• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Extreme Elections: Warlords, militia among Afghan pres nominees

TheDemSocialist

Gradualist
DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 13, 2011
Messages
34,951
Reaction score
16,311
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Socialist
More than twenty candidates have registered for next year's presidential race in Afghanistan. On the list is a mix of those currently in power including warlords, militia leaders and tribal chiefs. That concoction is marring optimism at the prospect of the first democratic transfer of power in Afghanistan's history. With incumbent President Karzai out of the game due to term limits, radical Islamic movements, such as the Taliban are now seeking their way back into the government.


Video @:
Extreme Elections: Warlords, militia among Afghan pres nominees - YouTube

[FONT=arial, sans-serif]With the war in Afghanistan winding down, and the Afghan army, which seems to be slowly falling apart, and new elections about to be held with some very [/FONT][FONT=arial, sans-serif]interesting "nominees" we are seeing a interesting picture unfold in Afghanistan. A lot of questions remain; will Afghanistan ever become stable? Will the Taliban come back to power? Are warlords gonna give up power? Was this war worth it?[/FONT][FONT=arial, sans-serif] [/FONT]
 

Sherman123

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 5, 2012
Messages
7,774
Reaction score
3,791
Location
Northeast US
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Video @: [/FONT][/COLOR]Extreme Elections: Warlords, militia among Afghan pres nominees - YouTube

[FONT=arial, sans-serif]With the war in Afghanistan winding down, and the Afghan army, which seems to be slowly falling apart, and new elections about to be held with some very [/FONT][FONT=arial, sans-serif]interesting "nominees" we are seeing a interesting picture unfold in Afghanistan. A lot of questions remain; will Afghanistan ever become stable? Will the Taliban come back to power? Are warlords gonna give up power? Was this war worth it?[/FONT][FONT=arial, sans-serif] [/FONT]

I actually know some members of the Wardak family and it would be great to see them ascendant in Afghanistan. They have a good connection to the legitimate elements Afghan resistance movement against the Soviet Union and the Taliban. I would personally love to see Abdullah Abdullah win, I think he would be a shot in the arm for Afghanistan and a welcome change of pace from the Karzai's. I think he has a good chance since a lot of the other contenders will likely give him their endorsement in the second round.

Also as a general rule I'd avoid using RT except for specific purposes. It is unreliable and has the habit of instantly turning people off to a topic because of its (deserved) reputation.
 

TheDemSocialist

Gradualist
DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 13, 2011
Messages
34,951
Reaction score
16,311
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Socialist
I actually know some members of the Wardak family and it would be great to see them ascendant in Afghanistan. They have a good connection to the legitimate elements Afghan resistance movement against the Soviet Union and the Taliban.
I would say there is not "legitimate" part of the Taliban.

I would personally love to see Abdullah Abdullah win, I think he would be a shot in the arm for Afghanistan and a welcome change of pace from the Karzai's.
I would like that as well. Seems more moderate and bringing reform is always a plus. Especially for Afghanistan.
The major thing for me is what is going to happen 5-10 years down the road. How is the Afghan army gonna control warlords and the Taliban.
Also as a general rule I'd avoid using RT except for specific purposes. It is unreliable and has the habit of instantly turning people off to a topic because of its (deserved) reputation.
I seem to have no problem with a lot of the coverage RT does on international affairs. The only time i dont use RT is for stories about Russia.
 

Sherman123

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 5, 2012
Messages
7,774
Reaction score
3,791
Location
Northeast US
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
I would say there is not "legitimate" part of the Taliban.


I would like that as well. Seems more moderate and bringing reform is always a plus. Especially for Afghanistan.
The major thing for me is what is going to happen 5-10 years down the road. How is the Afghan army gonna control warlords and the Taliban.

I seem to have no problem with a lot of the coverage RT does on international affairs. The only time i dont use RT is for stories about Russia.

Oh no, I was referring to the opposition to the Taliban, not as a legitimate arm of the Taliban. They did not join the Taliban government and fought within the Northern Alliance with their Pashtun/Sufi political faction.

As for RT it has a terrible reputation when it comes to it's international affairs desk more than any other part. Honestly I'm the inverse of you I only use RT when it is reporting on Russian or former Soviet space affairs as they will occasionally have unique information that can later be verified and you also get the perspective of the Kremlin on issues.
 

TheDemSocialist

Gradualist
DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 13, 2011
Messages
34,951
Reaction score
16,311
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Socialist
Oh no, I was referring to the opposition to the Taliban, not as a legitimate arm of the Taliban.
Ok and i agree that resistance to the Taliban is legitimate, but then again a lot of them either formed or already were warlords...

As for RT it has a terrible reputation when it comes to it's international affairs desk more than any other part.
I would disagree. They often times report on affairs that the US does not report or they show another side of the event.
 

Sherman123

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 5, 2012
Messages
7,774
Reaction score
3,791
Location
Northeast US
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Ok and i agree that resistance to the Taliban is legitimate, but then again a lot of them either formed or already were warlords...


I would disagree. They often times report on affairs that the US does not report or they show another side of the event.

Well sure it was a Civil War there really weren't any armed groups that didn't qualify as a militia or weren't headed by some tribal leader. The question rather is what side of the war were they on.

As for RT they have a notorious reputation for conspiracy theories, allowing fake or discredited officials to act as experts, vicious and virulent ideological slants, and sometimes outright fabrication of stories. The reason I was trying to discourage them as a source is that unless you are an expert on each area they cover you have no idea if they are being accurate or not. It is a news agency operating from behind the curtain of an increasingly autocratic regime and reflects as much. Instead of exposing yourself unnecessarily to that criticism why not just use the Guardian or another non-US paper?
 
Top Bottom