GameBanshee Forums

Well, since we have a bunch of Afghanistan topics, I'll throw in my question: if we assume that the Taliban will be thrown down (which I believe, but tell me if you disagree), what next?

Check out this [url="http://www.iht.com/articles/37016.html"]article[/url], which talks about the rather dubious character of the Northern Alliance. Has anyone heard anything about what is planned after the Taliban?

Probably the US are gonna put some pro-American goverment, which they will controll.

Originally posted by Lazarus:
[QB]If we assume that the Taliban will be thrown down (which I believe, but tell me if you disagree), what next?
[QB]

By Vicsun:
Probably the US are gonna put some pro-American goverment, which they will controll.

I half agree with you both(with a few observations ). The question is not the NA, the question is the mid-east. I mean, don't matters who is going to take the power in Afganistan, because the majority of the people in Afganistan have serious restrictions to the ocident; same happens to all mid-east(except Israel, of course); the aversion(dislike) to the USA (Ocident icon) will not end by replace one govern. In a few years some other extremist group will take the power in any of that country and the same will "problem" will happen again.
That is why I am against this War, it is only making the anger grow and the muslins countrys more united.
About put a pro-USA govern in Afganistan, well I think this "govern" must be Dictatorial-force one, and very agressive, otherway, this govern will last for 1 or 2 hours
Don't know if you see the same?


About the war, personally, I don't think it is so easy to take the victory. The problem is not Taliban, i think Pakistan is a bigger problem. They perceive that the Caximira question will not be solved by this way. The majority of the people in Pakistan is against their President.
As the media confirm, the recruitment for the Jihad in Pakistan is in high levels. Day 20, saturday, a Pakistan base open fire against an USA helicopter who retaliate. The helicopter was doing X( X is something that I don't know how to say/express , but is not an attack or other agressive manouver), was just a mistake, no deaths. But this show that the American presence in Pakistan is not well viewed.
The Big problem is that Pakistan have N-bombs. If the Taliban take that bombs, than the real Danger will take place.

Anyway, we don't know what will happen, I just know that the problem is big.

[ 10-27-2001: Message edited by: Ivan Cavallazzi ]

The majority of the people are with the general.
I used to live in Pakitan a few years ago, and at that time there were no relgious fanatics parading around the street. More recently when the Taliban has grown in power, they have sent thier priests and begun to teach the poor children in religious schools. Thats happened in the past 3 years.
The Taliban had taken control of Pakistan, because it created its own army inside the nation. The pakistani government was helpless. Their armies are in Kashmir fighting a never ending war with the Indians. The newly taught religous students, have taken control of the cities.
Pakistan will get alot better economy will go up, once the Taliban are removed.
Of all the the Islamic Countries, up till a few years ago, Pakistan would be the least religous.

Originally posted by ThorinOakensfield:
<STRONG>The majority of the people are with the general.
</STRONG>

@ Thorin. You say you left the Pakistan. Maybe the public opinion change, what is normal, because now they are in a War against Afganistan, and the USA army is in their territory. I don't know how certanly you are about what you say. The last news I got say Mucharraf is isolated, even by his alies.

Well i still have family there. And some of them are active in the government. Maybe theres not too much support for him, and his life is at threat, but i still believe the majority of the country is with him.
But then again i could be wrong.

Originally posted by Lazarus:
<STRONG>which talks about the rather dubious character of the Northern Alliance. Has anyone heard anything about what is planned after the Taliban?</STRONG>

IIRC the Norther Alliace mainly consists of three different factions that were in conflict with each other before the Talibans took power, but united against their common enemy the Talibans. If or when the Talibans are removed from power, there is a risk of civil war breaking out again IMO. I think the best solution is that the UN take control over the area and make sure democratic elections are held. Before an elected goverment can be created, it might have a stabilizing effect to reinstall the old king and the exiled former president.
The US should not install a government in Afghanistan.

Originally posted by C Elegans:
<STRONG>IIRC the Norther Alliace mainly consists of three different factions that were in conflict with each other before the Talibans took power, but united against their common enemy the Talibans. If or when the Talibans are removed from power, there is a risk of civil war breaking out again IMO. I think the best solution is that the UN take control over the area and make sure democratic elections are held. Before an elected goverment can be created, it might have a stabilizing effect to reinstall the old king and the exiled former president.
The US should not install a government in Afghanistan.</STRONG>

I agree, CE: the US should not install a government, and democratic elections must be held, and some kind of oversight must be in place to see that another government like the Taliban is not created. As much as I dislike the entire concept of the UN, I guess this is as good a use for them as any: starting up a new and free nation.

Has the UN said that it has any intention of getting involved in the area after the war?

Originally posted by Lazarus:
<STRONG>I agree, CE: the US should not install a government, and democratic elections must be held, and some kind of oversight must be in place to see that another government like the Taliban is not created. As much as I dislike the entire concept of the UN, I guess this is as good a use for them as any: starting up a new and free nation.

Has the UN said that it has any intention of getting involved in the area after the war?</STRONG>

Conflituous.
The UN will FORCE a democratic govern.(Something is wrong, force anything, even the own democracy is against the democratic spirit.)

A democratic sistem, but nothing like Taliban can reach the power. ( Again it is against the democratic spirit).

The thing is more dificult.

Why take the Talibans away?
IMO, USA should stop the attacks, and leave the mid-east.

IVAN! We meet again! I agree: it is not simple. And, I agree: to "force" a democracy on a people is impossible - it makes no sense even contemplating such a thing. But that only makes me think that the UN would have to stay that much longer: stay and educate, teach, enlighten. Show the people of Afghanistan that freedom and democracy are simply BETTER than what they have always known.

What do you think? Will we have to agree to disagree - again?

Originally posted by Lazarus:
<STRONG>I agree, CE: the US should not install a government, and democratic elections must be held, and some kind of oversight must be in place to see that another government like the Taliban is not created. As much as I dislike the entire concept of the UN, I guess this is as good a use for them as any: starting up a new and free nation.

Has the UN said that it has any intention of getting involved in the area after the war?</STRONG>

I am pro the concept of UN, but I think the organisation has been acting weakly many times.

The UN has not stated anything about what will happen after the war. IMO the UN should step forward and take more responsibility - should have done so long ago - regarding the situation in Afghanistan.

IMO, the UN will attempt to broker a tribal-based (not democratic--come on!) ruling council behind the figurehead of the old former Afghani President, Nabil Shah. The US will stay completely out of the process, since it knows that any efforts at persuasion will be roundly criticized in the Arab world as putting the fix on things.

Whether such a council works or not will depend upon the willingness of the faction leaders, the rules they agree to, and the agenda they set themselves. All bets are off concerning the results.

Originally posted by Lazarus:
<STRONG>IVAN! We meet again! I agree: it is not simple. And, I agree: to "force" a democracy on a people is impossible - it makes no sense even contemplating such a thing. But that only makes me think that the UN would have to stay that much longer: stay and educate, teach, enlighten. Show the people of Afghanistan that freedom and democracy are simply BETTER than what they have always known.

What do you think? Will we have to agree to disagree - again? </STRONG>

heehe, , and here we go again!!!

I, personally, don't like the "BETTER" word.
Educate, teach, enlighten. As I say before Democracy, IMO, is nothing. It cannot be better or not. It is a way. It can be blue, red or pink, don't know. But it is not better.

About the freedom. One day I has talking to Warat (Professor[Pholosophy, Semiotics]); I was talking about freedom. He say: "Ivan, you breath? So, you are not free." . It may sound ridiculous, but is awesome. Nobody have freedom. No country have freedom. Seriously.

The only beings who have freedom are babys, and people totally out of any kind of society. Any other citzen of the world have a Big Leviathan over the head.

Hehe, I know what you going to say. "OK, Ivan, I know I'm not totally free, but I'm MORE free than they". Isn't that?

You are not more free than they. Freedom cannot be analized, is relative, is more from inside than outside of a humam. Somethings only you can do, otherthings only me, others only them. It will be dificult to explain, almost impossible to persuade you.

Hehe, a joke:
For you:
What is the better way of government?
What is the better musician?
What is the most freedom society?
The most important martyr?
The most strong(military) country?
The most Beautifull place?
The most equality justice?
The better Mother in the World?


Don't you think is estrange the fact that you live in the most beautifull country, with the most beautifull culture, with the most powerfull military, with the most equally justice, most freedom society, with the better way of government, and with the better Mother of the world.
It cannot be. There is no measure/ table / numbers to grade this kind of things. Saying you have more freedom than they, IMO, is the same of saying your mother is better than mine, or red is better than blue.
It seems a ridiculous rethoric, maybe it is, but for me is true and serious.
You may say also that I pre-empt wrong your awnsers, if it happens, i'm sorry.
If the UN go there to teach democracy and freedom, let me say that UN will also learn a lot, from their culture and their freedom.
Because both are in the same degree.


Final thoughts
I AM NOT DRUNK! Sym leave me this way! I was normal! . I'm re-reading my post and I don't understand nothing.
Anyway I have to go to the Bar, latter I reply your post. bye.

I disagree with almost everything that has been said - shouldn't surprise anybody really.

I personally think the US has no right to have meetings be it the up coming one in Istanbul or the last one in peshawar.

Neither does the political UN have the right to interfere in the affairs of afghanistan. The UN is not a supra national organization - for those who don't know what that means ask me and i will explain.

The people should decide on their own without outside influence.

Now the issue of Pakistan, Ivan could you please provide the source and figures for this recruitment of jihadis being at a high?

Second what source do you have that the people are against the general, i personally as a pakistani can't judge what my people are saying. It is a split like 50 different ways, but one thing is for sure is that they are not happy with the US air raids.

The taliban getting hold of a nuclear weapon from Pakistan?
I think the real concern would be that of nuclear materials from the x-soviet nations in the region, which sell nuclear reactors for 10,000 british pounds.
I will look for the article, that i read on the net that has this information.
I will post the link here, when i get it.

@CE, the consist of 3 different ethnic groups, iranis, uzbeks and tajiks, But the factions number around 30 with various different warlords joining very now and then. The Economist this week - well last week as today is sunday - on the power of money and how people are switching sides for the buck.

On the issue of democracy, that would be just imposing something like people have said and will never be excepted by anybody.
Second using the UN will be just as bad as using the US, esp due to the sanctions on iraq.
They are interconnected, by the issue is to complex to discuss in one post.
But here goes. The US has sanctions that affect the people and not the leaders. As everybody has heard on CNN the Iraqi govt has re-established its air defences with chinese help.
Now where is that money coming from, if all the money goes to an eschrew account controled by the UN.

To quote from a pakistani site i posted at, the aim of the US is not topple Saddam as they could have done the cold war thing.
"You establish a opposition, which i bet the US can do in 2 seconds as the people will do whatever is needed.
When you establish a credible opposition, you supply them with information and logistics.
At the same time you help coordinate the attacks of the opposition making sure the opposition kicks butt.
They did this in Afghanistan, they can do it again.
Heck i know the arab nations would foot the bill happily."

You don't put an oil for food program and then say that the nation can't have any new spare parts as they are on the dual purpose list.
Go figure how a socket that fits in an oil drill can be dual purpose!

Anyway with the UN imposing these sanctions that have killed 500,000 iraqi childern - get the link for this also later - the UN ain't one of the organization that should start messing with a muslim countries govt structure.

Also what would guys so or do if the Taliban came to power again by popular demand?

@Fas

Posted by Fas:
Now the issue of Pakistan, Ivan could you please provide the source and figures for this recruitment of jihadis being at a high?

Second what source do you have that the people are against the general, i personally as a pakistani can't judge what my people are saying. It is a split like 50 different ways, but one thing is for sure is that they are not happy with the US air raids.

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?

Originally posted by fable:
<STRONG>IMO, the UN will attempt to broker a tribal-based (not democratic--come on!) ruling council behind the figurehead of the old former Afghani President, Nabil Shah. The US will stay completely out of the process, since it knows that any efforts at persuasion will be roundly criticized in the Arab world as putting the fix on things.

Whether such a council works or not will depend upon the willingness of the faction leaders, the rules they agree to, and the agenda they set themselves. All bets are off concerning the results.</STRONG>

What do you mean by "tribal-based?" What do you think the UN role will be, if any? You say they will "attempt to broker" - do you believe, then, that the UN will not occupy Afghanistan, as they have done in other nations? If they will not, why do you think that is so?

Originally posted by Ivan Cavallazzi:
<STRONG>heehe, , and here we go again!!!

I, personally, don't like the "BETTER" word.
Educate, teach, enlighten. As I say before Democracy, IMO, is nothing. It cannot be better or not. It is a way. It can be blue, red or pink, don't know. But it is not better.

About the freedom. One day I has talking to Warat (Professor[Pholosophy, Semiotics]); I was talking about freedom. He say: "Ivan, you breath? So, you are not free." . It may sound ridiculous, but is awesome. Nobody have freedom. No country have freedom. Seriously.

The only beings who have freedom are babys, and people totally out of any kind of society. Any other citzen of the world have a Big Leviathan over the head.

Hehe, I know what you going to say. "OK, Ivan, I know I'm not totally free, but I'm MORE free than they". Isn't that?

You are not more free than they. Freedom cannot be analized, is relative, is more from inside than outside of a humam. Somethings only you can do, otherthings only me, others only them. It will be dificult to explain, almost impossible to persuade you.

Hehe, a joke:
For you:
What is the better way of government?
What is the better musician?
What is the most freedom society?
The most important martyr?
The most strong(military) country?
The most Beautifull place?
The most equality justice?
The better Mother in the World?


Don't you think is estrange the fact that you live in the most beautifull country, with the most beautifull culture, with the most powerfull military, with the most equally justice, most freedom society, with the better way of government, and with the better Mother of the world.
It cannot be. There is no measure/ table / numbers to grade this kind of things. Saying you have more freedom than they, IMO, is the same of saying your mother is better than mine, or red is better than blue.
It seems a ridiculous rethoric, maybe it is, but for me is true and serious.
You may say also that I pre-empt wrong your awnsers, if it happens, i'm sorry.
If the UN go there to teach democracy and freedom, let me say that UN will also learn a lot, from their culture and their freedom.
Because both are in the same degree.


Final thoughts
I AM NOT DRUNK! Sym leave me this way! I was normal! . I'm re-reading my post and I don't understand nothing.
Anyway I have to go to the Bar, latter I reply your post. bye.</STRONG>

You sure you're not drunk?
Well, yes, I think we are just going to have to let our different opinions be different (again).

I like throwing in the "mother" comparison! Very cute. But, you know, I see a lot of good mothers, and a lot of bad mothers, and I think that they, too, can be looked at objectively - to an extent.

Anyway, see you around, Ivan!

Originally posted by Fas:
<STRONG> <big snip>
Also what would guys so or do if the Taliban came to power again by popular demand?</STRONG>

Actually, this is one of the most difficult questions yet. It is truly frightening to me that a nation could CHOOSE a government such as the Taliban, but I suppose it is not entirely unlikely.

There IS a historical comparison that could be made: post WWII Germany. There, the US occupied Germany, and guided the Germans to a more free government - BUT they did have that iron fist in their velvet glove: under no circumstances were Nazis allowed to take a position of power.

I'm not saying the situations are identical, but it is worth taking note of.

Originally posted by Lazarus:
<STRONG>What do you mean by "tribal-based?" What do you think the UN role will be, if any? You say they will "attempt to broker" - do you believe, then, that the UN will not occupy Afghanistan, as they have done in other nations? If they will not, why do you think that is so?</STRONG>

I don't know what the UN role will be, and given its erratic character in the past, cannot comment after a glance in my crystal ball. As to tribal-based rather than democratically elected council: there is simply no idea in the collective mindset of the Afghani inhabitants concerning the elective rights of rulers. One might as well expect them to adopt some form of elective Western-style democracy as 14th century Teutonic dukes.

What we can logically hope for, IMO, is a national system that reproduces the internal poltiical system at its tribal level, a method that produces rulers based on administrative skill, wealth, charisma, and the general consent (read: they don't revolt) of the governed. The problem is that the tribal leaders--often the warlords, or their relations--may see national governance exclusively in terms of local parameters, which is in fact what happened when the Northern Alliance formerly held most of Afghanistan. The Pashtuni warlord perceived the desire for control by Kazakh, Turk and Uzbek warlords (to give three examples out of the fourteen other minority Afghani communities) as efforts to undermine authority, which they *would have been on a local level.* The minority warlords in turn saw the Pashtunis as attempting to grab their land like the Soviets, or before them, the Afghani Pashtun kings.

The UN is going to have to teach some fast courses in national diplomacy, but even so, you can only do so much in such an extremely short time. Typically, developments that lead from tribal modes to national ones take hundreds of years of gradual development. Expecting the Afghani tribes to do all this overnight is reaching for the sky.

Originally posted by fable:
<STRONG>I don't know what the UN role will be, and given its erratic character in the past, cannot comment after a glance in my crystal ball. As to tribal-based rather than democratically elected council: there is simply no idea in the collective mindset of the Afghani inhabitants concerning the elective rights of rulers. One might as well expect them to adopt some form of elective Western-style democracy as 14th century Teutonic dukes.

What we can logically hope for, IMO, is a national system that reproduces the internal poltiical system at its tribal level, a method that produces rulers based on administrative skill, wealth, charisma, and the general consent (read: they don't revolt) of the governed. The problem is that the tribal leaders--often the warlords, or their relations--may see national governance exclusively in terms of local parameters, which is in fact what happened when the Northern Alliance formerly held most of Afghanistan. The Pashtuni warlord perceived the desire for control by Kazakh, Turk and Uzbek warlords (to give three examples out of the fourteen other minority Afghani communities) as efforts to undermine authority, which they *would have been on a local level.* The minority warlords in turn saw the Pashtunis as attempting to grab their land like the Soviets, or before them, the Afghani Pashtun kings.

The UN is going to have to teach some fast courses in national diplomacy, but even so, you can only do so much in such an extremely short time. Typically, developments that lead from tribal modes to national ones take hundreds of years of gradual development. Expecting the Afghani tribes to do all this overnight is reaching for the sky.</STRONG>

Fable means a loga Jirga - the system the taliban already use.
The tribe meets and decides, then the tribal leaders meet in a smaller regional group and then they meet in a large forum, like the one concerning Osamas hand over and the that was held in Peshawar last week - where there were no NA members, neither Taliban or people from the Shah's group.
It was basically a statement to say we start fresh.