leave, they are not quitting in a hurry. Again, it shows you do not read posts and you surely do not understand geostrategy.

More wind except perhaps the Americans leaving bit. Believe what you want, makes no difference.

When Afghanistan stabilises it is not only TAP that will be undertaken, but many other issues that are of geostrategic interest to the US.

Self serving indeed.

If Aunty had.......

If he is a puppet, then many could also be termed so!

More wind.

 

[gpit]

The point is that oil companies are often considered strategic assets. Every country will protect them. China Oil is filled with government types and oversight from the top down. If China is not even able to allow some foreign ownership into some of its assets like China Oil, including its lucrative interior distribution channels, why criticise another country for not allowing such a government-overseen foreign company in return to control its oil facilities?

A company like BP would have a much bigger chance of owning Unocal than impenetrable Chinese oil companies for sure, that is the second layer of thinking.

Thanks for telling me that US government is factually controlling their oil companies. Thus itself is refuting the so-called access to all type of "fairness".

Well, indeed they are dictators.

But, who elected them?

As for the China Oil bid is concerned, there is nothing wrong, except that China does not allow foreign companies to bid for their assets.

If can't be a one way street!

Many of the dictators are not elected. In addition, elected Hitler is still a Hitler.

Oil wise, nothing is wrong. Just don't trumpet morality, but harvest profit quietly, to void being more disgustingly hypocrite.

 

[Tiki Tam Tam]

Good God, this is so ignorant. I'll correct some of it now, the rest later

A Daniel come to judgement!

Lying increases the creative faculties, expands the ego, and lessens the frictions of social contacts.”
Clare Boothe Luce

The US is seen as invaders by the Pashtun majority of Afghanistan. The Tajiks perhaps do not see them as invaders, but then the Tajiks don't see any foreigners that help them reach power as invaders.

A swallow does not a spring make!

The Taliban ARE the Mujahideen. Mullah Omar was a commander in the Mujahideen, Gulbuddin Hekmatyar, another, Jalal-ud-din Haqaani another. These were ALL AFGHANI Pashtun commanders that were part of the Mujahideen, but later became the Taliban

.

I thought you were an advocate that the AQ is not the Taliban!

How can the Mujahideen have been foreign when they were Afghani?

True. If true that the Taliban were against women's education because they felt women didn't have a right to it, then they were stupid.

And they were loved by the Afghans for being so kind, right?

Like I said, IF. Not only that, you aren't thinking broadly enough. In a country where the Northern Alliance were raping, looting, murdering, and stealing whilst in power, the Taliban came along and changed all that enforcing their version of Sharia. Therefore for a woman to lose out on education, but to gain security was a good swap (though women weren't being educated before the Taliban came to power anyway so they didn't lose anything in the swap). Here are some reports that demonstrate what I'm saying is exactly what happened, and what you're saying is simple bogus.

A very odd logic.

Afghans, weary of the mujahideen's excesses and infighting, generally welcomed the Taleban.


Their early popularity was largely due to their success in stamping out corruption, curbing lawlessness and making the roads and the areas under their control safe for commerce to flourish.
BBC NEWS | World | South Asia | Who are the Taleban?

These are what ordinary Afghans want. Law and order. Women's education would be nice, but is secondary.

So you would say it is better to have the Devil, than the deep sea.

Great justification!

More wind. Ask an economist.

You are the wind expert!

More wind

But, you are the windbag.

More wind. Karakoram Highway is functioning and costs are being made easily enough.

Only the blind would say that.

More wind except perhaps the Americans leaving bit. Believe what you want, makes no difference.

Daydreams are good to prevent heart attacks.

Self serving indeed.

Not really. It is subject that you do not know or understand and which you think is wind - geo strategy!

More wind.

How droll!

 

[Tiki Tam Tam]

Good God, this is so ignorant. I'll correct some of it now, the rest later

A Daniel come to judgement!

Lying increases the creative faculties, expands the ego, and lessens the frictions of social contacts.”
Clare Boothe Luce

The US is seen as invaders by the Pashtun majority of Afghanistan. The Tajiks perhaps do not see them as invaders, but then the Tajiks don't see any foreigners that help them reach power as invaders.

A swallow does not a spring make!

The Taliban ARE the Mujahideen. Mullah Omar was a commander in the Mujahideen, Gulbuddin Hekmatyar, another, Jalal-ud-din Haqaani another. These were ALL AFGHANI Pashtun commanders that were part of the Mujahideen, but later became the Taliban

.

I thought you were an advocate that the AQ is not the Taliban!

How can the Mujahideen have been foreign when they were Afghani?

True. If true that the Taliban were against women's education because they felt women didn't have a right to it, then they were stupid.

And they were loved by the Afghans for being so kind, right?

Like I said, IF. Not only that, you aren't thinking broadly enough. In a country where the Northern Alliance were raping, looting, murdering, and stealing whilst in power, the Taliban came along and changed all that enforcing their version of Sharia. Therefore for a woman to lose out on education, but to gain security was a good swap (though women weren't being educated before the Taliban came to power anyway so they didn't lose anything in the swap). Here are some reports that demonstrate what I'm saying is exactly what happened, and what you're saying is simple bogus.

A very odd logic.

Afghans, weary of the mujahideen's excesses and infighting, generally welcomed the Taleban.


Their early popularity was largely due to their success in stamping out corruption, curbing lawlessness and making the roads and the areas under their control safe for commerce to flourish.
BBC NEWS | World | South Asia | Who are the Taleban?

These are what ordinary Afghans want. Law and order. Women's education would be nice, but is secondary.

So you would say it is better to have the Devil, than the deep sea.

Great justification!

More wind. Ask an economist.

You are the wind expert!

More wind

But, you are the windbag.

More wind. Karakoram Highway is functioning and costs are being made easily enough.

Only the blind would say that.

More wind except perhaps the Americans leaving bit. Believe what you want, makes no difference.

Daydreams are good to prevent heart attacks.

Self serving indeed.

Not really. It is subject that you do not know or understand and which you think is wind - geo strategy!

More wind.

How droll!

Remember Wisdom sails with wind and time

 

[roadrunner]

A Daniel come to judgement!

Lying increases the creative faculties, expands the ego, and lessens the frictions of social contacts.”
Clare Boothe Luce

A swallow does not a spring make!

A very odd logic.

So you would say it is better to have the Devil, than the deep sea.

Great justification!

You are the wind expert!

But, you are the windbag.

Only the blind would say that.

Daydreams are good to prevent heart attacks.

Not really. It is subject that you do not know or understand and which you think is wind - geo strategy!

How droll!

Remember Wisdom sails with wind and time

This is all wind.

I thought you were an advocate that the AQ is not the Taliban!

The Al Q are not the Taliban. I did not say that they were in any quote.

How can the Mujahideen have been foreign when they were Afghani?

Alright, I see what you meant now, and I agree. The Mujahideen were Afghani, the Taliban are Afghani. That's alright.

And they were loved by the Afghans for being so kind, right?

Probably they were welcomed because they brought security and some form of justice which was better than before. The links are there that prove they were welcomed initially.

 

[Tiki Tam Tam]

RR,

When you have nothing worthwhile, you use your crutch, "wind".

Apaprently, you are full of wind and you let it pass like a diesel vehicle easing out its overcompression.

Do read Khaled Hosseini.