What's new

US Offers Taliban 6 Provinces for 8 Bases

Here they are the US fighting a damn war with cowards who have taken so many innocent lives everywhere for no damn reason ! and now they are willing to give them power sharing for provinces ! wat the hell is this US gov thinking and doing meanwhile in there wrong doing all over over the world others like Pakistan get caught in the cross fire look at all the prob's & livies we are loosing everyday because of the US . The US gov needs to wake the hell up even as me being a pakistaniamerican iam outraged that the US is making deals with terroist now using our tax paying dollars to shake hands with these cowards which have killed so many in the US (9/11) and in the world ! shame on the US GOD help us all..
 
.
The problem here is there will be no change if the afghan taliban will not permit nor participate in electoral politics while accepting adherence to the afghan constitution.

That is the law of their land. The afghan taliban have long been welcomed to participate in the political discourse of Afghanistan and have a voice in afghan matters. They will not be permitted to dominate the discourse at the point of a gun.

That is their intent and any fair-minded soul should be able to recognize the malfeasence behind such intent.

Any afghan taliban today can put down his weapon and be welcomed back into afghan society if they are willing to adhere to the above.

Why is Omar adamant about ISAF leaving before he'll negotiate? Seems obvious, doesn't it? The afghan taliban recognize they'll achieve no military victory in Afghanistan. They NEED ISAF's departure to assure their victory.

For those here who wish such, I hope they understand that Afghanistan will become Pakistan's worst nightmare should this occur. The only hope Pakistan has of long-term peace is with a stabilized Afghanistan that is fully committed to peaceful reconciliation and electoral non-interference.

Afghanistan is a long way from that. Under the domination of the afghan taliban, Afghanistan will NEVER even approach such and will, instead, bleed Pakistan dry.

US ready to dump Pakistani allies?

Patrick J. Buchanan

When America is about to throw an ally to the wolves, we follow an established ritual. We discover that the man we supported was never really morally fit to be a friend or partner of the United States.

When Chiang Kai-shek, who fought the Japanese for four years before Pearl Harbor, began losing to Mao’s Communists, we did not blame ourselves for being a faithless ally, we blamed him. He was incompetent; he was corrupt.

We did not lose China. He did.

When Buddhist monks began immolating themselves in South Vietnam, the cry went up: President Diem, once hailed as the “George Washington of his country,” was a dictator, a Catholic autocrat in a Buddhist nation, who had lost touch with his people.

And so, word went out from the White House to the generals. Get rid of Diem, and you get his power and U.S. support. Three weeks before JFK was assassinated, Diem and his brother met the same fate.

When the establishment wished to be rid of a war into which it had plunged this country, suddenly it was “the corrupt and dictatorial Thieu-Ky regime” in Saigon that was simply not worth defending.

Lon Nol, our man in Phnom Penh, got the same treatment.

“In this world it is often dangerous to be an enemy of the United States, but to be a friend is fatal,” said Henry Kissinger.

The army of South Vietnam and the Saigon government, the boat people of the South China Sea and the million victims of Pol Pot’s genocide can testify to that before the judgment seat of history

Thus the daily attacks on Afghan President Hamid Karzai — who sat beside Laura Bush as guest of honor at the 2002 State of the Union and got a standing ovation — as the corrupt ruler of a corrupt regime, whose brother, a narcotics trafficker, has been on the CIA’s payroll, seems a signal that the ritual is about to begin. The Karzai brothers should probably read up on the fate of the Diem brothers.

Yet never has an ally been more egregiously insulted in wartime than Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s insulting of the Pakistanis on her “fence-mending” trip last week. In a meeting with editors, Hillary was asked why the United States was focusing its Predator strikes in the war on terror so heavily upon Pakistan.

Said Hillary, “Al-Qaida has had safe haven in Pakistan since 2002. … I find it hard to believe that nobody in your government knows where they are and couldn’t get them if they really wanted to.”

This is charging the Pakistani government, army and intelligence services with cowardice or collusion with bin Laden and al-Qaida in the war on terror. That it was made within hours of the bloodiest in a long series of terror attacks that have killed hundreds of Pakistanis only magnifies the insult.

So, too, does the fact that the Pakistani army, after cleansing the Swat Valley of the Taliban, is now fighting in South Waziristan in the most critical battle of the war.

But, if this is what the Obama administration and the Congress believe, why are they sending $7.5 billion in new aid to such a regime?

Moreover, the charge is, on its face, demonstrably false.

But what does it avail us to insult these people who have cast their lot with us, many of whom will, with famines and friends, pay a far more terrible price than we if we lose these wars.

And if we are going to abandon these people, as we have so many others in the past, let us at least tell them, and ourselves, the truth. We didn’t know what we were getting into. We don’t have the stomach for a long war. We’re sorry we got you into this. Your big mistake was in trusting us. You folks should have known better.

:pakistan:
 
.
"i am pretty sure majority of the people will not vote for them."

Can you imagine ol' Mullah Omar out on the campaign trail trying to roust up votes?:lol:

"...they would not like to be a weaker party in the new political set up."

I'd suggest that some of something beats all of nothing but I've also yet to see a political entity that is satisfied with second best. Of course, being first requires a certain competitive spirit within defined boundaries. That means developing political platforms and supporting programs that candidates can take out on the street and sell to their potential constituencies.

Clearly, if the U.S., as example, isn't particularly wired to manage nation-building at a level acceptable to most of us, neither are the taliban wired to developing a political ideology that is sufficiently inclusive and accomodating to be appealing to others. They're not wired for such as you've indicated below-

"...they believe in theocratic authoritarian regime..."

If they've no inclination to share power and promote a participatory electoral environment, they won't be a player in the afghan political milieu until NATO leaves and they can take by force of arms what they can't take by the power of reason.

As indicated, doing so will be Pakistan's worst nightmare and will assure America's return under more onerous intent I suppose.
 
.
US is the aggressor occupying The Sate of Afghanistan

US can stay in Afghanistan for now but they will never achieve so called victory in Afghanistan because there motive is not to have stable region but quiet on the contrary.

Afghanistan serves as a base from mounting overt or covert attacks on Pakistan Iran and China.

Pakistan will have to wake up for the romantic illusion that it has about US that its our friend and ally etc etc.

Ideal course for Pakistan will be to stay away from US.

Afghanistan is for the Afghans and its no business of US to tell Afghans how to govern themselves. US can stay in Afghanistan for one decade more but it will only lead to more bloodshed and suffering of Pakistani Afghan people.
 
.
US is the aggressor occupying The Sate of Afghanistan

US can stay in Afghanistan for now but they will never achieve so called victory in Afghanistan because there motive is not to have stable region but quiet on the contrary.

Afghanistan serves as a base from mounting overt or covert attacks on Pakistan Iran and China.

Pakistan will have to wake up for the romantic illusion that it has about US that its our friend and ally etc etc.

Ideal course for Pakistan will be to stay away from US.

Afghanistan is for the Afghans and its no business of US to tell Afghans how to govern themselves. US can stay in Afghanistan for one decade more but it will only lead to more bloodshed and suffering of Pakistani Afghan people.

lets set the record straight here. I feel embarrassed to say the basics and obvious. US is not occupier in Afghanistan. US along with NATO and ISAF intervened in Afghanistan under the UN resolutions. It is called "Intervention" which technically means that they will not stay here. they will oust the Taliban regime (which was recognized only by three countries) and al Qaeda. and will set up Afghan government. They did so. a new Afghan government was set up and a constitution was made by loya jirga where no american participated. and in the first afghan election, over 60 per cent Afghans voted. it means majority of the people of Afghanistan had accepted the new government but i am afraid several Pakistanis do not respect the Afghan people's decision and want to impose Taliban on them again. this new Afghan government was recognized by and all the countries of the world including Pakistan. ISAF and NATO will of course leave one day when they make the Afghan government able to run its affairs.
 
.
lets set the record straight here. I feel embarrassed to say the basics and obvious. US is not occupier in Afghanistan. US along with NATO and ISAF intervened in Afghanistan under the UN resolutions. It is called "Intervention" which technically means that they will not stay here.

You should be embarrassed Because US is an OCCUPIER. Not including the AIPAC and Evangelists and associates to them anything US and Israel does is legal.

they will oust the Taliban regime (which was recognized only by three countries) and al Qaeda. and will set up Afghan government. They did so. a new Afghan government was set up and a constitution was made by loya jirga where no american participated. and in the first afghan election, over 60 per cent Afghans voted. it means majority of the people of Afghanistan had accepted the new government but i am afraid several Pakistanis do not respect the Afghan people's decision and want to impose Taliban on them again. this new Afghan government was recognized by and all the countries of the world including Pakistan. ISAF and NATO will of course leave one day when they make the Afghan government able to run its affairs.

Who is the bloody US to decide the future of Afghanistan and Iraq?

US has so far killed hundreds of thousands in Afghanistan and Iraq under the so called pretext of 9/11.
 
.
Nicely explained but i would like to share my thoughts here. Taliban once ruled almost 90 per cent of Afghanistan and they were sure to take the rest of it too.

someone please tell his poor chap that Afghani people have won against occupation forces, its now only a matter of time before it becomes official and they pull out.

they enjoyed absolute power. it seems less likely that they will compromise on something less than that. they had tasted the power and they will try to reclaim it. their ideology is not in sync with electoral process. they do not believe in democracy.
they believe in theocratic authoritarian regime. and they also know the result of election where i am pretty sure majority of the people will not vote for them. they would not like to be a weaker party in the new political set up.

And how you came to this conclusion of afghani people loving this demon-crazy? Say hi to karzai for me since you are in Afghanistan.

you can install fake puppets, but you cannot buy Phatan's honour, he will fight and die for it.

Its time you cowboys to learn some history.
 
. .
if it is indeed true...then the US's credibility is at stake...and I don't think they'd get any backing from us in this 'deal' of theirs...

Yup the indians would deffinately not support this . But the US is negotiating an exit strategy here and for that to accomplish it needs the support of stronger forces in Afghanistan . The election should have been an eye opener ...
I gues its not in Indian interests if US departs from Afghanistan
 
.
Is it me or there is a high level of hypocrisy on US side here?

No no Brov its hell of alot deeper than that !
ITs corruption so vast and so evil that there isn't a name for it.
Satan himself would only cry to God and pray to stop it.
Thats how bad it is.
 
.
The Taliban can never be made to give up their form of Islam. Everything they do is based on that, and that everything, is simply unacceptable to the US and the free world. Keeping that in mind, the US and Pakistan have to dominate them. Leaving Afghanistan will not harm the US as much as it will Pakistan. Mohmand, Bajaur, Waziristan will be under siege after the Taliban take back Afghanistan. Or am I wrong in assuming that?
 
.
By Aamir Latif, IOL Correspondent

ISLAMABAD – The emboldened Taliban movement in Afghanistan turned down an American offer of power-sharing in exchange for accepting the presence of foreign troops, Afghan government sources confirmed.

"US negotiators had offered the Taliban leadership through Mullah Wakil Ahmed Mutawakkil (former Taliban foreign minister) that if they accept the presence of NATO troops in Afghanistan, they would be given the governorship of six provinces in the south and northeast," a senior Afghan Foreign Ministry official told IslamOnline.net requesting anonymity for not being authorized to talk about the sensitive issue with the media.

He said the talks, brokered by Saudi Arabia and Turkey, continued for weeks at different locations including the Afghan capital Kabul.

Saudi Arabia, along with Pakistan and the United Arab Emirates, were the only states to recognize the Taliban regime which ruled Afghanistan from 1996 to 2001.

Turkish Prime Minister Reccap Erodgan has reportedly been active in brokering talks between the two sides.

His emissaries are in contact with Hizb-e-Islami (of former prime minister Gulbadin Hikmatyar) too because he is an important factor in northeastern Afghanistan."

A Taliban spokesman admitted indirect talks with the US.

"Yes, there were some indirect talks, but they did not work," Yousaf Ahmedi, the Taliban spokesman in southern Afghanistan, told IOL from an unknown location via satellite phone.

"There are some people who are conveying each others’ (Taliban and US) messages. But there were no direct talks between us and America," he explained.

Afghan and Taliban sources said Mutawakkil and Mullah Mohammad Zaeef, a former envoy to Pakistan who had taken part in previous talks, represented the Taliban side in the recent talks.

The US Embassy in Kabul denied any such talks.

"No, we are not holding any talks with Taliban," embassy spokeswoman Cathaline Haydan told IOL from Kabul.

Asked whether the US has offered any power-sharing formula to Taliban, she said she was not aware of any such offer.

"I don't know about any specific talks and the case you are reporting is not true."

Provinces for Bases

Source say that for the first time the American negotiators did not insist on the "minus-Mullah Omer" formula, which had been the main hurdle in previous talks between the two sides.

The Americans reportedly offered Taliban a form of power-sharing in return for accepting the presence of foreign troops.

"America wants 8 army and air force bases in different parts of Afghanistan in order to tackle the possible regrouping of Al-Qaeda network," the senior official said.

He named the possible hosts of the bases as Mazar-e-Sharif and Badakshan in north, Kandahar in south, Kabul, Herat in west, Jalalabad in northeast and Ghazni and Faryab in central Afghanistan.

In exchange, the US offered Taliban the governorship of the southern provinces of Kandahar, Zabul, Hilmand and Orazgan as well as the northeastern provinces of Nooristan and Kunar.

These provinces are the epicenter of resistance against the US-led foreign forces and are considered the strongholds of Taliban.

Orazgan and Hilmand are the home provinces of Taliban Supreme Commander Mullah Omer and Afghan President Hamid Karzai.

"But Taliban did not agree on that," said the senior official.

"Their demand was that America must give a deadline for its pull out if it wants negotiations to go on."

Could you post a link for me thanks :)
 
.
I wonder where all the Islamic peace keepers are?

After everyone seem to want the US out of afghanistan, simple round up 1000000, muslim peace keepers to take over the task.

Surley Saudi Arabia can afford it, surley Iran has the troops after all they keep saying how many they have.

Perhaps they should take over the training and funding of the police and army and start shipping them equipment.

Perhaps they should start rebuilding schools and hospitals and water supplies.

Then those terrible countries like, the US , England, Italy, France, Germany, Australia and New Zealand could stop loosing thier sons and daughters to cowards that take pay from them on one hand and shoot them in the back at the next.

Cricket......cricket....cricket.....


Or perhaps all the commentators and bloggers that sit in muslim countries and spout muslim brotherhood tripe and critise those that are actually trying, while actually doing nothing to help should **** till they are part of the solution not part of the problem?
 
.
I wonder where all the Islamic peace keepers are?

After everyone seem to want the US out of afghanistan, simple round up 1000000, muslim peace keepers to take over the task.

Surley Saudi Arabia can afford it, surley Iran has the troops after all they keep saying how many they have.

Perhaps they should take over the training and funding of the police and army and start shipping them equipment.

Perhaps they should start rebuilding schools and hospitals and water supplies.

Then those terrible countries like, the US , England, Italy, France, Germany, Australia and New Zealand could stop loosing thier sons and daughters to cowards that take pay from them on one hand and shoot them in the back at the next.

Cricket......cricket....cricket.....


Or perhaps all the commentators and bloggers that sit in muslim countries and spout muslim brotherhood tripe and critise those that are actually trying, while actually doing nothing to help should **** till they are part of the solution not part of the problem?
Good question...After all the chirping we have heard about how we supported dictators here is the chance for the muslims to show the West how good the muslims can be at democracy and nation building. All should see how the US would run screaming from such an example.
 
.
There have been three muslim nations of which I'm aware that have provided troops- Turkey and the U.A.E. have actually provided peace-keepers (trigger-pullers) while Egypt has sent a field hospital unit.

After that, Islam has stayed out.

Of course all we read here is the U.S. That is for convenience sake of perpetrating the hate of America and to avoid the logic of trying to explain 39 other nations that have offered their blood and treasury. Doing so would negate the message of U.S. occupation though, evidently, according to many here we ABANDONED Afghanistan following the Soviet departure.

That, in itself, is a fascinatingly perverse twist of geo-politics as it's very, very unlikely that the Soviet Union would have left at all had we intended to stay. More likely, they would have not accepted any treaty that placed America adjacent to their southern soviet socialist republics. Equally, there's the interesting question of prior historical interest in the area by America. It didn't exist at all. Finally, there's the interesting supposition that, had we stayed, we'd quickly and universally been condemned as neo-colonialist occupiers...

...as we are now.:lol:

In short, any way it's sliced Islam would have offered one big fat,

"Fcuk you very much, America!"

Now, of course, inviting the wahabbi KSA would mean taliban support. Inviting Iran would mean Hazara, Uzbek, turkomen and tajik support. Pakistan would weigh in with the KSA likely and it would be off to another civil war with the proxy mentors INCOUNTRY.

What a mess that'd be.

It's why muslim nations just aren't a fit. The poor afghans would again be twisting and dancing to somebody else's tune in another bloody and open civil war.

It'll happen anyway. No amount of time by the west to unfcuk Afghanistan shall prove adequate. It's so easy to feel the love of ummahness and islamic brotherhood that others have for Afghanistan.

It's a land and people that even God has turned his back on.
 
.
Back
Top Bottom