Afghanistan

Post Reply
AzariLoveIran

Re: The Afghanistan Thread

Post by AzariLoveIran »

.


Look , Barak Hussein

you want fix Afghanistan ? ?

talk to Iran



Iran’s Influence In Afghanistan: Implications Of The Iran-US Stand-Off – Analysis . . . Iran’s ‘constructive’ role in Afghanistan


.

Since the fall of the Taliban in 2001, Iran has invested heavily in Afghanistan, particularly in western Afghanistan. Tehran has sought to develop the western provinces – particularly Herat, Nimruz and Farah – as its spheres of influence, which could also act as a buffer if a civil war was to break out in Afghanistan. As the 2014 deadline is fast approaching, Iran is attempting to further consolidate and enhance its clout in the country. Apart from signing a strategic agreement pact late last year, the two countries have also inked an economic cooperation agreement and a prisoner transfer deal. However, Iran’s hostile relations with countries such as the US because of its controversial nuclear programme have been and will continue to be an obstacle to its soft power arc in Afghanistan.


Iran’s ‘constructive’ role in Afghanistan

Iran’s spending spree in Afghanistan has been key to its current standing in Afghanistan and has generally been appreciated by both the Afghan government and people. Having provided close to a billion dollars in aid over the past decade, Iran is a leading donor to Afghanistan, being one of the few nations to have actually delivered on its pledges. Iranian aid has been instrumental in infrastructure development and the opening up of business and economic opportunities.

Moreover, through its support and funding of educational, religious and media institutions, Iran has managed to directly engage the Afghan population and develop close ties with certain religious and ethnic groups, which have become the basis of Iran’s influence in Afghanistan. The efforts to link up Afghanistan to Central Asia and China to the Persian Gulf through roads and railways originating in Iran also signals a projection of its existing influence to emerge as the main hub for the ‘silk route’ trade.
An end to Iran’s spending spree?

The consolidation of the above gains and the achievement of future objectives would require Iran to continue a considerable amount of investment in Afghanistan. However, the stand-off over Iran’s nuclear programme is likely to prevent that from happening.

The current round of sanctions imposed by the US and the EU, which have targeted the main source of Tehran’s income – revenue from oil exports – seem to have severely dented Tehran’s spending abilities. A number of EU countries have already halted their purchase of Iranian oil and once the EU sanctions are fully imposed starting 1 July, European demand is expected to dry up completely. More prominent customers of Iran’s oil – India, Japan and South Korea – have also significantly reduced their imports. As a result, Iranian exports have fallen by 40 per cent since the beginning of the year, translating into an estimated US$10 billion in lost revenue.

The fallout has been immediate. Reports have already emerged about the scrapping of several projects resulting in unemployment and massive cut-backs in the multi-million dollars worth of government subsidies. Iran has also been forced to make compromises on certain foreign policy goals reflected in the reduction of its financial support for Hezbollah. It is highly likely that Iran would have to significantly scale-down its current levels of spending in Afghanistan, and would also be unable to complete a number of important projects, such as the proposed railway to China and Central Asia.
American presence in Afghanistan

Despite Iran’s constructive role in Afghanistan, the aid from the US and other Western allies has been substantially higher and is likely continue in the future. This definitely cuts into Iran’s influence as Afghanistan is not, and will never be, overwhelmingly dependent on Tehran.

However, Iran’s perception of the American threat and consequent response to it is likely to be more counterproductive to its cause. It has long held the view that the US troops stationed in Afghanistan pose a security threat to Iran and, for this reason, has constantly attempted to thwart them. These have included attempts to influence Afghan parliamentarians to vote against the US-Afghan strategic pact, fuel anti-American sentiments through the manipulation of the media and educational institutions, and cut off its fuel supplies to Afghanistan. Iran has also sent in shiploads of textbooks into western Afghanistan, which have been found offensive by the Sunni Muslims. The incitement of sectarian tensions, along with the covert and measured support provided to the Taliban is meant to make the task of managing the country even tougher for the US.

Although Iran may be seeking to protect its own interests through such sabotage, it is risking damage to its image in Afghanistan. The Afghan parliament has already warned Iran against interfering in the country’s political affairs. According to Mohammad Ali Karimi, a lecturer at Kabul University, there is growing resentment among the people in Afghanistan towards the interference of Iran in its political affairs. If it is not careful, Iran runs the risk of being viewed through the same negative prism as Pakistan is generally viewed – essentially a ‘spoiler’ willing to interfere in Afghanistan to further its goals, even at the expense of Afghanistan.

.

.
AzariLoveIran

Re: The Afghanistan Thread

Post by AzariLoveIran »

.


Exit Risks Afghan Economy as Cash Pumped Into Dubai

.

About 97 percent of the Afghan economy is based on spending by the militaries that comprise the North Atlantic Treaty Organization force and international aid, the U.S. Senate’s Foreign Relations Committee said in a report last year.

. . only 7 percent of the population has a bank account and 15 percent of the economy depends on opium, cash is fleeing Afghanistan.

Assistance to Afghanistan totaled $15.7 billion in the 2011 financial year, mostly from the U.S., the World Bank and the Afghan finance ministry said in a November study. That’s slightly less than the country’s gross domestic product.

.

all $ 15.7 (so called) "financial aid" America pays to Afghanistan, is sent by American/CIA cronies to Dubai.

All those schools and roads and hospitals are built by Iranians :lol:


.
Ibrahim
Posts: 6524
Joined: Tue Dec 20, 2011 2:06 am

Re: The Afghanistan Thread

Post by Ibrahim »

http://www.harpers.org/archive/2011/05/hbc-90008086

From a February 2010 Facebook chat between Christopher Winfield and his son Adam, an Army specialist with a Stryker Brigade Combat Team in Afghanistan. According to Army investigators, two more Afghan civilians were murdered by Spc. Winfield’s platoon after the chat took place. In September 2009, Winfield was arrested along with eleven other platoon members; he was later charged with murder in connection with the third civilian death. The conversation was obtained through Winfield’s lawyer.

ADAM WINFIELD: Hey.

CHRISTOPHER WINFIELD: What up?

A.W.: Did you read the message I sent?

C.W.: No. Just got home.

A.W.: Read it in private. I only want you and Mom to know about this right now.

C.W.: So are you in trouble now or is it over with?

A.W.: I’m not in trouble. I just lost all and any authority I had. I’m not concerned about my job right now or the promotion board. Did you not understand what I just told you what people did in my platoon?

C.W.: Murder.

A.W.: Yeah, an innocent dude. They planned and went through with it. I knew about it. Didn’t believe they were going to do it. Then it happened. Pretty much the whole platoon knows about it. It’s OK with all of them pretty much. Except me. I want to do something about it. The only problem is I don’t feel safe here telling anyone. The guy who did it is the golden boy in the company who can never do anything wrong and it’s my word against theirs.

C.W.: Was it an Afghan they killed?

A.W.: Yes. Some innocent guy about my age just farming. They made it look like the guy threw a grenade at them and mowed him down. I was on the Stryker and wasn’t on the ground when it took place. But I know they did it because they told me. Everyone pretty much knows it was staged. If I say anything it’s my word against everyone. There’s no one in this platoon that agrees this was wrong. They all don’t care.

....

A.W.: Well, it was two guys who did it, actually killed the dude. But the whole platoon knew about it for the most part. I think our platoon leader doesn’t know and maybe like two dudes. Everyone just wants to kill people at any cost. They don’t care. The Army is full of a bunch of scumbags I realized.
User avatar
Endovelico
Posts: 3038
Joined: Mon Dec 12, 2011 3:00 pm

Re: The Afghanistan Thread

Post by Endovelico »

Ibrahim wrote:http://www.harpers.org/archive/2011/05/hbc-90008086

From a February 2010 Facebook chat between Christopher Winfield and his son Adam, an Army specialist with a Stryker Brigade Combat Team in Afghanistan. According to Army investigators, two more Afghan civilians were murdered by Spc. Winfield’s platoon after the chat took place. In September 2009, Winfield was arrested along with eleven other platoon members; he was later charged with murder in connection with the third civilian death. The conversation was obtained through Winfield’s lawyer.

ADAM WINFIELD: Hey.

CHRISTOPHER WINFIELD: What up?

A.W.: Did you read the message I sent?

C.W.: No. Just got home.

A.W.: Read it in private. I only want you and Mom to know about this right now.

C.W.: So are you in trouble now or is it over with?

A.W.: I’m not in trouble. I just lost all and any authority I had. I’m not concerned about my job right now or the promotion board. Did you not understand what I just told you what people did in my platoon?

C.W.: Murder.

A.W.: Yeah, an innocent dude. They planned and went through with it. I knew about it. Didn’t believe they were going to do it. Then it happened. Pretty much the whole platoon knows about it. It’s OK with all of them pretty much. Except me. I want to do something about it. The only problem is I don’t feel safe here telling anyone. The guy who did it is the golden boy in the company who can never do anything wrong and it’s my word against theirs.

C.W.: Was it an Afghan they killed?

A.W.: Yes. Some innocent guy about my age just farming. They made it look like the guy threw a grenade at them and mowed him down. I was on the Stryker and wasn’t on the ground when it took place. But I know they did it because they told me. Everyone pretty much knows it was staged. If I say anything it’s my word against everyone. There’s no one in this platoon that agrees this was wrong. They all don’t care.

....

A.W.: Well, it was two guys who did it, actually killed the dude. But the whole platoon knew about it for the most part. I think our platoon leader doesn’t know and maybe like two dudes. Everyone just wants to kill people at any cost. They don’t care. The Army is full of a bunch of scumbags I realized.
This would fit perfectly on the thread on Violence which I was unwise enough to start. My point being that violence risks destroying the US. Violence BY Americans, not violence AGAINST Americans...

On a completely different context (my own country) I have been defending the idea of going back to a conscript army, made up mostly by people who would see killing as an exceptional thing. Not that there weren't enough war crimes committed by conscripts in past wars, but making soldiering a job for professionals only made it worse. Besides, it created a new Pretorian guard more likely to defend governments and not society as a whole. A recipe for tyranny, actually...
Ibrahim
Posts: 6524
Joined: Tue Dec 20, 2011 2:06 am

Re: The Afghanistan Thread

Post by Ibrahim »

Violence made America, so even if violence destroyed it that would still be par.

Specific to Afghanistan, us methods guaranteed the failure of their long-term mission. Thus, the whole endeavor is pointless even before we start to unpack the moral issues.
noddy
Posts: 11318
Joined: Tue Dec 13, 2011 3:09 pm

Re: The Afghanistan Thread

Post by noddy »

http://www.rawa.org/temp/runews/
RAWA, the Revolutionary Association of the Women of Afghanistan, was established in Kabul, Afghanistan, in 1977 as an independent political/social organization of Afghan women fighting for human rights and for social justice in Afghanistan. The founders were a number of Afghan woman intellectuals under the sagacious leadership of Meena who in 1987 was assassinated in Quetta, Pakistan, by Afghan agents of the then KGB in connivance with fundamentalist band of Gulbuddin Hekmatyar . RAWA’s objective was to involve an increasing number of Afghan women in social and political activities aimed at acquiring women’s human rights and contributing to the struggle for the establishment of a government based on democratic and secular values in Afghanistan. Despite the suffocating political atmosphere, RAWA very soon became involved in widespread activities in different socio-political arenas including education, health and income generation as well as political agitation.
as an outsider their news stream seems more honest than most of the crap im fed, fair and balanced (groan) between taliban and american disasters.

http://www.rawa.org/temp/runews/2012/08 ... liban.html
Over the past few years, reports have filtered out that the Taliban were receiving Iran-made military equipment. However, it is unclear if Iran will continue to provide them with more weapons, since such a provocation might lead to a direct confrontation with the U.S.

In addition, whatever support the Taliban currently enjoys in the Sunni-dominated Middle East would be seriously jeopardized if they developed closer relations with Shia Iran.

On the other side of the map, Pakistan, another Sunni Muslim state, has provided enormous aid to the Taliban over the years (openly and secretly). They, too, would be alarmed by any Iranian strategic designs on Afghanistan.

However, Iran has at least one advantage – hundreds of thousands of Afghan refugees have fled to Iran since the war erupted in 2001. The Iranian envoy to Kabul, Abu Fazel Zohrawand, has already warned the Afghan government that these refugees would be deported if Karzai signed strategic partnership agreements with the U.S.

While that threat has passed, the status of Afghan migrants in Iran remains extremely insecure, suggesting they could be used as pawns by Tehran.

Nonetheless, Afghanistan (Taliban and otherwise), which desperately needs foreign investment to rebuild its economy and infrastructure after decades of war, may need Iranian help, regardless of the fallout.

Janan Mosazai, the spokesman for Afghanistan's Ministry of Foreign Affairs, told NPR that the Iranians have considered making large-scale investment in the construction, mining and agriculture sectors.

Clearly, Tehran wants to see a pro-Iran regime take hold in Afghanistan after the last of the NATO troops depart. What price they want to pay for such a result remains unknown.
ultracrepidarian
User avatar
Endovelico
Posts: 3038
Joined: Mon Dec 12, 2011 3:00 pm

Re: The Afghanistan Thread

Post by Endovelico »

Let's not forget that a large part of the Afghanistan people are Farsi speakers.
Ibrahim
Posts: 6524
Joined: Tue Dec 20, 2011 2:06 am

Re: The Afghanistan Thread

Post by Ibrahim »

Endovelico wrote:Let's not forget that a large part of the Afghanistan people are Farsi speakers.
Persian culture loomed large in Afghanistan for most of the 16th-19th centuries, and even influenced Mughal court culture in India. (I'm filling in for Azari apparently)


That said, the Afghans were impossible for the Pomegranates to wrangle as they were anyone else. At best you could try and get them to chase arpund someone else instead of you, like some kind of primitive MIRV homing missile.
User avatar
Enki
Posts: 5052
Joined: Thu Dec 22, 2011 6:04 pm

Re: The Afghanistan Thread

Post by Enki »

92% of Afghanis have never heard of 9/11.

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/world/ju ... 09-02.html
Men often oppose a thing merely because they have had no agency in planning it, or because it may have been planned by those whom they dislike.
-Alexander Hamilton
User avatar
Typhoon
Posts: 27242
Joined: Mon Dec 12, 2011 6:42 pm
Location: 関西

Re: The Afghanistan Thread

Post by Typhoon »

Enki wrote:92% of Afghanis have never heard of 9/11.

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/world/ju ... 09-02.html
Speaking of 9/11 and Afghanistan - Bananastan [What's the reference? :wink: ]

AA Flight 11 Hijackers: Mohamed Atta (Egyptian), Waleed al-Shehri (Saudi Arabian), Wail al-Shehri (Saudi Arabian), Abdulaziz al-Omari (Saudi Arabian), Satam al-Suqami (Saudi Arabian).

AA Flight 175 Hijackers: Marwan al-Shehhi (United Arab Emirati), Fayez Banihammad (United Arab Emirati), Mohand al-Shehri (Saudi Arabian), Hamza al-Ghamdi (Saudi Arabian), Ahmed al-Ghamdi (Saudi Arabian).

AA Flight 77 Hijackers: Hani Hanjour (Saudi Arabian), Khalid al-Mihdhar (Saudi Arabian), Majed Moqed (Saudi Arabian), Nawaf al-Hazmi (Saudi Arabian), Salem al-Hazmi (Saudi Arabian).

AA Flight 93 Hijackers: Hijackers: Ziad Jarrah (Lebanese), Ahmed al-Haznawi (Saudi Arabian), Ahmed al-Nami (Saudi Arabian), Saeed al-Ghamdi (Saudi Arabian).

Saudi Arabian: 15/19 hijackers [ ~ 80% ]

Egyptian: 1/19 hijackers

United Arab Emirati: 2/19 hijackers

Lebanese: 1/19 hijackers

So what does the US [Bush II Republicrat admin, btw, Mr. P.] do in response?

Invade Iraq and Afghanistan, both nations having originated exactly 0 hijackers.

It is as gobsmacking jawdropping surreal as if FDR declared war on Argentina in response to the Pearl Harbour attack.

Fred | Soap Opera Over Kabul
May the gods preserve and defend me from self-righteous altruists; I can defend myself from my enemies and my friends.
Ibrahim
Posts: 6524
Joined: Tue Dec 20, 2011 2:06 am

Re: The Afghanistan Thread

Post by Ibrahim »

I could understand striking the al-Qaeda (or "al-Qaeda") training compounds in Afghanistan, but hanging around to mess with the locals long-term was the mistake. A guaranteed failure, and one so bad they might have also broken neighboring Pakistan, which the US has also invested billions in.



I've just been reading a book about the first Anglo-Afghan war and this detail jumped out at me:

British diplomat Montstuart Elphinstone, writing about the Afghan people during his visit in 1809:
I once strongly urged on a very intelligent old man... the superiority of a quiet and secure life under a powerful monarch, to the discord, the alarms and the blood which they owed to their present system, to which the old man warmly replied, "We are content with discord, we are content with bloodshed, but we will never be content with a master."
Mr. Perfect
Posts: 16973
Joined: Mon Dec 12, 2011 9:35 am

Re: The Afghanistan Thread

Post by Mr. Perfect »

Typhoon wrote: It is as gobsmacking jawdropping surreal as if FDR declared war on Argentina in response to the Pearl Harbour attack.

Fred | Soap Opera Over Kabul
What if Argentina planned, arranged and financed the whole thing and merely contracted it out to the Japanese.
Censorship isn't necessary
User avatar
Enki
Posts: 5052
Joined: Thu Dec 22, 2011 6:04 pm

Re: The Afghanistan Thread

Post by Enki »

Mr. Perfect wrote:
Typhoon wrote: It is as gobsmacking jawdropping surreal as if FDR declared war on Argentina in response to the Pearl Harbour attack.

Fred | Soap Opera Over Kabul
What if Argentina planned, arranged and financed the whole thing and merely contracted it out to the Japanese.
You are suggesting we bomb Saudi Arabia?
Men often oppose a thing merely because they have had no agency in planning it, or because it may have been planned by those whom they dislike.
-Alexander Hamilton
Mr. Perfect
Posts: 16973
Joined: Mon Dec 12, 2011 9:35 am

Re: The Afghanistan Thread

Post by Mr. Perfect »

If bin laden had been there under their protection then yes. But Bush and Obama both believed AFG was the smart war, so we're over there instead. Still there. Do you know why we're still there? And we'll be there for quite a few more years.

Do you know why?
Censorship isn't necessary
User avatar
Enki
Posts: 5052
Joined: Thu Dec 22, 2011 6:04 pm

Re: The Afghanistan Thread

Post by Enki »

Mr. Perfect wrote:If bin laden had been there under their protection then yes. But Bush and Obama both believed AFG was the smart war, so we're over there instead. Still there. Do you know why we're still there? And we'll be there for quite a few more years.

Do you know why?
Yes, because voters will think Obama's a pussy if he doesn't 'stay the course'.
Men often oppose a thing merely because they have had no agency in planning it, or because it may have been planned by those whom they dislike.
-Alexander Hamilton
Mr. Perfect
Posts: 16973
Joined: Mon Dec 12, 2011 9:35 am

Re: The Afghanistan Thread

Post by Mr. Perfect »

Actually polling has put Obama's AFG policy in the sewer for some time, so it must be another reason. People have wanted out of AFG.

Do you know what that reason is?
Censorship isn't necessary
User avatar
Enki
Posts: 5052
Joined: Thu Dec 22, 2011 6:04 pm

Re: The Afghanistan Thread

Post by Enki »

Mr. Perfect wrote:Actually polling has put Obama's AFG policy in the sewer for some time, so it must be another reason. People have wanted out of AFG.

Do you know what that reason is?
Yes, as do you. They want the Afghani military to be stronger so the Karzai government doesn't collapse and our puppet Raj can remain in power after we're gone.
Men often oppose a thing merely because they have had no agency in planning it, or because it may have been planned by those whom they dislike.
-Alexander Hamilton
Mr. Perfect
Posts: 16973
Joined: Mon Dec 12, 2011 9:35 am

Re: The Afghanistan Thread

Post by Mr. Perfect »

No, that's not the reason, not even the administration believes that will happen. The reason is that Obama, like many heads of state lusts for the glory of successful war and he placed his bets in AFG, and it's blown up in his face and he's simply delaying his day of reckoning. But that day can only ever be delayed. It's coming.
Censorship isn't necessary
User avatar
Enki
Posts: 5052
Joined: Thu Dec 22, 2011 6:04 pm

Re: The Afghanistan Thread

Post by Enki »

Mr. Perfect wrote:No, that's not the reason, not even the administration believes that will happen. The reason is that Obama, like many heads of state lusts for the glory of successful war and he placed his bets in AFG, and it's blown up in his face and he's simply delaying his day of reckoning. But that day can only ever be delayed. It's coming.
Well success is defined by whether or not the Karzai regime falls. There is not really any glory to be had by shooting hellfire missiles from flying robots at houses that don't even have indoor plumbing.
Men often oppose a thing merely because they have had no agency in planning it, or because it may have been planned by those whom they dislike.
-Alexander Hamilton
Mr. Perfect
Posts: 16973
Joined: Mon Dec 12, 2011 9:35 am

Re: The Afghanistan Thread

Post by Mr. Perfect »

Enki wrote: Well success is defined by whether or not the Karzai regime falls. There is not really any glory to be had by shooting hellfire missiles from flying robots at houses that don't even have indoor plumbing.
That just goes to show how stupid Obama has been re AFG, there was never any glory there. I mean now glory is defined as beating up helpless nations (AFG, LIbya) then you get to compare yourself to people who defeated Nazi Germany or the SU. Crazy days we live in, even crazier people at the top.
Censorship isn't necessary
User avatar
Enki
Posts: 5052
Joined: Thu Dec 22, 2011 6:04 pm

Re: The Afghanistan Thread

Post by Enki »

Mr. Perfect wrote:
Enki wrote: Well success is defined by whether or not the Karzai regime falls. There is not really any glory to be had by shooting hellfire missiles from flying robots at houses that don't even have indoor plumbing.
That just goes to show how stupid Obama has been re AFG, there was never any glory there. I mean now glory is defined as beating up helpless nations (AFG, LIbya) then you get to compare yourself to people who defeated Nazi Germany or the SU. Crazy days we live in, even crazier people at the top.
That's why I think that your notion of glory is merely to confirm your bias that Obama is stupid.

I do not take any criticism of Obama that posits that he is stupid seriously. I have seen not one single bit of evidence that Barack Obama is stupid.
Men often oppose a thing merely because they have had no agency in planning it, or because it may have been planned by those whom they dislike.
-Alexander Hamilton
Mr. Perfect
Posts: 16973
Joined: Mon Dec 12, 2011 9:35 am

Re: The Afghanistan Thread

Post by Mr. Perfect »

STPN, Obamacare, Dodd Frank, 105% debt to GDP, falling incomes, record gas prices, U6 unemployment at 15%, blacks doing worse as a group relatively than at any time since segregation, rich whites getting even richer, the satan sandwich, AFG, Iraq, Libya, Arab winter, Presidential debates, admittedly when there are so many trees it's hard to see the forest. You can't be that wrong and not be stupid.
Censorship isn't necessary
Jnalum Persicum

Re: The Afghanistan Thread

Post by Jnalum Persicum »

.

" These Gentleman are The Moral Equivalents of American founding Fathers "

- Ronald Reagan 1985


Ronald Reagan Meets with Head of Taliban.jpg
Ronald Reagan Meets with Head of Taliban.jpg (41.41 KiB) Viewed 2615 times

:lol: .. have to admit, some truth to that, they are




.
User avatar
Heracleum Persicum
Posts: 11571
Joined: Sat Dec 22, 2012 7:38 pm

Re: The Afghanistan Thread

Post by Heracleum Persicum »

.


:lol: :lol: :lol: still can not stop laughing looking at that picture above and remembering what RR said , very funny AND true

and

no immunity for American military in Afghanistan, same as in Iraq

Failure to agree on an immunity deal in Iraq ensured that US forces pulled out completely by the end of 2011, further diminishing America's influence there


.
Post Reply