more turmoil in Afghanistan

[Ted Striker]

[Fake Boris]

I'll tell you why the left is wary of Karzai. That would be because he was #2 of the Northern Alliance when they commited the genocide that allowed the Taliban revolution.

[Giancarlo]

Originally posted by Oncle Boris
I'll tell you why the left is wary of Karzai. That would be because he was #2 of the Northern Alliance when they commited the genocide that allowed the Taliban revolution.

He wasn't in the country at the time, numb nuts.

[GePap]

Originally posted by Ted Striker
Okay, then refute the argument, without resorting to copouts

Tell me how "stability" is such a great thing

And tell me how the parallel of stability of Nazi Germany is different from the stability of the Taliban

Taliban = super low crime, women tortured and oppressed

Nazi Germany = super low crime, Jews tortured and oppressed

The value of stabilityis self-evident,except for those who have never had to dealwith real instability, like Ted here. Ask yourself why both the Taliban and the Nazi's, brand new radical groups are able to sweep aside much older and more established powers? They did it becuase in the eyes of the people the old powers had failed-they failed to keep the peace, they failed to provide. The new guys did provide, if for only a time-they did make things predictable- people in general preffer a situation knowing they should keep quiet but they will be OK then better than one in which they have no clue whether they will be alive the next day or not, whatever they do.

As for women's oppression-lets not kid ourselves-the Mujahadeen were never much for women's rights ever-the difference between them and the Taliban when it came to women was one group does not let them show their eyes, the other group thinks eyeys are OK, but stone them if you can see makeup.

[Cruddy]

Something that hasn't been noted yet - Afghanistan is BOUND to grow more unstable over the next couple of years.

Reason? A hell of a lot of troops have been sacked. Over 50,000 at least to date. I understand the total is 110,000.

Having 110,000 jobless armed with automatic weapons is bound to lead to mayhem.

Even if they're disarmed (Pushtuns disarmed? Unthinkable!) it's still going to be as stable as quicksand.

[Ted Striker]

Originally posted by GePap


The value of stabilityis self-evident,except for those who have never had to dealwith real instability, like Ted here. Ask yourself why both the Taliban and the Nazi's, brand new radical groups are able to sweep aside much older and more established powers? They did it becuase in the eyes of the people the old powers had failed-they failed to keep the peace, they failed to provide. The new guys did provide, if for only a time-they did make things predictable- people in general preffer a situation knowing they should keep quiet but they will be OK then better than one in which they have no clue whether they will be alive the next day or not, whatever they do.

As for women's oppression-lets not kid ourselves-the Mujahadeen were never much for women's rights ever-the difference between them and the Taliban when it came to women was one group does not let them show their eyes, the other group thinks eyeys are OK, but stone them if you can see makeup.

It's still a BS argument.

Take the amount of crimes done by the state against its own people under the Taliban and measure it against the amount of crime done by petty criminals under the new regime. I would say the amount of damage done against the people was much worse.

Not only that, the situation was rapidly deteriorating as the Taliban gained more and more total control over the average person's life. A control that would let them do whatever they wanted to to people.

At least under the new regime there are things like police, the army, the Coalition forces, and a justice system, that day by day grow stronger. More and more the people have a chance for justice because they can turn to these groups for help.

In the case of the Taliban, the situation was worse, because THE PEOPLE IN CHARGE *WERE* THE CRIMINALS.

[Drake Tungsten]

Don't forget about the Taliban's destruction of the priceless Buddhist statues in Bamiyan. I guess that was alright, though, as a stable government that oppresses its own people and robs the world of cultural treasures is better than an instable government that does neither...

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by DinoDoc
Is that better UR?

This is your first and only warning for misquoting.

[The Mad Monk]

I believe the proper term is "spoofing".

[Drake Tungsten]

Oh god, that's pathetic UR...

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by Urban Ranger
This is your first and only warning for misquoting.

I can not believe you are that stupid.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by joncha


The Taliban controlled most of the country. Karzai, how ever much he is loved in the West (and he is a snappy dresser, I'll admit!) controls only Kabul. As far as puppet governments go, this is on par with what the Soviets were able to achieve. And we all know how that turned out.

Since early 2002 Karzai has controled Kabul and about a half dozen provinces around it. More recently he added the predominantly Shia/Hazara province of Bamiyan, in the mountains in the north-center of the country (as you would have known had you read my earlier threads) He also controls Konduz province in the North. The governors in the provinces on the eastern border with Pakistan are all Karzai loyal, though there continues to be problems with Taliban infiltration there. In Mazar I Sharif progress has been made in disarming militias, Karzai has been able to dismis officials he doesnt like, and customs revenue is going to the central govt. AFAIK this is true in Kandahar as well.

AFAIK Ismail Khan in Herat is the one warlord left with the most power, the one who still retains control of customs revenue, and a substantial body of heavy weapons.

That the Afghan National Army is going to Herat is quite significant.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Oncle Boris
I'll tell you why the left is wary of Karzai. That would be because he was #2 of the Northern Alliance when they commited the genocide that allowed the Taliban revolution.

1. Karzai had no role in the Northern Alliance prior to September 2001. (or after, for that matter)
2. The "genocide" you refer to (actually a civil war) occured before the Northern Alliance was formed. At least one of the later NA leaders, Dostum, was implicated in the violence, but so was Hekmatyar, who was never part of the NA.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by GePap


The value of stabilityis self-evident,except for those who have never had to dealwith real instability, like Ted here. Ask yourself why both the Taliban and the Nazi's, brand new radical groups are able to sweep aside much older and more established powers? They did it becuase in the eyes of the people the old powers had failed-they failed to keep the peace, they failed to provide. The new guys did provide, if for only a time-they did make things predictable- people in general preffer a situation knowing they should keep quiet but they will be OK then better than one in which they have no clue whether they will be alive the next day or not, whatever they do.

As for women's oppression-lets not kid ourselves-the Mujahadeen were never much for women's rights ever-the difference between them and the Taliban when it came to women was one group does not let them show their eyes, the other group thinks eyeys are OK, but stone them if you can see makeup.

Yet for all this, from everything I hear, no Afghans other than rural Pashtuns want the Taliban back. And even they are divided.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by GePap
Ted wins the whole "invoked Hitler-hence looses arguement" prize!

Now that Ted has lost the arguement-why do any of you treat Fez like an adult? I mean, it really only leads to pain-Come on people, as long as he is posting stupid, just ignore him.

actually many of his posts to this thread have included some useful facts.