What will happen if US/British/Nato forces lose in Afghanistan?

[Alceste]

I am well aware of the humans rights violations like indiscriminate shelling in Kabul in 93 by commanders during the civil war but whats that to do with Karzai? i dont see any involvement in any human rights violation by Karzai.

I know its not a big secret i thought you had some information about Karzai that was my mistake, i misread your dramatic style of writing for some hints to info i didnt know about.

OK, well I suppose I don't get your point of view. Being a member of the Taliban is enough to deserve to die, but not the other former government which was guilty of equally vile atrocities, and equally sympathetic to Islamic terrorists? I don't get what you think the difference is. Maybe Karzai is kind of a nice guy, but I'm sure there are lots of kind of nice guys in the Taliban too (Karzai himself says so). Nevertheless, you think the Taliban needs to be wiped from the face of the earth while Karzai's government, full of people who are equally guilty of crimes against humanity, is a symbolic milestone of democratic progress and deserves nothing but praise.

Just seems a little inconsistent, is all.

 

[kai]

OK, well I suppose I don't get your point of view. Being a member of the Taliban is enough to deserve to die, but not the other former government which was guilty of equally vile atrocities, and equally sympathetic to Islamic terrorists? I don't get what you think the difference is. Maybe because you never asked! Maybe Karzai is kind of a nice guy, but I'm sure there are lots of kind of nice guys in the Taliban too (Karzai himself says so). Nevertheless, you think the Taliban needs to be wiped from the face of the earth while Karzai's government, full of people who are equally guilty of crimes against humanity, is a symbolic milestone of democratic progress and deserves nothing but praise.

Just seems a little inconsistent, is all.

no problem lets clear it up , if the Taliban would lay down their arms and seek a peaceful solution and maybe join the electoral process then no problem.(I dont think they would get many votes without a gun to someones head)

While someone anyone is fighting in opposition to my fellow countrymen then i think we should have the will to win. T hats my position and if the Afghans wish to pursue any human rights charges against anyone, i dont care who! than thats fine by me too.

 

[Caladan]

I think we need to make some clarifications, Karzai was a foreign minister in Rabbani's government after the soviet withdrawal, he resigned because of the fighting between the Afghani fractions. Rabbani's government was recognized by the UN as opposed to the Taliban government which was recognized only by Saudi Arabia, Pakistan and the UAE, with Saudi Arabia and the UAE withdrawing their recognition in 2001.

 

[kai]

I think we need to make some clarifications, Karzai was a foreign minister in Rabbani's government after the soviet withdrawal, he resigned because of the fighting between the Afghani fractions. Rabbani's government was recognized by the UN as opposed to the Taliban government which was recognized only by Saudi Arabia, Pakistan and the UAE, with Saudi Arabia and the UAE withdrawing their recognition in 2001.

Indeed

 

[Alceste]

I think we need to make some clarifications, Karzai was a foreign minister in Rabbani's government after the soviet withdrawal, he resigned because of the fighting between the Afghani fractions. Rabbani's government was recognized by the UN as opposed to the Taliban government which was recognized only by Saudi Arabia, Pakistan and the UAE, with Saudi Arabia and the UAE withdrawing their recognition in 2001.

My point is only that Rabbani's government, in which Karzai served, committed crimes against humanity of a similar magnitude to the Taliban, and that many officials in Karzai's present government were directly responsible for commanding factions of terrorists in the fighting in Kabul. Karzai also initially approved of the Taliban. This is only to counter England's assertion that a vote for Karzai is a vote against state violence and oppression. (I didn't even bring up the election fraud.)

I simply find the optimism about the establishment of a secular, non-oppressive, legitimate Western-style democracy in Afghanistan extremely naive. Especially when the recommended method of bringing this change about is slaughtering or imprisoning anyone who opposes it.

 

[England my lionheart]

He was a high-ranking member of a government that perpetrated human rights abuses. What else do you want from me? Christ! This is getting tedious. What is your belief? That this never occurred? That he's a nice guy? Something like that? Clean hands?

Although the Afghan Government has been party to some Human rights abuses i think we should put it in context to the current situation.
Running a Government in Afghanistan was never going to be easy for anyone,the people are poor and have been under years of oppression and the religion that has been forced on them by the Islamist sect Qutbd has left its mark even on the Government.
Under the Taleban the people are not allowed education other than the Taleban Schools in Pakistan or the Pushtun province (after all, thats what Taleban means,student) but for Girls Education is a no no.
Under the Taleban there is absolutely no healthcare of any kind and Women have to walk around in a Tent and are not allowed to have an opinion or any rights at all so put this next to Karzai,which would be better.

 

[Alceste]

Although the Afghan Government has been party to some Human rights abuses i think we should put it in context to the current situation.
Running a Government in Afghanistan was never going to be easy for anyone,the people are poor and have been under years of oppression and the religion that has been forced on them by the Islamist sect Qutbd has left its mark even on the Government.
Under the Taleban the people are not allowed education other than the Taleban Schools in Pakistan or the Pushtun province (after all, thats what Taleban means,student) but for Girls Education is a no no.
Under the Taleban there is absolutely no healthcare of any kind and Women have to walk around in a Tent and are not allowed to have an opinion or any rights at all so put this next to Karzai,which would be better.

We'll just have to wait and see. I'm skeptical, to say the least. I'm no fan of the Taliban, but I think the ideological gap between them and the government of the "Mayor of Kabul", as Karzai is called in Afghanistan, is not as wide as Westerners tend to assume.

 

[England my lionheart]

As you say Alceste,we'll just have to see

 

[Valjean]

Although the Afghan Government has been party to some Human rights abuses i think we should put it in context to the current situation.
Running a Government in Afghanistan was never going to be easy for anyone,the people are poor and have been under years of oppression and the religion that has been forced on them by the Islamist sect Qutbd has left its mark even on the Government.
Under the Taleban the people are not allowed education other than the Taleban Schools in Pakistan or the Pushtun province (after all, thats what Taleban means,student) but for Girls Education is a no no.
Under the Taleban there is absolutely no healthcare of any kind and Women have to walk around in a Tent and are not allowed to have an opinion or any rights at all so put this next to Karzai,which would be better.

So it's a war for women's rights?
Why are we making no objection other regimes relegating women to second-class status?

 

[kai]

So it's a war for women's rights?
Why are we making no objection other regimes relegating women to second-class status?

Seyorni show me a country that has such terrible womens rights as the Taliban and that we don't object to it.

 

[Alceste]

Seyorni show me a country that has such terrible womens rights as the Taliban and that we don't object to it.

There's quite a lot of territory between "object" and "invade". We don't "invade" countries for human rights violations. We invade for access to resources and geopolitical advantage. It's hopelessly naive to think otherwise. When it comes to human rights violations we just whine about it - unless whining about it might embarrass our Human Rights violating trading partners, like China.

 

[England my lionheart]

So it's a war for women's rights?
Why are we making no objection other regimes relegating women to second-class status?

I agree there are other regimes but there are none like the Qutb or Wahabi sects of Islam when it comes to Womens rights,this is not just about Womens rights though,this is about the spread by force of the ramblings of a religious lunatic.

 

[Alceste]

I agree there are other regimes but there are none like the Qutb or Wahabi sects of Islam when it comes to Womens rights,this is not just about Womens rights though,this is about the spread by force of the ramblings of a religious lunatic.

So you think we should have invaded Saudi Arabia or Egypt instead of Afghanistan?

 

[kai]

There's quite a lot of territory between "object" and "invade". We don't "invade" countries for human rights violations. We invade for access to resources and geopolitical advantage. It's hopelessly naive to think otherwise. When it comes to human rights violations we just whine about it - unless whining about it might embarrass our Human Rights violating trading partners, like China.

Indeed! thats why we were talking about "object"

 

[Alceste]

Indeed! thats why we were talking about "object"

So it's a war for women's rights?

I think that was the main question.

 

[kai]

I think that was the main question.

but it wasnt my question in response to seyornis post was it.

 

[Alceste]

but it wasnt my question in response to seyornis post was it.

I thought your response dodged the question - just trying to get back on track.

 

[kai]

I thought your response dodged the question - just trying to get back on track.

no worries, i thought it was an appropriate question to a different post from Seyorni. but to answer the question "So it's a war for women's rights?" what solely? for that reason alone? of course it isnt who ever said it was?

 

[Valjean]

The taliban will continue to exist as long as their raison d'etre continues -- the presence of foreign troops in Afghanistan. The Taliban is generated by the occupation. We created them, and our presence maintains them.
As for Al-qaida, they can train anywhere, and the Afghanis would just as soon be rid of them as they would the Taliban and the Coalition occupiers. They just want to be left alone.

Like the Taliban, Al qaida exists to counter US occupation. Go away, and the whole thing will eventually dissolve or find some other enemy to oppose.

 

[England my lionheart]

So you think we should have invaded Saudi Arabia or Egypt instead of Afghanistan?

Different scenario altogether