Comments on: With Karzai off to Washington, Taliban talks back in focus http://blogs.reuters.com/pakistan/2010/05/08/with-karzai-off-to-washington-taliban-talks-back-in-focus/ Perspectives on Pakistan Thu, 01 Oct 2015 19:31:05 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=4.2.5 By: pakistan http://blogs.reuters.com/pakistan/2010/05/08/with-karzai-off-to-washington-taliban-talks-back-in-focus/comment-page-1/#comment-28820 Sun, 30 May 2010 17:03:45 +0000 http://blogs.reuters.com/pakistan/?p=5317#comment-28820 PS forgot to write my name,
Rex Minor

]]>
By: pakistan http://blogs.reuters.com/pakistan/2010/05/08/with-karzai-off-to-washington-taliban-talks-back-in-focus/comment-page-1/#comment-28819 Sun, 30 May 2010 17:02:39 +0000 http://blogs.reuters.com/pakistan/?p=5317#comment-28819 @kEIThZ
First of all I am not a Pakistani nor do I represent Pakistan. Somehow the moderator is not removing the title. In Europe we have more or less peace now. The global security responsibility is with the United Nations which is at present impotent. Perhaps You need to ask those great powers who as of this day do not accept the international criminal court. The Pashtoons have their homeland, they do not need any authorization. The world has never seen the Afghan Govt. without the approval of Pashtoon tribes. In the future the world in unlikely to see a stable Govt. in Pakistan without their approval. The Pashtoons, Talibans or Pashtoon Afghans could not care less what happens in rest of the world. They are not responsible for the events outside their country and they are very allergic to foreigners and by foreigners I mean non Pashto speaking people, including the Pakistanis, Tajiks and other minorities now living in Swat and Afghanistan. Nothing could influence them to submit other than force. This they have not seen over centuries. They are hospitable, loyal and non vioöent people as long as you leave them alone. They are humans and take vengence when harmed. They take their time but when the call goes all the tribes become one and they write history. Perhaps you should read history and try to understand these peaceful volks.

]]>
By: kEiThZ http://blogs.reuters.com/pakistan/2010/05/08/with-karzai-off-to-washington-taliban-talks-back-in-focus/comment-page-1/#comment-28701 Wed, 19 May 2010 14:04:57 +0000 http://blogs.reuters.com/pakistan/?p=5317#comment-28701 @pakistan

If what you say is true, then the best solution for global peace and security is to finish the thing once in and for all. Give the Pashtoons their homeland. Take the Pashtoon areas and merge them into Afghanistan.

If Pakistanis like yourself feel that securing the Pashtoon areas is impossible, then other solutions need to be looked at. The world is not going to sit back and accept weekly terrorists attacks just because Pakistanis are too feeble to get the job done.

If you say the source of the problem is British Imperial meddling and the division of the Pashtoon homeland, then why not reverse that decision? I am sure giving the Pashtoons their own homeland will solve some problems.

]]>
By: pakistan http://blogs.reuters.com/pakistan/2010/05/08/with-karzai-off-to-washington-taliban-talks-back-in-focus/comment-page-1/#comment-28692 Mon, 17 May 2010 10:47:28 +0000 http://blogs.reuters.com/pakistan/?p=5317#comment-28692 Sorry, the purpose of war is not a ‘victory’, but to defeat the opponent. Victory is simply the final result of defeating the opponent. Myra. no one in history has ever managed to defeat the Pashtoons Afghans, call them what you like. Talibans or Afghan Talibans or Pakistan Talibans. They roughly number over sixty million. The Brits managed to split them in two by sheer deceit, paying for the roads they built in the North west of today’s Pakistan. They have no loyalty to Pakistan or Afghanistan. Their loyalty is to their family and tribes. One needs to be more powerful to defeat them or pay them the money to buy their loyalty for a limited predefined purpose. They do not negotiate with any one. The rag tag US and its allies are the weakest enemy they have ever encountered in history. They pay them money, show respect for their leaders such as Karzai, yes Karzai, he is a Pashtoon, and have offered to win their hearts and minds. They even let them grow poppies to supply the western world with heroin. Given this situation can they be defeated? The answer is no, since similar tricks have been used before by the Brits. and they were massacred in two Afghan wars. There is a great difference between the compromise and victory, and this difference has always been diluted through the clever use of english language by the Brits and later the Henry Kissinger and co. This method has also not worked in Afghanistan after the Amir ordered the massacre of foreigners, by simply saying that the document he had signed was written in english. Mr Karzai is capable of repeating the same statement.

]]>
By: KPSingh01 http://blogs.reuters.com/pakistan/2010/05/08/with-karzai-off-to-washington-taliban-talks-back-in-focus/comment-page-1/#comment-28644 Tue, 11 May 2010 20:03:03 +0000 http://blogs.reuters.com/pakistan/?p=5317#comment-28644 I wonder if the US has all along been trying to get its hands inside Pakistan or not. After seeing the David Coleman Headley case, I am confused about who is a mole and who is a terrorist. What if Shahzad is a CIA mole who did some work for the CIA to justify the US action inside Pakistan? I am sure if Shahzad had trained in North Waziristan, he wouldn’t do such an amateur job. He needn’t have traveled all the way to Pakistan to do what he did. I smell something fishy here. But if the US is reaching inside Pakistan’s pants, I welcome it. The fix to the Af-Pak problem is fixing Pakistan for good. Pakistan’s strategic value has diminished for the US. There is no big enemy like the USSR for which Pakistan served as a staging ground. There are other countries that can double up for such purposes. The US is dealing with Pakistan only to clean up Afghanistan. But looks like it is Pakistan that needs the clean up and Afghanistan will survive if that is done right.

]]>
By: Mortal1 http://blogs.reuters.com/pakistan/2010/05/08/with-karzai-off-to-washington-taliban-talks-back-in-focus/comment-page-1/#comment-28642 Tue, 11 May 2010 17:49:03 +0000 http://blogs.reuters.com/pakistan/?p=5317#comment-28642 It’s becoming clearer by the day that the central focus in AfPak has to be on Pakistan but unfortuanletly it is also becoming clearer that Pakistan is more a part of the problem than the solution. The Obama admn is realizing the fact that currently Pakistan is essentially a lot more dangerous than the pre-9/11 Afghanistan. With the failed NY terror plot, pressure is begining to mount on Obama, here at home, to take off the kid gloves & adopt a sterner tone with Pakistan. It’ll be interesting to see how things pan out.

]]>
By: RajeevK http://blogs.reuters.com/pakistan/2010/05/08/with-karzai-off-to-washington-taliban-talks-back-in-focus/comment-page-1/#comment-28634 Mon, 10 May 2010 20:31:25 +0000 http://blogs.reuters.com/pakistan/?p=5317#comment-28634 @“When the United States goes to war, it should be able to describe to itself how it defines victory and how it proposes to achieve it. Or else how it proposes to end its military engagement and by what diplomacy. In Vietnam, America sent combat forces on behalf of a general notion of credibility and in pursuit of a negotiation whose content was never defined,” he (Kissingher) writes.”

Myra: Did you ask this question of “defining victory” through one of your blogs? I did not see any but do remember that I asked you whom exactly are they fighting against? Quoting Kissinger at times on this when end game is in sight is bit too late.

]]>
By: SZaman88 http://blogs.reuters.com/pakistan/2010/05/08/with-karzai-off-to-washington-taliban-talks-back-in-focus/comment-page-1/#comment-28630 Mon, 10 May 2010 10:07:22 +0000 http://blogs.reuters.com/pakistan/?p=5317#comment-28630 These talks would certainly help US in asserting a better control over the territories held by Taliban; negotiations are always helpful, and will certainly achieve some of the important objectives.

]]>
By: KPSingh01 http://blogs.reuters.com/pakistan/2010/05/08/with-karzai-off-to-washington-taliban-talks-back-in-focus/comment-page-1/#comment-28627 Sun, 09 May 2010 23:05:53 +0000 http://blogs.reuters.com/pakistan/?p=5317#comment-28627 KeithZ: “they are softening on Afghanistan so they can harden on Pakistan”

I wonder why it took the US close to 9 years to figure out that it is Pakistan that has been the villain all along. If they had taken out Pakistan in 2001, by now the entire Af-Pak could have been restructured. There would have been no need to appease the various elements that Pakistan has been controlling. If Pak military gets into North Waziristan while the US pushes hard into Kandahar, it is going to toss the “elements” skywards as there is no place to escape. The “elements” will take it out on Pakistan as it is the softer target and that can be dangerous to the fledgling democratic government in Pakistan.

]]>
By: kEiThZ http://blogs.reuters.com/pakistan/2010/05/08/with-karzai-off-to-washington-taliban-talks-back-in-focus/comment-page-1/#comment-28624 Sun, 09 May 2010 16:11:09 +0000 http://blogs.reuters.com/pakistan/?p=5317#comment-28624 The US will negotiate because Afghanistan is no longer the central playground in the War on Terror. It’s Pakistan. The US needs to get its troops out of Afghanistan so that they are no longer at Pakistan’s mercy. Look at it this way: they are softening on Afghanistan so they can harden on Pakistan.

]]>