'Widespread fraud' in the Afghan elections

[travelingoz]

"US goofs the Afghan election"
M K Bhadrakumar

Has anyone read this story at Asia Times Online? I would post a link but i can't yet. (www dot atimes dot com)

Specifically;
"The latest broadside in the New York Times, portraying his brother, Wali Karzai, as a drug trafficker, has taken matters to a point of no return"

"Hopefully, Washington will not order an inquiry into the New York Times story, as John Kerry, chairman of the US Senate Foreign Relations Committee, reportedly sought.

Any such inquiry will only end up bringing out of the cupboard skeletons that neither Kerry nor US President Barack Obama will want to see."

Is there any veracity to;

"Therefore, when Khodaidad said on Sunday that the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) contingents from the US, Britain and Canada are "taxing" the production of opium in the regions under their control, he carried a stern warning on behalf of Karazi. It is a simple, direct message: don't throw stones while sitting in a glass cage."

And;
"It has turned out to be a first-rate farce. Abdullah's abdication from the political arena is not going to set the Kabul River on fire. There isn't going to be any war between the Pashtuns and Tajiks, either. Even Mohammed Atta, governor of Balkh, who arranged the vote rigging for Abdullah in the Amu Darya region"

I haven't heard of any of these claims in the mainstream press. However if there is any truth to them the situation there really does seem hopeless!

 

[KoihimeNakamura]

It's /possible/. The US as a matter of course pratices realpolitk. (Which is a surprise, but not much of one.)

HansMustermann: Eh, I think it's more a matter of expediency for the US government to simply impose people with friendly status (but not friendly ideas.) I'm not sure why, but I am in full agreement we should stop calling it democracy.

 

[Peephole]

If that achieves the supression of Al Qeda, it's not that bad a plan, even if it isn't a great plan.

But in the meantime you're losing money, suffering casualties, offending muslims and you're supporting a corrupt dictator.

And I don't see the benefits in continued occupation. Even if the Taliban come back to power, there's always the possibility of cutting a deal with them. And if they refuse, it's not like they'll present some kind of huge obstacle. Limited military action, in the same way it occurs in Pakistan, will always be an option.

 

[Darth Rotor]

But in the meantime you're losing money, suffering casualties, offending muslims and you're supporting a corrupt dictator.

Even by not doing any of that, the "offending muslims" and supporting corrupt dictators is a charge that can be laid daily at our door, and is.

Welcome to reality. I guess you ignore about thirty years of "The Great Satan" political rhetoric, because it isn't pointed at you. I don't give much weight to your sensitivity of the US offending Muslims, as our existence seems to be a daily offense, and has been for most of my adult life.

The avoiding of squandering of blood and treasure is a serious consideration, which ought only be spent on serious policy aims.

And I don't see the benefits in continued occupation. Even if the Taliban come back to power, there's always the possibility of cutting a deal with them. And if they refuse, it's not like they'll present some kind of huge obstacle. Limited military action, in the same way it occurs in Pakistan, will always be an option.

That is one way to approach the problem.

DR

 

[Pardalis]

But in the meantime you're losing money, suffering casualties,

Such is war.

offending muslims

Anything we do will offend them. nothing new.

and you're supporting a corrupt dictator.

So suddenly you care about dictators? I thought you were against the removal of Saddam Hussein?

Even if the Taliban come back to power, there's always the possibility of cutting a deal with them.

Like what?

Wouldn't that deal cost money? Wouldn't we be supporting fascists if we do?

 

[Undesired Walrus]

So suddenly you care about dictators? I thought you were against the removal of Saddam Hussein?

I don't agree with him, but he didn't say that.