U.S. says believes it will strike deal with Afghans on troops

[muse]

I'm not really saying your wrong per-se, I just think that the examples you use can be interpreted in different ways, take for example the "mercenary army" argument you made.

Alright , make the case for how "Mercenary" can mean different things when applied to the Pakistan Army ethic

 

[Sher Malang]

As I said before! but the Afghan-US politics is now depended on the moods of Karzai and Obama - may god save this region!

 

[acid rain]

As I said before! but the Afghan-US politics is now depended on the moods of Karzai and Obama - may god save this region!

Everything will fall in place soon, I Think it will end well, the seedy Doha stunt has become a failure - though I wish there are some minor agreements with the Taliban which move forward.

 

[That Guy]

Alright , make the case for how "Mercenary" can mean different things when applied to the Pakistan Army ethic

Already explained my views that I don't agree that the actions constitute mercenary ethics, you can always read my reply to you in said thread to know why.

 

[That Guy]

There's no way the US will let Afghanistan go back to the stone age again, they are kicking themselves for doing that and letting Afghanistan fall into Taliban hands in the 90's which resulted in the death of 3000 Americans in 9/11 and scores more in WOT.
The agreement will happen no matter what, Obama's not going to climb down from his requirements and the threat of complete pullout is just a pressure tactic to make Karzai more malleable.

You realize that the Taliban had nothing to do with 9/11 right? And to this day the Taliban is not even on the US's list of known terrorist outfits.

It doesn't matter what the government or military want, if the war grows too unpopular at home (which it has), then the US will have no choice but to completely withdraw, as they've done in the past.

Besides all that, Afghanistan is already in the stone age, the difference is that their leadership is living in luxury because of corruption, while the common folk have no choice but to live in poverty and misery.

dont take him serious. these liberal bi***hes are extremist as well. they want others to change their openion. every one has his openion.

I ask that you refrain from rude language. He's a senior member and a think tank, he deserves respect, even if I do happen to disagree with almost everything he says.

 

[muse]

Already explained my views that I don't agree that the actions constitute mercenary ethics, you can always read my reply to you in said thread to know why.

See, it's these chicken hawk type of responses that continue to put you in a non-serious category - you are simply lazy -- you could have constructed any number of arguments, but it's just that you do not mean what you say

You say that you are persuasive but I do not wish to be persuaded, and yet I give you time and attention??? Like an author who's books don't sell, complain that his readers are unworthy of his wisdom/

You can do better and i hope you will

 

[OrionHunter]

"Unlike Iraq, to which comparisons are often made, the Afghans actually need us to stay. Most Afghans want us to stay. And we have promised to stay."

The yanks are actually rubbing their hands with glee. Of course they will stay - till the cows come home. Does anyone think they're idiots to leave Afghanistan and its lucrative mineral wealth, amounting to more than a trillion dollars, to the wolves - Russians, Chinese, Indians and the CIS Republics? Exploiters like the Halliburtons and the BHP Billitons are right now breathing down the necks of the PTB in America for grabbing those lucrative contracts.

The US is there to stay. Another base for the Yanks to add to the hundreds they've already established round the world!

 

[That Guy]

See, it's these chicken hawk type of responses that continue to put you in a non-serious category - you are simply lazy -- you could have constructed any number of arguments, but it's just that you do not mean what you say

You say that you are persuasive but I do not wish to be persuaded, and yet I give you time and attention??? Like an author who's books don't sell, complain that his readers are unworthy of his wisdom/

You can do better and i hope you will

You call it laziness, I call it efficiency. Why repeat something that's already been said? I told you to read the reply I posted to you in that particular thread (which you apparently didn't), if you don't want to read it and accuse me of laziness, then that's your problem, not mine; Though, I would point out the irony in that.

I'd also like to point out that you're asking me to make an argument that I don't agree with in the first place

You said

Alright , make the case for how "Mercenary" can mean different things when applied to the Pakistan Army ethic

If I don't agree that the PA is a mercenary army to begin with, how can I even argue that it's actions can mean different things as long as it's mercenary in nature? It's a flawed demand on your part, it's like that insult we used to use as kids, you probably remember this one "are you an fool? No? Then does your mother know you're a fool?", no matter how I answered to your demand, it would have made you seem right and myself wrong.

When I said that your examples can be interpreted in different ways, I didn't specifically mean this particular term, I only pointed out the mercenary argument, because I believed it showed that I gave a differing view on your examples given. What you constitute as mercenary action, I constituted as something else, in this case, a reluctant and forced action, which is hardly mercenary in nature.

Also, your example makes no sense at all; I'm neither an author, nor do I claim to be wise. I've already said multiple times that I'm unprofessional and my words should be taken with a grain of salt. I can make persuasive arguments, but I'm not actively seeking to persuade people, I'm simply posting my views; After all, this IS a forum, the last time I checked.

 

[illusion8]

The yanks are actually rubbing their hands with glee. Of course they will stay - till the cows come home. Does anyone think they're idiots to leave Afghanistan and its lucrative mineral wealth, amounting to more than a trillion dollars, to the wolves - Russians, Chinese, Indians and the CIS Republics? Exploiters like the Halliburtons and the BHP Billitons are right now breathing down the necks of the PTB in America for grabbing those lucrative contracts.

The US is there to stay. Another base for the Yanks to add to the hundreds they've already established round the world!

Trillions of mineral deposits? it's hardly worth a trillion or two and not exactly worth it if one considers that Afghanistan is a land locked country and the nearest port is hundreds of miles away in a different country and the route that goes to the port is lined up with 40+ insurgent groups. It nearly triples the cost of the minerals to transport it.

The mineral contracts are to make a way for the Afghans to have some kind of an economy and shun their normal income from drug and gun trade. The money they make out of the mineral trade will be utilized for Afghanistan itself.

The Iraqi's have oil - the Afghans have to make do with minerals that cost a bomb to transport out of Afghanistan - but a few countries will help out so that the Afghans have a semblance of an economy going.

 

[acid rain]

You realize that the Taliban had nothing to do with 9/11 right? And to this day the Taliban is not even on the US's list of known terrorist outfits.

It doesn't matter what the government or military want, if the war grows too unpopular at home (which it has), then the US will have no choice but to completely withdraw, as they've done in the past.

Besides all that, Afghanistan is already in the stone age, the difference is that their leadership is living in luxury because of corruption, while the common folk have no choice but to live in poverty and misery.

This is not about the Taliban, this is about AFG - you are muddling the issue - the taliban is just one aspect of AFG.
Osama's AQ, Haqqani network etc were born as mujaahadeens to fight the soviets - you know the rest of the story of how they took power in AFG - right? what happened after Taliban took over was AQ became a premier force of Islamic Jihaad. Primary HQ being the AFG-PAK region. Again you know the rest that followed leading to 9/11 and WOT.

US cannot let those events repeat itself, so it needs presence in AFG, it has also seen the transformation of AFG into a democracy whose people are tasting some progress, with a decent security force to protect.

All it needs now is a pact of some sort with the taliban so that the war can end - the taliban can be a part of the Afghan govt.

 

[That Guy]

This is not about the Taliban, this is about AFG - you are muddling the issue - the taliban is just one aspect of AFG.
Osama's AQ, Haqqani network etc were born as mujaahadeens to fight the soviets - you know the rest of the story of how they took power in AFG - right? what happened after Taliban took over was AQ became a premier force of Islamic Jihaad. Primary HQ being the AFG-PAK region. Again you know the rest that followed leading to 9/11 and WOT.

US cannot let those events repeat itself, so it needs presence in AFG, it has also seen the transformation of AFG into a democracy whose people are tasting some progress, with a decent security force to protect.

All it needs now is a pact of some sort with the taliban so that the war can end - the taliban can be a part of the Afghan govt.

Actually, you've got it backwards. This entire issue IS about the Taliban, as they're the main opposition to US occupation of Afghanistan.

The fact is that the reason why AQ even got a foothold in Afghanistan was because of the Taliban (and ironically the Northern Alliance).

You're getting things confused, Afghanistan is hardly a democracy. A democracy would insinuate that everyone has equal rights and no one is treated better than another by the government. The fact is that Afghanistan is a divided nation, the south feels that they've been invaded by the north and the US is helping the northerners to exact revenge against the Taliban, who were primarily from the south, but you already know all that.

My point is, the US just wants to get out. It doesn't matter who comes to power in Afghanistan, as long as the US gets guarantees that Afghanistan won't be used to launch attacks against western targets. If the Taliban agrees to this, and there have been a lot of hints that they already agree, then the US will leave Afghanistan permanently.

 

[acid rain]

Actually, you've got it backwards. This entire issue IS about the Taliban, as they're the main opposition to US occupation of Afghanistan.

The fact is that the reason why AQ even got a foothold in Afghanistan was because of the Taliban (and ironically the Northern Alliance).

You're getting things confused, Afghanistan is hardly a democracy. A democracy would insinuate that everyone has equal rights and no one is treated better than another by the government. The fact is that Afghanistan is a divided nation, the south feels that they've been invaded by the north and the US is helping the northerners to exact revenge against the Taliban, who were primarily from the south, but you already know all that.

My point is, the US just wants to get out. It doesn't matter who comes to power in Afghanistan, as long as the US gets guarantees that Afghanistan won't be used to launch attacks against western targets. If the Taliban agrees to this, and there have been a lot of hints that they already agree, then the US will leave Afghanistan permanently.

Again, you got the Pakistani version going there. Read my post again.

The US didnt come to AFG to fight the taliban, they came for Laden - Laden got a base in Afg and Pakistan bcos of the Taliban - the taliban were formed from the mujahadeen - the mujahdeen were formed to fight the soviets - all of this does not matter.

The US is not concerned with the taliban, they are concerned with the Afghan Govt, they did not intend to stay in AFG, as I said Obama declared in 2008 itself about US withdrawal.

The US primary concern is that if they leave the region will again become a hellhole, they also know that the ANA will need a lot of assistance for which they need some minimal presence. Also, most of the US's most wanted list lives in Pakistan for which they need to continue their drone program.

As Afghan Govt, its a pure democracy, they came in by people's mandate, the taliban did not participate similar to the TTP did not participate in Pakistan elections - does that mean Pakistan is not a democracy?

 

[Secur]

The US didnt come to AFG to fight the taliban, they came for Laden - Laden got a base in Afg and Pakistan bcos of the Taliban - the taliban were formed from the mujahadeen - the mujahdeen were formed to fight the soviets - all of this does not matter.

Repeating the new revised U.S version , are we ?

There's no doubt about the Yanks landing in Afghanistan in 2001 to fight Taliban considering them backwards , barbaric , extremist and cruel , even though they only fought them , because they had sheltered Al Qaeda . Otherwise , what was Mr.Bush referring to , when he said that ' We will not tire , we will not falter and we will not fail ' ? . So , who have the Americans been fighting all along ? What group is it , that they face the severest resistance from ?

It was only after the Americans realized that they couldn't defeat Taliban and needed to negotiate to ' abandon ' that country , was their status changed from ' enemy ' to ' not an enemy 'by Joe Biden . Its amazing that you would believe everything they say as Gospel truth , despite facts indicating otherwise .

As Afghan Govt, its a pure democracy, they came in by people's mandate, the taliban did not participate similar to the TTP did not participate in Pakistan elections - does that mean Pakistan is not a democracy?

Well , unlike Afghanistan , 70% of the Pakistani territory isn't controlled by TTP nor is the Pakistan Army facing any problem except from a few agencies in tribal areas . What parallel are you trying to draw here ? With the jurisdiction * if any * of the Afghan Govt limited to Kabul and big cities , there's simply no relevance . We have a fully functioning democracy , something which Kabul cant have because of the age old system which the Afghans aren't willing to change .

 

[That Guy]

Again, you got the Pakistani version going there. Read my post again.

The US didnt come to AFG to fight the taliban, they came for Laden - Laden got a base in Afg and Pakistan bcos of the Taliban - the taliban were formed from the mujahadeen - the mujahdeen were formed to fight the soviets - all of this does not matter.

The US is not concerned with the taliban, they are concerned with the Afghan Govt, they did not intend to stay in AFG, as I said Obama declared in 2008 itself about US withdrawal.

The US primary concern is that if they leave the region will again become a hellhole, they also know that the ANA will need a lot of assistance for which they need some minimal presence. Also, most of the US's most wanted list lives in Pakistan for which they need to continue their drone program.

As Afghan Govt, its a pure democracy, they came in by people's mandate, the taliban did not participate similar to the TTP did not participate in Pakistan elections - does that mean Pakistan is not a democracy?

They came for Osama, but they had to fight the Taliban regardless, and even then your point is faulty because in order to bet to Osama, they had to fight through the Taliban.

The US entirely concerned withe the Taliban, because they fear that if the Taliban come back, they'll give AQ sanctuary in Afghanistan again. The US doesn't give a **** if Afghanistan turns into a hell hole, as long as it doesn't threaten US and it's western allies.

The Afghan gov rigged the last elections, they didn't come into power by the people's mandate, they came to power through corruption.

I can hardly call Pakistan a democracy, but between Afghanistan and Pakistan, it is Pakistan that is on the path towards proper democracy.

 

[acid rain]

Repeating the new revised U.S version , are we ?

There's no doubt about the Yanks landing in Afghanistan in 2001 to fight Taliban considering them backwards , barbaric , extremist and cruel , even though they only fought them , because they had sheltered Al Qaeda . Otherwise , what was Mr.Bush referring to , when he said that ' We will not tire , we will not falter and we will not fail ' ? . So , who have the Americans been fighting all along ? What group is it , that they face the severest resistance from ?

It was only after the Americans realized that they couldn't defeat Taliban and needed to negotiate to ' abandon ' that country , was their status changed from ' enemy ' to ' not an enemy 'by Joe Biden . Its amazing that you would believe everything they say as Gospel truth , despite facts indicating otherwise .



Well , unlike Afghanistan , 70% of the Pakistani territory isn't controlled by TTP nor is the Pakistan Army facing any problem except from a few agencies in tribal areas . What parallel are you trying to draw here ? With the jurisdiction * if any * of the Afghan Govt limited to Kabul and big cities , there's simply no relevance . We have a fully functioning democracy , something which Kabul cant have because of the age old system which the Afghans aren't willing to change .

No idea what your saying in the first part and it doesnt make any sense, it just seems to extend a conspiracy theory namely the NWO, so i'll refrain from any discussion on theories. Fact of the matter is the Americans came after Laden and bcos the Taliban refused to hand him over ended up fighting them.

Till 2004 - 5, the US hardly knew what they were doing in AFG and were going berserk with rage, Musharaf as well was leading them in all directions. It was Obama in 2008 who started putting the US Withdrawals in place with one final big push.


Well, there's no unlike the Afghanistan here - you can measure up areas controlled by both the talibans in your respective countries and it doesnt matter, they both control a certain populace, have similar numbers of militants,have same idealogies..the TTP is a relatively new group, quite new compared to the other taliban and faced against a better army with no recoqnized support, hence the lower rate of control - so going back to thatguy's argument, despite them not running elections similar to the afg taliban, Pakistan is considered a democracy as much as Afghanistan is one, its nascent for them but they are on that path.