22 killed in US missile strike in N Waziristan

[roadrunner]

"...it was a plan that was most likely hatched in the US, with Zia being the idiot puppet to carry out the logistics.."

- People on this board are saying that Zia was a fool and a puppet. What choice did he have? With the Soviets on one border and India on the other, could he have said 'no' to the Americans? What would Pakistan have looked like today if he had said 'NO'? It was a collaboration that appeared to be beneficial for all.....

- In many ways, today's policy predicaments for Pakistan still appear to be the same .

If Zia had said no, there'd be no madrassas, no radicalization, no Mujahideen, no Taliban.

What a dream.

Afghanistan would have been better off under the Soviets, imo. Compared to the genocidal state it's become.

 

[S-2]

"In many ways, today's policy predicaments are the same for Pakistan."

Yeah. We have PREDATOR and the Soviets used to shoot artillery from time to time.

The Soviets never gave aid to the Pakistanis while mujahideen fighters crossed the border into Afghanistan, though. Nobody's that dumb.

Right?

 

[zhero]

"If Zia had said no, there'd be no madrassas, no radicalization, no Mujahideen, no Taliban. "

- Possibly no Pakistan today either. You think the Indians wouldn't have tried to bifurcate Pakistan again?

 

[S-2]

"Afghanistan would have been better off under the Soviets, imo. Compared to the genocidal state it's become."

That's a plainly STUPID statement.

Better go look at the estimates. There's no comparison between their most lenient and our worst.

That's an astoundingly dumb comment.

Sorry.

Just is...

 

[roadrunner]

"Afghanistan would have been better off under the Soviets, imo. Compared to the genocidal state it's become."

That's a plainly STUPID statement.

Better go look at the estimates. There's no comparison between their most lenient and our worst.

That's an astoundingly dumb comment.

Sorry.

Just is...

The label of "astoundingly dumb" from you, is a compliment in my books. Anything "astoundingly dumb" according to you, must have quite a bit of truth in it.

Anyhow, let's look at the facts.

IF Afghanistan was left to Soviet rule - there'd be no maniacal radicals generated by the Saudis/US running around killing everyone and shooting up schools.

IF Afghanistan was left to Soviet rule, the Soviets would have given them a socialist society with emphasis on education and Soviet values - not a bad thing at all, I'd take it over the society of mad Mullahs that came later.

IF Afghanistan was left to Soviet rule, the Afghans would have been able to have some semblance of infrastructure instead of no infrastructure.

There's more that could be added to this list.

But you may get the point.

"Zero"
And Pakistan would not have split up again - the only reason it split first time was the Indian terrorism that was effective due to the geographical separation of east and west Pakistan. Pakistan was one geographical unit where the same method would not have worked.

 

[Omar1984]

Taliban were friendly to Pakistan until 9/11/2001 happened and Pakistan sided with Bush.

Taliban have been living side by side in peace with Pakistanis for decades.

Why hasn't Pakistan seen a single case of suicide bombing in the history of Pakistan before 2004?

When US invaded Afghanistan, Pakistan saw bombings suicide bombings, the worst violence ever seen in Pakistan tahts why most Pakistanis see America as a bigger threat than Taliban.

 

[Flintlock]

But your biggest assumption is that Afghans would live peacefully under the Godless Communists. I see a huge clash happening, with perhaps genocides conducted by the soviets.

The label of "astoundingly dumb" from you, is a compliment in my books. Anything "astoundingly dumb" according to you, must have quite a bit of truth in it.

Anyhow, let's look at the facts.

IF Afghanistan was left to Soviet rule - there'd be no maniacal radicals generated by the Saudis/US running around killing everyone and shooting up schools.

IF Afghanistan was left to Soviet rule, the Soviets would have given them a socialist society with emphasis on education and Soviet values - not a bad thing at all, I'd take it over the society of mad Mullahs that came later.

IF Afghanistan was left to Soviet rule, the Afghans would have been able to have some semblance of infrastructure instead of no infrastructure.

There's more that could be added to this list.

But you may get the point.

"Zero"
And Pakistan would not have split up again - the only reason it split first time was the Indian terrorism that was effective due to the geographical separation of east and west Pakistan. Pakistan was one geographical unit where the same method would not have worked.

 

[haviZsultan]

"...it was a plan that was most likely hatched in the US, with Zia being the idiot puppet to carry out the logistics.."

- People on this board are saying that Zia was a fool and a puppet. What choice did he have? With the Soviets on one border and India on the other, could he have said 'no' to the Americans? What would Pakistan have looked like today if he had said 'NO'? It was a collaboration that appeared to be beneficial for all.....

- In many ways, today's policy predicaments for Pakistan still appear to be the same .

U r absolutely right. Most of the time we have no choice. Everyone HAS to ACCEPT what they want and that is even more painful knowing that they are "parhay likhey jahils"... (ask RR what that means). But there is a time when someone has to take a stand. They dont know the situation here and it is becoming dangerous. They dont care

U f4m burkina rite bro.... u c fact is we are all victims of american terror and if we all raise our voice together then things will be much more different than what they are now. We are all suffering. The neo colonial ambitions of the United States and the ideals of US of somehow dominating the world and setting people against each other (for example US sat back and enjoyed when Hutu Tutsi's killed each other in Rwanda but the distinction was made by the white man himself, in somalia they supported one clan over another for no good reason) The fact is we are all fighting because of these same type of people. All our problems come from them. We are the ones suffering in the end not them at all.

No one supports the terrorists here and we hate them (even though that goes against their propaganda.) They kill and massacre our people but if we look at the background we'lll realize same people who are now inhuman terrorists were yesterday heroes from same USA. In Pakistan we stand united regardless of religion race and ethnicity because we are sick of american sponsered terror and these talibani cultists.

I propose an alliance and united front to stop united states and its campaign of terror. Africa South America and Asia must unite against USA's neo con policies and reply to their propaganda because if today it is south asia persia and middle east that are under threat then tommarow it could be Burkina and ur nations who are being used for their goals and ur people dying just to bring a smile to S2's face. Only with unity then can the opinions of the NATO and EU nations change. America has gone too far and must be contained. Ever watched quarantine? Thats what needs to be done. US needs to be locked up in a little box. Hopefully that will end them massacring and creating problems elsewhere. the 3rd world needs to unite.

 

[zhero]

"And Pakistan would not have split up again..."

- I thought that someone on this board said that India won that war in 13 days? If that is the case, then don't you think it's possible that India had a more than reasonable chance of splitting Pakistan again (provided that the US didn't interfere)?

 

[roadrunner]

But your biggest assumption is that Afghans would live peacefully under the Godless Communists. I see a huge clash happening, with perhaps genocides conducted by the soviets.

Isn't what you're suggesting an assumption also?

The Afghans are not conservative people at base. Why do you think the Hippy trail went through Kabul. It was the most exciting stop off point on the hippy trail, until these morons radicalized everyone.

 

[Flintlock]

Not really - look at their history - they have always had a hard time accepting what they perceive as foreign rule.

I'd say its far more likely that Afghanistan under the soviets would have turned into a genodical hellhole rather than a staid communist state.

I mean, what is so special about the Soviets which would make them welcome where the Americans werent?

Isn't what you're suggesting an assumption also?

The Afghans are not conservative people at base. Why do you think the Hippy trail went through Kabul. It was the most exciting stop off point on the hippy trail, until these morons radicalized everyone.

 

[roadrunner]

Not really - look at their history - they have always had a hard time accepting what they perceive as foreign rule.

I'd say its far more likely that Afghanistan under the soviets would have turned into a genodical hellhole rather than a staid communist state.

I think the point is this.

The Afghans would not be as radicalized.

They did not have a hard time accepting Communism. The Communist parties were not at all unpopular there, in fact.

Now remember, when I said "Godless Commies", it was just an expression.

The Soviet Union allowed religion, but limited it in public to a degree.

This was not an unpopular ideology in Afghanistan. The Khalq and Parcham facions of Communist parties in Afghanistan had a fair influence in Afghanistan.

I do think that if the Afghans were left alone, without any sort of radicalization, there would not have been the problems of Taliban and factional fighting, after the Soviets withdrew. This is assuming the Afghans rose up and fought Soviet rule. I agree they probably would have. I disagree they would have been in the position they are today, had they have done so minus the American/Saudi interference. There would have been no mad mullahs for a start.

 

[haviZsultan]

Not really - look at their history - they have always had a hard time accepting what they perceive as foreign rule.

I'd say its far more likely that Afghanistan under the soviets would have turned into a genodical hellhole rather than a staid communist state.

I mean, what is so special about the Soviets which would make them welcome where the Americans werent?

The soviets would have made afghanistan a stronger nation. Communists are'nt all that bad. Look at China and its growth. USSR could have saved Afghanistan from both talibani tyranny and their american supporters who seek to dominate afghanistan and make it a puppet.

Indians fear communism more than we do. The reason is the naxalites. But naxalite insurgency is homegrown actually. U guys massacre thousands of poor little women children because of the fear of communism and then their survivors become naxalites. Irony is'nt it?

 

[S-2]

"Anyhow, let's look at the facts."

O.K.

"IF Afghanistan was left to Soviet rule..."

What fact is this?

"IF Afghanistan was left to Soviet rule..."

and this?

"IF Afghanistan was left to Soviet rule..."

and this?

Facts? Conditional suppositions, stud. Each one and nary a fact there.

Try this- Anywhere between 900,000-1.5 million afghanis died during the Soviet-Afghan war. AT LEAST another 250,000 during the afghan civil war.

Maybe 11,000-20,000 in the last seven years.

Get serious on the googling. You're evidently clueless about that nation just over Pakistan's western border.

 

[Flintlock]

Gosh...cut down on the hyperbole people.