Who´s going to win ?

[Apollo 0]

I gonna give you a profile of one of the most known Warlords in Afhanistan ,Abdul Rashid Dostum.

from the BBC

from Wikipedia

here's a profile on other warlords for you:

profile of Gulbuddin Hekmatyar

profile on Ismael Khan

Now there are dozen's of such warlords controlling 99% of Afhan territory ,not only that but they also fight among eachother to expand their own relative "fiefdom" .In Practice ,Afhanistan is a country in civil war with these Warlords.Atleast under the Taliban there was a certain law ,order and stabilety.Now it's worse ,almost no laws or order anywhere in te country ,and certainly no stabilety.With this ,Afhanistan has now declined to a situation similar to Somalia ,total chaos.

Afhan warlords battle for strategic town

Guardian on growing opium production by Warlords

[Major Gripe 0]

Quote[/b] ]Tuesday, January 27, 2004 Posted: 0209 GMT (10:09 AM HKT)

KABUL, Afghanistan (Reuters) -- President Hamid Karzai has signed Afghanistan's new constitution into law, a document that gives him sweeping powers but exposed divisions when it was debated in a national assembly that concluded this month.

The constitution is intended to pave the way for war-torn Afghanistan's first free elections in June which the U.S.-backed Karzai is seen as favorite to win.

"I declare and enact the new constitution which was unanimously adopted," Karzai said in a statement following a signing ceremony on Monday before his Cabinet and foreign diplomats.

The ceremony took place against a backdrop of security worries that have held up registration of voters for the polls and raised doubts about whether they can be held on time.

The constitution envisages a strong presidency and enshrines equal rights for women. It describes Islam as the country's sacred religion but guarantees protection for other faiths.

Its religious stipulations were put to the test almost immediately when reformists in the government and conservatives in the Supreme Court clashed after the former lifted a ban on women singing on television.

Both sides argued that their position was backed by the new constitution, with reformers citing equal rights for women and the conservatives a clause stating that no laws should be counter to Islam.

A statement from U.S. ambassador Zalmay Khalilzad called the enactment of the constitution a "turning point for the Afghan nation."

"We are witness to a major milestone in putting behind the era of the rule of the gun in Afghanistan," it said.

Khalilzad said the United States would stand by Afghanistan as it put the constitution into practice and prepared for the presidential and parliamentary elections.

The United Nations has warned that an increase in violance in the provinces that has claimed more than 500 lives since August could jeopardise the holding of the polls and has called on the international community to provide more peacekeepers.

It has pointed to the dangers posed both by Taliban guerrillas active in the south as well as by ostensibly pro-government commanders in the north more interested in consolidating their fiefdoms than Karzai's government.

The north-south divide was exposed in the constitutional debate with disagreements between the largest ethnic group, the Pashtuns from the south and the mainly Tajik northerners who dominate many ministries in Kabul.

It doesn't exactly sound like a peaceful democracy does it?

Article Source

[Balschoiw 0]

Canadian ISAF soldier killed in Kabul

So much for peace there.

[Blake 0]

Quote[/b] ]They are saying that while the people mostly hated the Taliban that there was at least a firm law in the country while now it's total anarchy.

I would like to see evidence of this 'total chaos and anarchy'. I think people are getting blind by repeating that and fail to see the progress that has taken place during these two years and can't put it into context what the country has faced during these 20 years of war.

Are people facing summary executions? Rape and plunder all the time? Malnutrition and mistreatment? Vandalization of cultural history? War? I don't consider the unfortunate killings of peace enforcement troops indication of general unlawfulness or chaos.

Sorry I just don't buy this theory of yours that 'tyranny is better than unrest'.

Quote[/b] ]Would you say the same thing to the families of the WTC attacks?

No I was saying it to you, commenting on your odd comment that 'bunch of people got killed' when you listed these 'war achievements'. Of course there was people killed which is very unfortunate and terrible, but I still think that those innocent casualties were not indiscriminantly murdered and that the outcome was in many aspects successfull and good for the Afganinstan's future. If you don't agree that, fine.

It is just my view that people are doing better than under the Taliban where women were oppressed. As I said before the war 'their regime's field of influence is the range of their AK47s'. They were an oppoturnist movement taking advantage of the country's unrest to install their tyrannical government with the force of violence, nothing more.

[denoir 0]

Quote[/b] ]They are saying that while the people mostly hated the Taliban that there was at least a firm law in the country while now it's total anarchy.

I would like to see evidence of this 'total chaos and anarchy'.

Read the articles that Apollo linked to. Or talk to somebody who has recently been to the region.

Quote[/b] ]

Are people facing summary executions?

Yes.

Quote[/b] ]Rape and plunder all the time?

Quite so.

Quote[/b] ]Malnutrition and mistreatment?

More than ever.

Quote[/b] ]Vandalization of cultural history?

Most likely.

Quote[/b] ]War?

Indeed, between rivalling warlords.

Quote[/b] ]I don't consider the unfortunate killings of peace enforcement troops indication of general unlawfulness or chaos

Neither do I. Excessive killings and oppression of the general population is what makes it qualify.

Quote[/b] ]Sorry I just don't buy this theory of yours that 'tyranny is better than unrest'.

Then you live in a dream world and don't know what the hell you are talking about. When given a choice between tyranny or death, people in general choose tyranny. For some reasons the poor bastards are rather alive than free.

[Blake 0]

Quote[/b] ]Then you live in a dream world and don't know what the hell you are talking about. When given a choice between tyranny or death, people in general choose tyranny. For some reasons the poor bastards are rather alive than free.

OK let's reinstall the Taliban then if people really want that peace and quiet. Why do you would think that country that has faced such hardships and regimes would settle in a minute?

Quote[/b] ]Indeed, between rivalling warlords.

One skirmish is in the news? Hardly all-out war. And that was two years ago.

Quote[/b] ]Neither do I. Excessive killings and oppression of the general population is what makes it qualify.

Where is the proof of this? Show me.

Quote[/b] ]Then you live in a dream world and don't know what the hell you are talking about

You are getting a bit personal once again. I'm not living in your ultra-pacifist anti-american pro-tyranny dreamworld sorry.

If a guy from Russia tells you that Soviet Union is so much better since there is this Russian Mafia now and unrest in Chechnya, do you really think people want it back?

[denoir 0]

Quote[/b] ]Then you live in a dream world and don't know what the hell you are talking about. When given a choice between tyranny or death, people in general choose tyranny. For some reasons the poor bastards are rather alive than free.

OK let's reinstall the Taliban then if people really want that peace and quiet. Why do you would think that country that has faced such hardships and regimes would settle in a minute?

It's not improving, the situation is deteriorating.

Quote[/b] ]Indeed, between rivalling warlords.

One skirmish is in the news? Hardly all-out war.

One skirmish? More likely one skirmish a day.

Quote[/b] ]

Quote[/b] ]Neither do I. Excessive killings and oppression of the general population is what makes it qualify.

Where is the proof of this? Show me.

Read and weep:

http://www.hrw.org/press/2003/07/afghan072903.htm

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/1802350.stm

http://www.theage.com.au/article....toryrhs

http://www.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,3604,1009416,00.html

Do you need me to continue?

Quote[/b] ]I'm not living in your ultra-pacifist anti-american pro-tyranny dreamworld sorry.

Ah yes. Let's see. I'm a lieutenant in the reserves of the Swedish armed forces and I have served by my own free will in an active conflict. Yes, that makes me a pacifist. I'm typing this in English, sitting in front of an American made computer, listening to American music. Yes, quite the America hater I am. And best of all, I've put my life at risk to fight tyranny and defend a growing democracy in Kosovo. Yeah, baby, that makes me pro-tyranny.

Let me predict the other brilliant conclusions that you are going to make about me: I am Swedish. Therefor I surely overtly hate Swedes. I'm an engineer. Therefor I surely must be afraid of machines.

Brilliant Blake. This sets an all time low for you. What part about people rather beeing alive and safe than to have extensive civil liberties is so hard for you to comperhend? How much would you care about your right to vote if your mother was raped and your siblings had to work on opium fields?

[bn880 5]

Yeah... Denoir a pacifist, no way in hell. One time he blew up a dead BMP 3 times over.

[Blake 0]

Quote[/b] ]Let me predict the other brilliant conclusions that you are going to make about me.

Quote[/b] ]Brilliant Blake. This sets an all time low for you.

You started this 'dreamworld-living and you-dont-know-what-the-hell-you-are-talking' thing yourself so I'm not going to fall into that debate again with you. Doesn't have anything to do with your impressive service record.

Quote[/b] ]Do you need me to continue?

I'm still not convinced that Taliban was in any ways more lawful, rightful or safer option for the Afgan people and that nothing should have been done about them for the sake of 'peace and calm'.

[Longinius 1]

Quote[/b] ]OK let's reinstall the Taliban then if people really want that peace and quiet. Why do you would think that country that has faced such hardships and regimes would settle in a minute?

How do you think they managed to get into power in the first place? Simple. Because they offered stability. Yes, their rule was harsh. But as long as you followed the laws (no matter how screwed up we think they are) you would most likely survive. Currently, you can get killed, raped, maimed for no reason what so ever. And noone will stop it.

[denoir 0]

I'm still not convinced that Taliban was in any ways more lawful, rightful or safer option for the Afgan people and that nothing should have been done about them for the sake of 'peace and calm'.

I never said that removing the Taliban was bad. What was bad was that it was not replaced by anything better. It wasn't replaced by anything at all. Under the Taliban people had a set of very oppressive rules to follow, but if they followed them they were safe. Right now there are no rules apart from the arbitrary rules that the warlords set.

"Give me liberty or give me death" is a very romantic notion, but it's not very realistic. People first and formost want to be alive and safe. Everything else comes second.

[Blake 0]

Quote[/b] ]Currently, you can get killed, raped, maimed for no reason what so ever. And noone will stop it

Yeah, then you could be shot by listening to music or exposing your face in public. Ever seen that video of woman being summarily executed at the stadium? Probably she then got what she deserved. But of course compared to horrors everybody there is facing today it was nothing...

Quote[/b] ]I never said that removing the Taliban was bad

By removing that regime they at least have a chance. Warlords are a menace, but up to the point of being worse than Taliban I don't believe even after reading those articles.

Of course your the primal instinct to stay alive is the most important to all men, but sometimes people just stand up and fight even though it means risk of losing your life. And even support potentially deadly incursions to topple oppressive regimes even though it would mean risks to themselves. And even go that far of thinking that it's better to have lawlessness up to a point than having regime that exploits, restricts and dictates people.

[bn880 5]

I think we can safely conclude the following (pardon the simplicity):

1. Things got screwed up in the Mid-East (Iran,Iraq,Afghanistan etc) a long time ago. The reasons were: Soviet Union and United States of America.

2. Now, we know the results of this are not so great, and were not even until 2 years ago.

3. Attempting more quick/drastic changes, like has been done for the last two decades through war, is only going to make things worse.

4. Change to what remains in those nations needs to come slowly through some political pressure etc. (but not mentally challenged sanctions)

[Longinius 1]

Quote[/b] ]By removing that regime they at least have a chance. Warlords are a menace, but up to the point of being worse than Taliban I don't believe even after reading those articles.

Of course they are worse. Atleast the Taliban offered stability. These guys just come with chaos.

Quote[/b] ]Of course your the primal instinct to stay alive is the most important to all men, but sometimes people just stand up and fight even though it means risk of losing your life. And even support potentially deadly incursions to topple oppressive regimes even though it would mean risks to themselves. And even go that far of thinking that it's better to have lawlessness up to a point than having regime that exploits, restricts and dictates people.

That opinion is based on the luxury of living in a free, safe society and comparing it to something worse. Most of the Afghani people have grown up in war and chaos. To them, any form of government that can prevent random killing could be preferable to not having even the most basic security in their lives.

[Schoeler 0]

I think we can safely conclude the following (pardon the simplicity):

1.  Things got screwed up in the Mid-East (Iran,Iraq,Afghanistan etc) a long time ago.  The reasons were: Soviet Union and United States of America.

2.  Now, we know the results of this are not so great, and were not even until 2 years ago.

3.  Attempting more quick/drastic changes, like has been done for the last two decades through war, is only going to make things worse.

4.  Change to what remains in those nations needs to come slowly through some political pressure etc. (but not mentally challenged sanctions)

I'll agree with everything except 3. I don't think the war in Afghanistan was about nation building, it was about eliminating an obvious threat to the United States, and because of that it was justified. It will however, now take years to get that nation back on its feet. Actually, not even back on its feet, it never really was on its feet, but rather under somebody's provisional authority since the Brits were booted out. Anyway, it will be years before Afghanistan can proudly assume a role among the modern community of nations.

As far as Iraq goes, you may or may not be right with respect to points 3 and 4. Getting rid of Saddam might have expedited the process if the aftermath had been better planned, and the operations had been conducted by a more credible bunch. Still, it remains to be seen whether or not Iraq will emerge cleanly from this mess in two or three years time. If that happens, it will not have been an unreasonable length of time to achieve the necessary goals considering Iraq has been a mess for over 30 years.

[bn880 5]

Ok I will leave 3 for Afghanistan upto debate, the result from it however is pretty disappointing. I mean, it's really a mess down there. I'd say it's more like a disaster, cutting open a slowly healing wound.

[Apollo 0]

Well it's mentioned that the U.S didn't innitianaly want to remove the Taliban ,it's objective was getting Osama ,however the Taliban refused to comply to the U.S ultimatum to extradite Osama.

The mistake the U.S made in regard of trying to rebuild Afhanistan ,not that they tried to hard ,was to ally with the Northen Alliance and let them take control of much of the territory instead of they themselfs.The warlords of the Northen alliance was defacto already a congregation of manny small faction's (some warlord ,some loyalists and Populzai ,a number of communists ,tadjikian and kirzychain group's ,etc) ,and the alliance was not very strong in mutual interrests ,especially after the murder on Massoud.

IMO the Us should have allied Only with Karzai and his faction of loyalists and and Populzai ,and should have worked to reinstate the monarchy however one with a limited parlement.And the warlord millitia's should have been forced to disband ,with force if nessecary.A monarchy would have been an excelent choice for a transitional goverment IMO ,There are still many Loyalists in Afhanistan loyal to the old Zahir Shah ,longing back to the time that Afhanistan was still under his rule.he was not a bad king ,and much of the loyalists are wel educated people that are very patriotic of their country.Hamid Karzai is himself a member of the Populzai clan ,i have a good deal of respect for him as he is a good leader taking a lot of risks for his country. (there have been already a number of assasination attempts on him)

Fact is as long as Karzai can't get control of his country he will never achieve stabilety and relative democracy in the country ,and the Loyalist faction is by number to small to beat all these other faction's.He needs help from outside Afhanistan to achieve it.

Conclusion: the U.S made the wrong friends in Afhanistan (like the fact that they worked toghether with a Butcher like Dostum ) ,and they essentially left to fast to make a possitive change in the country's politic's.

[joltan 0]

You gotta love the Onion:

Bush 2004 Campaign Pledges To Restore Honor And Dignity To White House

Quote[/b] ]"After years of false statements and empty promises, it's time for big changes in Washington," Bush said. "We need a president who will finally stand up and fight against the lies and corruption. It's time to renew the faith the people once had in the White House. If elected, I pledge to usher in a new era of integrity inside the Oval Office."

[Blake 0]

So he is going to rename oral office to oval again

[Blake 0]

Quote[/b] ]IMO the Us should have allied Only with Karzai and his faction of loyalists and and Populzai ,and should have worked to reinstate the monarchy however one with a limited parlement.And the warlord millitia's should have been forced to disband ,with force if nessecary.

Perhaps, but this could have also led to total alienation of the warlords and their troops from the process and make the situation even worse, perhaps even leading to even bloodier civil war with of the warlord's men teaming up with the remnants of the Taliban. Ambitious operation of getting rid of warlords and the Taliban at the same time could have produced unthinkable results. Hard to say, but maybe warlords are dealt better with containment rather than direct action.

[denoir 0]

Hard to say, but maybe warlords are dealt better with containment rather than direct action.

So you do think that 'tyranny is better than unrest'?

[Blake 0]

 LOL

I was half expecting that. But warlords are divided and their crimes against Afghan people still don't constitute what Taliban regime achieved. They must be gotten rid of over time but with careful 'lesser of two evils' diplomacy that does not flame the delicate situation into a full-blown civil war. The Taliban, I believe, could not have been ousted by containment, bribery or settlements.