Comments on: Keeping an Eye on London http://registan.net/index.php/2010/01/28/keeping-an-eye-on-london/ All Central Asia, All The Time Fri, 25 May 2012 20:24:26 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1 By: Turgai Sangar http://registan.net/index.php/2010/01/28/keeping-an-eye-on-london/comment-page-1/#comment-384094 Turgai Sangar Fri, 29 Jan 2010 09:17:44 +0000 http://www.registan.net/?p=10365#comment-384094 Good comment. Thanks. Good comment. Thanks.

]]> By: Toryalay Shirzay http://registan.net/index.php/2010/01/28/keeping-an-eye-on-london/comment-page-1/#comment-384092 Toryalay Shirzay Fri, 29 Jan 2010 02:38:17 +0000 http://www.registan.net/?p=10365#comment-384092 That Iran refused to attend the conference in London speaks volumes about their true intentions in Afghanistan.Iran is ultra stealthy and her motivations are to enhance the power of Shiaism.The money Iran spent in Afstan went for building some roads so Iran could ship ever larger Iranian made goods to be sold there and for supporting the Shiates,building more mosques with more and highly irritating loadspeakers belching poisonous Islamic crap and etc. That Iran refused to attend the conference in London speaks volumes about their true intentions in Afghanistan.Iran is ultra stealthy and her motivations are to enhance the power of Shiaism.The money Iran spent in Afstan went for building some roads so Iran could ship ever larger Iranian made goods to be sold there and for supporting the Shiates,building more mosques with more and highly irritating loadspeakers belching poisonous Islamic crap and etc.

]]> By: Reader http://registan.net/index.php/2010/01/28/keeping-an-eye-on-london/comment-page-1/#comment-384089 Reader Fri, 29 Jan 2010 01:36:57 +0000 http://www.registan.net/?p=10365#comment-384089 I think all these short-term fixes are the result of desperation pure and simple. 1) The US simply doesn't understand the country, its history, nor its present situation. Honestly, tell me how many people in government speak Pashto who do not have a potential conflict of interest? Just standard Pashto or Pakhto, not any crazy mountain or Kuchi dialects. 2) There are way too many "Lawrence of Afghanistans" sporting about. Why do Americans obsess so much over whether we are loved or not overseas. I'm not talking about the hippies who worry about European polls. I'm talking about the government types. I find it interesting that some of the most obsessive about it are also the most "action prone" who feel the need to "accomplish something" over there and are the most likely to cause hatred by said actions (Major "it's all about the tribes" Gant). Some people still think this is one great big adventure and they don't realize those Afghans and Arabs aren't stage props that will go back to the storage room when the play is over. They also don't realize that maybe their one good Afghan buddy might have his own agenda. I call this last the Chelebi/Sakishvilli effect. The C.S. effect also applies to point 1. 3) American exceptionalism is proving to be the most long-lasting ideology of the Modern Age. It will die a slow and needlessly painful death. I am afraid it will take a complete economic breakdown for some people to realize that "get er done" won't get it done. Oh sure we can cure some sore eyes, build some clinics. But can we fix societies? I doubt it, I think that post-WW2 was a specific historical occurrence and will not repeat itself; Afghanistan is not Vietnam, but neither can we Marshall Plan-ify the Middle East. 4) People in government, overall, are taxpayers. But they still seem to not care how they waste other peoples money. So we'll throw a million at the Shinwaris, after all who cares? It ain't like Barak Obamma or Dave Petraeus has to open their wallet. 5) We need to avoid all countries starting with the letter "I" that includes supporting them, fighting them, and meddling in their affairs in any way I can think of. I also find it strange that nobody talks about the elephant in the room: Afghan environmental degradation. The amount of arable farmland and forest that has been lost is quite serious. If it happened in the US people would definately notice. Correct me if I am wrong, but also aren't the glaciers shrinking? There goes your water sources. Long and short, at best it will be an ongoing human tragedy and sad situation in Afghanistan. At worse, it will be a tragedy of monumental proportions. But I don't believe that the US, for structural and real economic reasons, can do a d&mned thing about it. I think all these short-term fixes are the result of desperation pure and simple. 1) The US simply doesn’t understand the country, its history, nor its present situation. Honestly, tell me how many people in government speak Pashto who do not have a potential conflict of interest? Just standard Pashto or Pakhto, not any crazy mountain or Kuchi dialects. 2) There are way too many “Lawrence of Afghanistans” sporting about. Why do Americans obsess so much over whether we are loved or not overseas. I’m not talking about the hippies who worry about European polls. I’m talking about the government types. I find it interesting that some of the most obsessive about it are also the most “action prone” who feel the need to “accomplish something” over there and are the most likely to cause hatred by said actions (Major “it’s all about the tribes” Gant). Some people still think this is one great big adventure and they don’t realize those Afghans and Arabs aren’t stage props that will go back to the storage room when the play is over. They also don’t realize that maybe their one good Afghan buddy might have his own agenda. I call this last the Chelebi/Sakishvilli effect. The C.S. effect also applies to point 1. 3) American exceptionalism is proving to be the most long-lasting ideology of the Modern Age. It will die a slow and needlessly painful death. I am afraid it will take a complete economic breakdown for some people to realize that “get er done” won’t get it done. Oh sure we can cure some sore eyes, build some clinics. But can we fix societies? I doubt it, I think that post-WW2 was a specific historical occurrence and will not repeat itself; Afghanistan is not Vietnam, but neither can we Marshall Plan-ify the Middle East. 4) People in government, overall, are taxpayers. But they still seem to not care how they waste other peoples money. So we’ll throw a million at the Shinwaris, after all who cares? It ain’t like Barak Obamma or Dave Petraeus has to open their wallet. 5) We need to avoid all countries starting with the letter “I” that includes supporting them, fighting them, and meddling in their affairs in any way I can think of.

I also find it strange that nobody talks about the elephant in the room: Afghan environmental degradation. The amount of arable farmland and forest that has been lost is quite serious. If it happened in the US people would definately notice. Correct me if I am wrong, but also aren’t the glaciers shrinking? There goes your water sources.

Long and short, at best it will be an ongoing human tragedy and sad situation in Afghanistan. At worse, it will be a tragedy of monumental proportions. But I don’t believe that the US, for structural and real economic reasons, can do a d&mned thing about it.

]]> By: Dafydd http://registan.net/index.php/2010/01/28/keeping-an-eye-on-london/comment-page-1/#comment-384077 Dafydd Thu, 28 Jan 2010 14:20:37 +0000 http://www.registan.net/?p=10365#comment-384077 Link was to http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/iran/7020717/Iran-reviewing-relations-with-Britain.html Link was to http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/iran/7020717/Iran-reviewing-relations-with-Britain.html

]]> By: Dafydd http://registan.net/index.php/2010/01/28/keeping-an-eye-on-london/comment-page-1/#comment-384076 Dafydd Thu, 28 Jan 2010 14:18:48 +0000 http://www.registan.net/?p=10365#comment-384076 The Iranians are very important neighbours, particularly in Herat (which seems to operate as some sort of swing state between the Tajik/Hazara/Uzbek north & the Pashtun south). I think the Iranians were (formally) invited, but the chances of the Iranians coming to a London conference at the moment are close to zero. Iranian British relations are at a very <a>low ebb</a>. Apparently we Brits are responsible for the assassination of their nuclear scientist the other week. Begs the question of why did they choose London. Could have gone to Istanbul. The Iranians are very important neighbours, particularly in Herat (which seems to operate as some sort of swing state between the Tajik/Hazara/Uzbek north & the Pashtun south).

I think the Iranians were (formally) invited, but the chances of the Iranians coming to a London conference at the moment are close to zero. Iranian British relations are at a very low ebb. Apparently we Brits are responsible for the assassination of their nuclear scientist the other week.

Begs the question of why did they choose London. Could have gone to Istanbul.

]]>