GameBanshee Forums

@fable; the only "problem" I see with what you envisage as a possible future for Afghanistan is: it doesn't say much about solving the US's problem in the region. I mean, we are fighting a war here in order that we may see some improvement in the region; but if the UN and US take a hands-off approach, I fear a return of the Taliban.

I know, I know: even US/UN intervention could only make matters worse, but I just hate to see the "coalition" walk away after the bombs have stopped falling.

Originally posted by Ivan Cavallazzi:
<STRONG>@Fas

As you point, I don't need News to know people in Pakistan are not happy with the USA War against Afganistan.
But I can give the sources, but I have a problem, the fonts are not in english(only one ,but the weakest, and less partially one). And I try to use a translator, but it is too difcult for me too. Anyway, I'll put the links in the original language, may be you can use the translator(I think Weasel have link to a translator website). Other problem is that maybe these links are restricted, maybe they will ask your ID and Password. If possible try to registrate, otherwise, ask and I can ctrl-c + ctrl-v the file.

1)[url="http://www.lemonde.fr/rech_art/0,5987,238499,00.html"]Le Monde- FC[/url]


2)[url="http://www.nytimes.com/2001/10/27/international/asia/27STAN.html?searchpv=past7days"]NYT-JB[/url]


3)[url="http://www.uol.com.br/folha/mundo/ult94u32413.shl"]FdSP-FP[/url]


If any of them don't works or ask for ID/Password please let me know.

By Fas:
The people should decide on their own without outside influence.

I share this point of view.

By Fas:
The taliban getting hold of a nuclear weapon from Pakistan?

If Mucharraf, is deposed and the new force become pro-taliban side, than it is not a problem for them to use the n-bombs, especially as a intimidating armament. It isn't possible?</STRONG>

Sorry i took so long to post this, but i stopped to eat something.

Now the monde - excellent newspaper - does not give any figures from what i can find on the number of jihadis and that have increased.
As for the NYT, i have a password here somewhere, when i find it or remember it i will look at that article.
And i can't read spanish - i believe or portugese which ever the language this last article is in.

As for Musharraf losing power, that i extremely highly unlikely.
Pakistan has had 4 military rulers.
in 1965 we had to accept a ceasefire in a war with India, against popular sentiments.
Ayub the leader was not thrown out of popular until he resigned in 1967-68.

1978-87 Zia was killed in a plane crash which everybody knows.
Popular sentiment in Pakistan is that the out lived his usefullness in the eyes of the US and it was best be was gotten rid off.
That is why the US isn't liked in Pakistan.

Just to point out a fact, "islamization" of pakistan started under Zia.
Madrassas were established with US and Saudi money and the were trained with the CIA.
Under Bhutto and Sharef - the "democractic" despots - this policy continued to establish madrassas.
Now under Musharraf the govt has decided to take the madrassas under the govts wing and teach other subjects.

Back to the nuclear issue, it is highly unlikely that the millitary will be overthrown.
If they are the fundos will not come to power.
In elections, the fundo groups - over 80 of them barely get 5% of the votes.

Originally posted by Lazarus:
<STRONG>@fable; the only "problem" I see with what you envisage as a possible future for Afghanistan is: it doesn't say much about solving the US's problem in the region. I mean, we are fighting a war here in order that we may see some improvement in the region; but if the UN and US take a hands-off approach, I fear a return of the Taliban.
</STRONG>

I personally don't see us as fighting a war in order to create any improvement in the region, but rather, to destroy or capture (same thing: lock him up, throw away the key) a particular terrorist and his network. Perhaps I misunderstand your phrase, "improving the region?"

Originally posted by fable:
<STRONG>I personally don't see us as fighting a war in order to create any improvement in the region, but rather, to destroy or capture (same thing: lock him up, throw away the key) a particular terrorist and his network. Perhaps I misunderstand your phrase, "improving the region?"</STRONG>

Well, the way I look at things (by no means the same as you or anyone else): the Taliban is BAD. (I will not use the term evil, I will not use the term evil...) This regime oppressed its own people, gave succor to the likes of Osama bin Laden, etc. In my view, the elimination of the Taliban and al Queda are goals of US/UN intervention. THAT, to me, is an IMPROVEMENT: first, since it frees the Afghanis of a fascist regime; but also, because I believe that freedom and plurality are the greatest threats to terrorism. That is, by building a more free and open system, you reduce the likelihood of breeding and maintaining the terrorist ideology.

But, if we just walk away after Osama bin Laden is captured, killed, or whatever (which, who knows if that will ever happen), then we create a situation much like that in Iraq - and there ain't no winners in THAT mess, that I can see.

@Lazarus, whether the Taliban is "bad" by any particular standard isn't the reason the US is involved, there. It's purpose was to get bin Ladan, which would presumably cripple his organization. We had no other objective, and frankly, any additional one such as eliminating the current rulers would have been met with howls of outrage from most of the world that believes in territorial sovreignty.

Originally posted by fable:
<STRONG>@Lazarus, whether the Taliban is "bad" by any particular standard isn't the reason the US is involved, there. It's purpose was to get bin Ladan, which would presumably cripple his organization. We had no other objective, and frankly, any additional one such as eliminating the current rulers would have been met with howls of outrage from most of the world that believes in territorial sovreignty.</STRONG>

I agree and disagree - who'd a-thunk it? You are right: the US is NOT in the region because of the heinous nature of the Taliban. BUT the heinous nature of the Taliban have made them a target of the US. That is: the US began this campaign with one sole object: bin Laden and his organization. If the Taliban had acceeded to our requests in that respect, we would not now be fighting against the Taliban. But we ARE fighting the Taliban, and my personal belief if that we will defeat them. My question is: what then? Do you see any improvment in the region as a consequence of US/UN intervention?

Originally posted by Lazarus:
<STRONG> My question is: what then? Do you see any improvment in the region as a consequence of US/UN intervention?</STRONG>

I don't see any improvement. The Pashtuns are a warrior people. They have their tribes. They can't be ruled. They threw out the Russians, they slaughtered the British IIRC. Many empires have ruled the area and all have been thrown out. They don't want to be ruled. They live in with their tribes. May as well leave them like that. We don't have to make countries out of every region in the world.

By Fas:
Sorry i took so long to post this, but i stopped to eat something.

Now the monde - excellent newspaper - does not give any figures from what i can find on the number of jihadis and that have increased.
As for the NYT, i have a password here somewhere, when i find it or remember it i will look at that article.
And i can't read spanish - i believe or portugese which ever the language this last article is in.

So you lost the better, "Folha de Sao Paulo" is my favorite news. ps: Portuguese(Brazilian).
I 'll try to translate the most important:
ARMED PEOPLE IN PAKISTAN GOING TO HELP TALIBAN.
Sufi Mohammad, leader of Tehreek Nifaz-e-Sharia Mohammad( group that is pro the aplication of the islamic laws) is now near the line beetween the countrys(Pakistan-Afganistan). The Spokerman of the group declare that about 10000 man armed are going to cross the frontier to help the Taliban.
The Pakistan cops says those mans are carrying Kalashnikov rifles .
The majority of this mans are formed for the vilage people, outside urbans areas there are more pro-Taliban groups.
Taleban leaders say for these man wait one signal of the supreme leader Omar, anyway they say that they will wait under afgan territóry.
France Presse, Islamabad, Pakistán.
translated by Ivan
(If I don't know how to speak well, why I try translate, it is a trash)