PDA

View Full Version : Afghanistan - 50 years from now?


Sir George Cayley
22nd Oct 2008, 22:48
So, what will Afghanistan be like?

a) A modern state fusing democracy with sharia law to the benefit of all, or
b) The ****** up killing ground it is today, was under the Russians etc, etc?

I prefer the first option. Islam has some good points just as does Christianity (and Judeaism, Budism and Jedi Knights) Not sure how the country could become self sustaining especially if Poppy farming was'nt a staple crop, but the idea of "ordinary folk" not being in fear of the Talibahn, The Americans or Extremist Clerics sounds most attractive.

However, I think we are failing to learn the lessons of history and are hence bound to repeat the mistakes.

Can the coalition forces eventually pull out like they intend in Iraq? Will the local tribes form into a cohesive, municipal form of local government?

What times scale is the west working too against that of Islam?

I won't be here in 50 years time but young people I know will be; is it right that attritional killings will continue for the next half century?

Discuss

Sir George Cayley

con-pilot
22nd Oct 2008, 23:17
My guess it will be much like it was 50 years ago. More modern perhaps, but about the same as it was 50 years ago. I don't think that there will any fear of the Mormons taking over.

Howard Hughes
23rd Oct 2008, 01:13
It'd be hard work riding their (the Mormons) bikes up those rock strewn mountains...;)

con-pilot
23rd Oct 2008, 01:43
It'd be hard work riding their (the Mormons) bikes up those rock strewn mountains...

Love it! :D:D:D

:ok:

Howard Hughes
23rd Oct 2008, 02:13
Of course with the whole having more than one wife thing, it might catch on in predominantly Muslim countries...:E

Impress to inflate
23rd Oct 2008, 04:48
Your all wrong, it will be "State of Scientology" or "People's Democratic State of Scientology" with President for life Tom Cruise running the show.

fitliker
23rd Oct 2008, 04:55
It will be part of China and the opium will be of a higher quality than that muck the Taliban make:}:}

Wod
23rd Oct 2008, 08:47
No significant change, I think.

My only visit was in overland transit in 1966. From Herat, through Kandahar and Kabul to the Kyhber. Memorable for the proud independence of the people - no colonial hang ups for those guys!.

Apart from the well known interference from Russia, Our Lot, and Osama Bin Hide in Hill, nothing has changed.

Tribal boundaries and ethnic divisions predominate - left alone, Taliban would have no influence outside their natural tribal boundaries, and some sort of tolerated elite would pretend to the outside world that it was a nation.

I don't know if this is a Good or a Bad Thing.

Jet_A_Knight
23rd Oct 2008, 10:06
http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/2007/02/05/world/05afghan.600.jpg

sitigeltfel
23rd Oct 2008, 10:21
The only difference will be that the warlords will have the benefit of another 50 years of weapons development. All the better for perpetuating the inter tribal strife and the battle against the infidel.

Wod
23rd Oct 2008, 13:14
J-A-K

Can't believe that NATO would be so pig-headed.

Even the British (19th Century) and Russians (20th century) pulled out eventually - and they are serially pig-headed.


sitigeltfel

History doesn't support you. Once the AK47 and Stinger stocks are exhausted they'll go back to British flintlocks - they've nearly mastered them.

Tone
23rd Oct 2008, 17:37
Well given that they are about 2000 years behind civilisation (as we know it) in 50 years time they will be 1950 years behind, still some way to go I reckon.

CATIII-NDB
23rd Oct 2008, 19:35
In 50 Years time in Afganistan , while I get my EM from the KING - 100 up the last 30 underground , the radiation levels from the third world war of 2028 will have reached the level where the scorp's and other insects finally begin to re colonise the place.

Oil, Water and Land - That's why wars happen.

Bleak ain't it.

CAT III

RatherBeFlying
24th Oct 2008, 01:26
If no foreign troops to shoot at, they'll revert back to their normal habits of shooting at each other.

If some tribe gets its hands on heavy weapons (tanks and artillery) there could be a unified government either like the Taliban or a bit more inclined towards the good government side like the last few kings in the 19th and 20th centuries.

More likely will be each tribe / clan defending its turf from other tribes / clans just as they have been doing for the last several hundred years.

Jet_A_Knight
24th Oct 2008, 02:00
WOD - my idea was not intended as NATO specific.

More the fact of guns and ammunition, so to speak.:{

notmyC150v2
24th Oct 2008, 04:25
I don't know of any other country on earth that is so well designed to prevent the development of unified government.

When you combine the extraordinary mountain ranges that flow through the country providing natural borders, minimal fertile land and thousands of years of tribal development, what genius really thinks that one government in one location could run the whole show. Pure nonsense.

This means that the area will for ever be controlled by battling tribes and religious groups (defined by area). Nothing we can do will stop that.

Perhaps the best result would be to divide the country up and deliver the parts to the closest neighbor. That way Pakistan can get the Taliban loonies and the other countries will get the tribes that are closest to their borders. Each country would then have control of areas over which it is able to exert influence and military power.

Maybe then we could all get some sleep.

Overdrive
24th Oct 2008, 05:22
Perhaps the best result would be to divide the country up and deliver the parts to the closest neighbor. That way Pakistan can get the Taliban loonies and the other countries will get the tribes that are closest to their borders



But who would get the opium?

Jet_A_Knight
24th Oct 2008, 08:05
But who would get the opium?

The same people who are getting it now (and more).:ugh:

Wod
24th Oct 2008, 14:25
Seems to me that the (sad) consensus here is, that nothing changes.

Most of us have said much the same thing.

I repeat my earlier question - is this a Good or a Bad Thing?

I take Good to mean that people continue to live the lives they have chosen for centuries.

Bad means they have chosen to have no part of what the wider world sees as progress.

(J-A-K NATO point taken)


Afterthought - I care. Why?