Afghanistan to back Pakistan against U.S

[olp1fan]

So right now Canadian troops are training the Afghanistan troops that will in the future probably be fighting U.S and its allies?

This is beyond ridiculous, get them out of there NOW, they are now our enemy

http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/10/22/us-pakistan-afghanistan-usa-idUSTRE79L19Z20111022?feedType=RSS&feedName=topNews

ISLAMABAD (Reuters) - Afghanistan would support Pakistan in case of military conflict between Pakistan and the United States, Afghan President Hamid Karzai said in an interview to a private Pakistani TV channel broadcast on Saturday

Edited October 22, 2011 by olp1fan
deleted re-copied article

[Topaz]

I've read a few articles on the US/ Pakistan relationship and it hasn't be that good. The former female PM who was killed, blamed the US for the death of her father, under GW, apparently Pakistan was told to support the US or they would blow them out of the water and I've also read that the plan behind 9/11 was Saudi Arabia and Pakistan but made it look like OBL was responsbile. One has to have an open mind in this society because one can't really trust what ANY government says. Governments are friends one day and bitter enoemies the next.

[olp1fan]

Agreed Topaz

I wonder if the Cons will ignore what the President said though... We have 1000 troops there training the Afghanistan military

the military who will be our enemy shall the U.S and Pakistan get into it

how can they shrug this off?

Edited October 22, 2011 by olp1fan

[Moonlight Graham]

I wouldn't spend one dime training any Afghan military/police. OP is right, get out now. Get out years ago.

[jbg]

ISLAMABAD (Reuters) - Afghanistan would support Pakistan in case of military conflict between Pakistan and the United States, Afghan President Hamid Karzai said in an interview to a private Pakistani TV channel broadcast on Saturday

I'm tending to agree. What we should be doing in Muslim lands is not holding and occupying, but wiping out leaders who stick a thumb in our eye. And the next one, and the next one.

[Moonlight Graham]

Like Mossedegh? That worked out awesome.

How would you like it if Saudi Arabia became the global superpower and kept bombing and killing your leaders and whatever US civilians were in the crossfire? You'd probably want to go kill those bastards and fly planes into their buildings too.

So let me get this right: American colonies got PO'd at the British King because he had "...a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States" (US Declaration of Indep.), so the colonies formed their own state over this and self-determination and freedom from tyranny became the basis of their constitution, yet some, like you and a long history of US leaders, support forcefully removing at whim foreign leaders who don't agree with your interests and otherwise imperial policies like the good 'ol British Empire Americans despised. Sounds like a bunch of massive hypocrites to me, King George.

[Guest American Woman]

From what I've read, it's a situation that's totally unlikely to happen anyway, so I think this could boil down to much ado about nothing.

I can't see where Karzai really could have said anything else under the circumstances. He's been having issues with Pakistan, so his statement might simply be a political tactic. It is, after all, just a statement. It's difficult to say what would ultimately happen if push came to shove.

As for pulling our troops out because of it, seems to me if we can stay there and become stronger allies, win more hearts and minds so to speak, if war were to become reality, we might have gained enough support within Afghanistan that it wouldn't back Pakistan. In other words, I'm not sure we should base our decisions, act/react, solely on what Karzai said in one statement. I'm sure there have been a lot of things he's said and done that haven't set well with us over the course of the years.

And let's face it, our politicians engage in a lot of double talk for political reasons too; this could be nothing more than double talk on his part - saying what he thinks he needs to say to in order to survive in the region.

Just another take on it........ food for thought.

[GostHacked]

And let's face it, our politicians engage in a lot of double talk for political reasons too; this could be nothing more than double talk on his part - saying what he thinks he needs to say to in order to survive in the region.

Some of that double talk is how we got to this situation in the first place. I agree though.

[bush_cheney2004]

... so the colonies formed their own state over this and self-determination and freedom from tyranny became the basis of their constitution, yet some, like you and a long history of US leaders, support forcefully removing at whim foreign leaders who don't agree with your interests and otherwise imperial policies like the good 'ol British Empire Americans despised. Sounds like a bunch of massive hypocrites to me, King George.

Yes...just like Canada removed the democratically elected president of Haiti in 2004. Welcome to the Hypocrite Club.

[Guest Derek L]

To play devil’s advocate………….What would you expect him to say? NATO is leaving anyways, and he’s book ended by Iran and Pakistan………Two large Muslim countries, one with nukes and the other trying to get them……..USA! USA! USA!

He’s simply playing to his domestic and regional audience……….If eh didn’t, when ISAF pulls out, we’d see a redux of Saigon ‘75

And if his intentions are to distance himself from the West and embrace the Taliban and “terrorist killers”, paint him a picture of modern realities through Arclight

[olp1fan]

As for pulling our troops out because of it, seems to me if we can stay there and become stronger allies, win more hearts and minds so to speak, if war were to become reality, we might have gained enough support within Afghanistan that it wouldn't back Pakistan.

We've been there for 10 years... if you can't win them over in that time what makes you think another year or two are going to help?

[jbg]

Like Mossedegh? That worked out awesome.

It worked out quite well from 1953 until about 1977 when things began to fall apart. And part of that falling apart was Jimmy Carter throwing him under the bus, much the way that Obama's equivocation led the way to Mubarak's downfall.

How would you like it if Saudi Arabia became the global superpower and kept bombing and killing your leaders and whatever US civilians were in the crossfire? You'd probably want to go kill those bastards and fly planes into their buildings too.

If Saudi Arabia became a superpower the world would be a much worse place for most of the people of the world than under Pax Brittanica and Pax Americana.

So let me get this right: American colonies got PO'd at the British King because he had "...a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States" (US Declaration of Indep.), so the colonies formed their own state over this and self-determination and freedom from tyranny became the basis of their constitution, yet some, like you and a long history of US leaders, support forcefully removing at whim foreign leaders who don't agree with your interests and otherwise imperial policies like the good 'ol British Empire Americans despised. Sounds like a bunch of massive hypocrites to me, King George.

There's a lot in the Declaration of Independence that is a pack of lies. And the U.S., as an independent country, hurt almost no one. We certainly did not embark on a pattern of butchering the civilians of other lands.

[Guest American Woman]

We've been there for 10 years... if you can't win them over in that time what makes you think another year or two are going to help?

Initially, there was, I believe, more time spent fighting than working on/aiding building the nation and its government. In the overall picture, looking at the goal, ten years isn't all that long. I also believe that we have "won over" a lot of Afghans. I would hate to see that thrown away, only to go back to the way things were - which I fear could happen if we were to just indignantly pull out over this.

[olp1fan]

Initially, there was, I believe, more time spent fighting than working on/aiding building the nation and its government. In the overall picture, looking at the goal, ten years isn't all that long. I also believe that we have "won over" a lot of Afghans. I would hate to see that thrown away, only to go back to the way things were - which I fear could happen if we were to just indignantly pull out over this.

The locals don't want us there anymore than they want the taliban there

you must be reading democrat propaganda

[Guest American Woman]

The locals don't want us there anymore than they want the taliban there

you must be reading democrat propaganda

*sigh* Yeah, that must be it.

[olp1fan]

*sigh* Yeah, that must be it.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/cifamerica/2010/oct/12/afghanistan-nato

My organisation, the Open Society Foundations, recently asked 250 Afghans across Afghanistan who or what they thought was contributing to the escalation of conflict in Afghanistan, and, in particular, whom they blamed for the high civilian casualties and other civilian losses that have been such a flashpoint among the Afghan population.

Despite statistics suggesting insurgents are disproportionately responsible for civilian harm, our analysis found that Afghans blamed international forces as much, if not more, than insurgents. Few spoke warmly about the Taliban. But the vast majority described international forces as equally brutal toward civilians, and equally, if not more responsible for civilian casualties, detention abuses and other concerns.

They said international forces were often indiscriminate, and that many civilian deaths could have been prevented through better targeting, intelligence or coordination (pdf). "When an accident happens, or there is an attack against Nato troops, then Nato troops react and start firing on people. They never think about those around them as human. They think every person on the street is their enemy," said a man from western Herat province.

[olp1fan]

most americans i talk to in real life and on the net think they are doing countries a favour by being there.. why is that?

is the american media so shitty? is it their leaders saying this and they believe it?

inquiring minds would like to know

[bush_cheney2004]

most americans i talk to in real life and on the net think they are doing countries a favour by being there.. why is that?

is the american media so shitty? is it their leaders saying this and they believe it?

inquiring minds would like to know

Ask the Canadians who feel the same thing when they crow about being "peacemakers" while they drop bombs in far away places. Do you have "shitty" state owned media...why yes...you do.

[Guest Derek L]

most americans i talk to in real life and on the net think they are doing countries a favour by being there.. why is that?

is the american media so shitty? is it their leaders saying this and they believe it?

inquiring minds would like to know

It’s a mater of perspective……..Some felt the Canucks losing the Cup was a bad thing…….some were happy Boston won.

[olp1fan]

Ask the Canadians who feel the same thing when they crow about being "peacemakers" while they drop bombs in far away places. Do you have "shitty" state owned media...why yes...you do.

canadians know we're no longer peace keepers

[olp1fan]

It’s a mater of perspective……..Some felt the Canucks losing the Cup was a bad thing…….some were happy Boston won.

boston had more canadians than vancouver

[bush_cheney2004]

canadians know we're no longer peace keepers

That means they didn't know they never were. Just a load of propaganda, just like those damn 'merkins.

[dre]

It’s a mater of perspective……..Some felt the Canucks losing the Cup was a bad thing…….some were happy Boston won.

Thats the thing. Idiologs have a severely impeded ability to process information and apply any kind of logical analysis.

The ideologs that generally support the idea of the west being a global social welfare agency, will simply ignore any information that compromises this view. And the ideologs that reject the wests role as a global police force and social agency will ignore any information that casts these adventures in a positive light.

Its a form of mental retardation.

I dont really care either way... I just think that governments should be more honest about the scope of these operations, so that people understand that when decide to destroy another civilization and then rebuild it, we are making a massive and expensive commitment that will engage us for 20 or 30 years.

Edited October 23, 2011 by dre

[Guest Derek L]

Thats the thing. Idiologs have a severely impeded ability to process information and apply any kind of logical analysis.

The ideologs that generally support the idea of the west being a global social welfare agency, will simply ignore any information that compromises this view. And the ideologs that reject the wests role as a global police force and social agency will ignore any information that casts these adventures in a positive light.

Its a form of mental retardation.

I dont really care either way... I just think that governments should be more honest about the scope of these operations, so that people understand that when decide to destroy another civilization and then rebuild it, we are making a massive and expensive commitment that will engage us for 20 or 30 years.

I agree to an extent…….like the old saying, nations don’t have “friends” but interests………Well I support the ideals of acting in Canada’s interest first and foremost, I’m not as keen on political evangelism……..

[olp1fan]

I agree to an extent…….like the old saying, nations don’t have “friends” but interests………Well I support the ideals of acting in Canada’s interest first and foremost, I’m not as keen on political evangelism……..

i don't support canadas interests in the seal cull or asbestos