Alex:

A couple of questions/remarks have come to my mind.

1. The US and British were instrumental in placing the Shah of Iran back on the Peacock Throne. It was a joint venture.

So you agree with that act as being true?

2. I presume you speak, read and write Farsi. Correct?

Yes I can understand, but writing it remains a bit difficult

3. Why are you so rabid about defending what Ahmadinijad is saying? The jerk is a loose cannon.

I am not defending anyone, I am just saying that whatever is told us by the MSM we should investigate.

Thanks for any response.

Don't worry Alex, when chuck can't find evidence to disprove an argument, he resorts to Republican-tactics of smear, character assasination, petty and irrelevant technicalities, or, spelling or word choice. He also is sceptical of anyone's intellect.

You on the other hand, run and hide. You still haven't answered my question. What horrific event was perpetrated by the U.S. against BL that justified BL committing numerous acts of terrorism? You will recall your brilliant conclusion - "I know the automatic answer from you will be that America is only retaliating (regarding BL).....and so are they, tit for tat, ad infintum. So, I ask you - what horrific event was perpetrated by the U.S. against BL that justified BL committing numerous acts of terrorism?

I didn't answer because your question sounds like you mean Bin Laden, personally. Which is a silly question.

Alex:

3. Why are you so rabid about defending what Ahmadinijad is saying? The jerk is a loose cannon.

Thanks for any response.

Come on chuck, be reasonable. You say he is a loose cannon, presumably based on statements made by Western sources such as "he has said he wants to wipe Israel off the map". When that is refuted, you come round full circle and ask why he should be defended because he is a loose cannon, based on a statement that has had alot of doubt put on it...... round and round we go. Surely the circle stops at the most credible piece of evidence? In this case, that Ahmedinejad has been misquoted (probably deliberately at that because it fits the Western right-wing agenda).

So, I ask you - what horrific event was perpetrated by the U.S. against BL that justified BL committing numerous acts of terrorism?

It would be an interesting topic on its own too.

I do not know but, if I were looking for an answer I would look at his history & involvement with the US.

Specifically the CIA.

Look at his history & work he did for them....I mean most have accepted he was originally *our* freedom fighter.

He did fight against the PDPA & the Soviets didn't he? We ( the US) liked that....

Between 80? & early 90's the US poured a lot of $$$ into arms it sent to the mujaheddin ...So did many rich Saudis which is where BL came from yes? At that time US sent big $$$ to Gulbuddin Hekmatyar who was their best mujaheddin. Which in itself is scary given his history. I think BL was just a close tie/ally of his.

I know there was much written back in 2001 & onwards because at that time many asked the same question you do now.

Folks wanted to know what was BL all about...Where did he come from...What does he stand for etc etc.

Yes it would be interesting if we were sure of our source of info.

For me there in lies the rub...........Knowing BL was an operative....Would we ever be privy to actual information?

It would not be hard to imagine a grudge of an international tool/operative. The possibilities are endless.

Come on chuck, be reasonable. You say he is a loose cannon, presumably based on statements made by Western sources such as "he has said he wants to wipe Israel off the map". When that is refuted, you come round full circle and ask why he should be defended because he is a loose cannon

It was not refuted. He has said it more than once in different ways and the quote that you are refering to certainly calls for the destruction of the state of Israel at the very least. However, what Ahmadinejad has done to his own people puts him in the 'loose cannon" category all by itself.

Spin baby spin.

So, I ask you - what horrific event was perpetrated by the U.S. against BL that justified BL committing numerous acts of terrorism?

I do not know but, if I were looking for an answer I would look at his history & involvement with the US.

Specifically the CIA.

He is a hateful nut. Do not give his "motives" too much credit. He is nothing but a thrill killer who uses politics to justify his murderous lust and to recruit the naive and stupid to carry out his plans.

Don't worry Alex, when chuck can't find evidence to disprove an argument, he resorts to Republican-tactics of smear, character assasination, petty and irrelevant technicalities, or, spelling or word choice. He also is sceptical of anyone's intellect.

You on the other hand, run and hide. You still haven't answered my question. What horrific event was perpetrated by the U.S. against BL that justified BL committing numerous acts of terrorism? You will recall your brilliant conclusion - "I know the automatic answer from you will be that America is only retaliating (regarding BL).....and so are they, tit for tat, ad infintum. So, I ask you - what horrific event was perpetrated by the U.S. against BL that justified BL committing numerous acts of terrorism?

I didn't answer because your question sounds like you mean Bin Laden, personally. Which is a silly question.

What is silly about it? You try to justify his murders constantly. What did the U.S. supposedly do to him?

Don't worry Alex, when chuck can't find evidence to disprove an argument, he resorts to Republican-tactics of smear, character assasination, petty and irrelevant technicalities, or, spelling or word choice. He also is sceptical of anyone's intellect.

You on the other hand, run and hide. You still haven't answered my question. What horrific event was perpetrated by the U.S. against BL that justified BL committing numerous acts of terrorism? You will recall your brilliant conclusion - "I know the automatic answer from you will be that America is only retaliating (regarding BL).....and so are they, tit for tat, ad infintum. So, I ask you - what horrific event was perpetrated by the U.S. against BL that justified BL committing numerous acts of terrorism?

I didn't answer because your question sounds like you mean Bin Laden, personally. Which is a silly question.

It appeared that YOU were referring to Bin Laden 'personally'. Here is the text of your post, which preceded my question, for your review:

"Were the Taleban terrorists? I don't think there was any violation of international law in "seeking" to apprehend the "suspect" initially when the US asked Afghanistan to hand him over. A little bit of spin there VL. Tut tut. Nevermind....

Don't get me wrong...I do not champion BL. I suggested that the technicality that the Taleban used was valid.

To me it is the same as if a lynch mob came to my door demanding I hand over some guy, perhaps a distant cousin. Using diplomatic speak, of course I will want the mob to jump thru the legal hoops first. I have little doubt as to the Talebans motives, nonetheless, due procees needs to be followed if allegations of breaching the law are to be avoided by "the mob".

Did Rodney King deserve his beating? I don't know, and perhaps he did. Nonetheless, his attackers were guilty of a crime because they did not follow the proper procedure.

I liken the US to a lynch mob (at the time) because, as an outside observer, I saw the hysteria that had been aroused in the US. Do you recall the hysteria? Even Sikhs, because they wore turbans, were being attacked by revenge-hungry red-necks. Innocent mosques were being vandalised etc.

How to stop BL?...perhaps make the first move or three towards being non-beligerant, stop being the antagonist. I know the automatic answer from you will be that America is only retaliating.....and so are they, tit for tat, ad infintum....so it all comes down to a history that I suspect predates 1948. Chuck has posted some good info.... but incomplete, I suspect.There are grudges that go back a long way."

Now Mr. HC, if you wish to retract your statement that "America is only retaliating.....and so are they, tit for tat, ad infintum..", then man-up and do so. Otherwise, answer the question - or, run and hide, or spin. Up to you.

Don't worry Alex, when chuck can't find evidence to disprove an argument, he resorts to Republican-tactics of smear, character assasination, petty and irrelevant technicalities, or, spelling or word choice. He also is sceptical of anyone's intellect.

You on the other hand, run and hide. You still haven't answered my question. What horrific event was perpetrated by the U.S. against BL that justified BL committing numerous acts of terrorism? You will recall your brilliant conclusion - "I know the automatic answer from you will be that America is only retaliating (regarding BL).....and so are they, tit for tat, ad infintum. So, I ask you - what horrific event was perpetrated by the U.S. against BL that justified BL committing numerous acts of terrorism?

I didn't answer because your question sounds like you mean Bin Laden, personally. Which is a silly question.

It appeared that YOU were referring to Bin Laden 'personally'. Here is the text of your post, which preceded my question, for your review:

"Were the Taleban terrorists? I don't think there was any violation of international law in "seeking" to apprehend the "suspect" initially when the US asked Afghanistan to hand him over. A little bit of spin there VL. Tut tut. Nevermind....

Don't get me wrong...I do not champion BL. I suggested that the technicality that the Taleban used was valid.

To me it is the same as if a lynch mob came to my door demanding I hand over some guy, perhaps a distant cousin. Using diplomatic speak, of course I will want the mob to jump thru the legal hoops first. I have little doubt as to the Talebans motives, nonetheless, due procees needs to be followed if allegations of breaching the law are to be avoided by "the mob".

Did Rodney King deserve his beating? I don't know, and perhaps he did. Nonetheless, his attackers were guilty of a crime because they did not follow the proper procedure.

I liken the US to a lynch mob (at the time) because, as an outside observer, I saw the hysteria that had been aroused in the US. Do you recall the hysteria? Even Sikhs, because they wore turbans, were being attacked by revenge-hungry red-necks. Innocent mosques were being vandalised etc.

How to stop BL?...perhaps make the first move or three towards being non-beligerant, stop being the antagonist. I know the automatic answer from you will be that America is only retaliating.....and so are they, tit for tat, ad infintum....so it all comes down to a history that I suspect predates 1948. Chuck has posted some good info.... but incomplete, I suspect.There are grudges that go back a long way."

Now Mr. HC, if you wish to retract your statement that "America is only retaliating.....and so are they, tit for tat, ad infintum..", then man-up and do so. Otherwise, answer the question - or, run and hide, or spin. Up to you.

No, no retraction from me needed. You're a fine one to talk about manning up; I seem to be about the only one here that does that.....White Russian admited a mistake recently I recall...certainly none from your side of the fence.

Of course BL was referred to personally in the context of America invading Afghnaistan.....he was, after all, the excuse that was cited on these pages.

Notice I said "they" in the tit for tat sentence. Then you twist things around.

(PS...is anyone else having problems with the pages loading)

(PS...is anyone else having problems with the pages loading)

The whole site has been having a problem for a few day now...off & on

Ending the Cycle of Drugs and Death

With its forces now planted in the dragon's teeth soil of Afghanistan, Washington is locked into what looks to be an unending cycle of drugs and death. Every spring in those rugged mountains, the snows melt, the opium seeds sprout, and a fresh crop of Taliban fighters takes to the field, many to die by lethal American fire. And the next year, the snows melt again, fresh poppy shoots break through the soil, and a new crop of teen-aged Taliban fighters pick up arms against America, spilling more blood. This cycle has been repeated for the past ten years and, unless something changes, can continue indefinitely.

Is there any alternative? Even were the cost of rebuilding Afghanistan's rural economy -- with its orchards, flocks, and food crops -- as high as $30 billion or, for that matter, $90 billion dollars, the money is at hand. By conservative estimates, the cost of President Obama's ongoing surge of 30,000 troops alone is $30 billion a year. So just bringing those 30,000 troops home would create ample funds to begin the rebuilding of rural life in Afghanistan, making it possible for young farmers to begin feeding their families without joining the Taliban's army.

Short of another precipitous withdrawal akin to 1991, Washington has no realistic alternative to the costly, long-term reconstruction of Afghanistan's agriculture. Beneath the gaze of an allied force that now numbers about 120,000 soldiers, opium has fueled the Taliban's growth into an omnipresent shadow government and an effective guerrilla army. The idea that our expanded military presence might soon succeed in driving back that force and handing over pacification to the illiterate, drug-addicted Afghan police and army remains, for the time being, a fantasy. Quick fixes like paying poppy farmers not to plant, something British and Americans have both tried, can backfire and end up actually promoting yet more opium cultivation. Rapid drug eradication without alternative employment, something the private contractor DynCorp tried so disastrously under a $150 million contract in 2005, would simply plunge Afghanistan into more misery, stoking mass anger and destabilizing the Kabul government further.

So the choice is clear enough: we can continue to fertilize this deadly soil with yet more blood in a brutal war with an uncertain outcome -- for both the United States and the people of Afghanistan. Or we can begin to withdraw American forces while helping renew this ancient, arid land by replanting its orchards, replenishing its flocks, and rebuilding the irrigation systems ruined in decades of war.

At this point, our only realistic choice is this sort of serious rural development -- that is, reconstructing the Afghan countryside through countless small-scale projects until food crops become a viable alternative to opium. To put it simply, so simply that even Washington might understand, you can only pacify a narco-state when it is no longer a narco-state.

Full article here....kind of interesting & lots about the poppy/opium angle

http://www.hnn.us/articles/125034.html

You're a fine one to talk about manning up; I seem to be about the only one here that does that.....White Russian admited a mistake recently I recall...certainly none from your side of the fence.

Venturalaw admits mistakes whenever he makes them - as he did about Jewish terrorists and several other things. How about a little honesty?

With regard to you correcting my contention that there are no Jewish terrorists, I agree. I was incorrect.

Maybe we can cut all the little personal yada yada yada... he said ...she said...

I would hate to see another thread closed over such

Maybe we can cut all the little personal yada yada yada... he said ...she said...

I would hate to see another thread closed over such

Ahhh, hahaha, it must be something pointed towards me, I guess. The silly man knows I am ignoring him, so why would he direct a comment to me? Childishness or ignorance?

Maybe we can cut all the little personal yada yada yada... he said ...she said...

I would hate to see another thread closed over such

Ahhh, hahaha, it must be something pointed towards me, I guess. The silly man knows I am ignoring him, so why would he direct a comment to me? Childishness or ignorance?

Well you know I warned you about that low orbit before .... I know that silly pull is strong but it just goes nowhere & in the end anytime I was pulled I always feel silly for having let myself sink to it.

Anyway.........

Yeah this thread has lasted awhile & would hate to see it shut down but.we will see

Maybe we can cut all the little personal yada yada yada... he said ...she said...

I would hate to see another thread closed over such

Another example of do what I say, not what I do. Why don't you follow your own advice before you start pretending to be a mod?

by the way, I am not the one who vowed to put anyone on ignore. Dishonest posts are always fair game.

Ending the Cycle of Drugs and Death

With its forces now planted in the dragon's teeth soil of Afghanistan, Washington is locked into what looks to be an unending cycle of drugs and death. Every spring in those rugged mountains, the snows melt, the opium seeds sprout, and a fresh crop of Taliban fighters takes to the field, many to die by lethal American fire. And the next year, the snows melt again, fresh poppy shoots break through the soil, and a new crop of teen-aged Taliban fighters pick up arms against America, spilling more blood. This cycle has been repeated for the past ten years and, unless something changes, can continue indefinitely.

Is there any alternative? Even were the cost of rebuilding Afghanistan's rural economy -- with its orchards, flocks, and food crops -- as high as $30 billion or, for that matter, $90 billion dollars, the money is at hand. By conservative estimates, the cost of President Obama's ongoing surge of 30,000 troops alone is $30 billion a year. So just bringing those 30,000 troops home would create ample funds to begin the rebuilding of rural life in Afghanistan, making it possible for young farmers to begin feeding their families without joining the Taliban's army.

Short of another precipitous withdrawal akin to 1991, Washington has no realistic alternative to the costly, long-term reconstruction of Afghanistan's agriculture. Beneath the gaze of an allied force that now numbers about 120,000 soldiers, opium has fueled the Taliban's growth into an omnipresent shadow government and an effective guerrilla army. The idea that our expanded military presence might soon succeed in driving back that force and handing over pacification to the illiterate, drug-addicted Afghan police and army remains, for the time being, a fantasy. Quick fixes like paying poppy farmers not to plant, something British and Americans have both tried, can backfire and end up actually promoting yet more opium cultivation. Rapid drug eradication without alternative employment, something the private contractor DynCorp tried so disastrously under a $150 million contract in 2005, would simply plunge Afghanistan into more misery, stoking mass anger and destabilizing the Kabul government further.

So the choice is clear enough: we can continue to fertilize this deadly soil with yet more blood in a brutal war with an uncertain outcome -- for both the United States and the people of Afghanistan. Or we can begin to withdraw American forces while helping renew this ancient, arid land by replanting its orchards, replenishing its flocks, and rebuilding the irrigation systems ruined in decades of war.

At this point, our only realistic choice is this sort of serious rural development -- that is, reconstructing the Afghan countryside through countless small-scale projects until food crops become a viable alternative to opium. To put it simply, so simply that even Washington might understand, you can only pacify a narco-state when it is no longer a narco-state.

Full article here....kind of interesting & lots about the poppy/opium angle

http://www.hnn.us/articles/125034.html

There's alot of reason there. The "War On Drugs" was decalred a bit before the "War on Terrorism".

Incidentally, DynCorp is the group that have just offered me a contract.....I will have to research them further.

Another example of do what I say, not what I do. Why don't you follow your own advice before you start pretending to be a mod?

Grow up...not out

Look at this page for reference....

VL & Harcourt having a word...you gotta jump in it with the 1 line taunts

Chuck & Harcourt having a word...exact same M.O. you feel the need to jump in

both times none was talking to you. You need not answer for others. Get a life

Exact same that got LaoPo's thread closed too...

You dont need a mod you need a mommy to slap you into next week.

Really get off the thread or get on the topic.

Come on chuck, be reasonable. You say he is a loose cannon, presumably based on statements made by Western sources such as "he has said he wants to wipe Israel off the map". When that is refuted, you come round full circle and ask why he should be defended because he is a loose cannon

It was not refuted. He has said it more than once in different ways and the quote that you are refering to certainly calls for the destruction of the state of Israel at the very least. However, what Ahmadinejad has done to his own people puts him in the 'loose cannon" category all by itself.

Spin baby spin.

I am not the one who is telling other people posters what to do and then doing the opposite. I am on topic when not pointing out nonsense posts from the peanut gallery. Why don't you try to do what you are telling other people to do?

And Kohee, bravo you finally admit that even you have been fooled in make believe some statements made on MSM.

I finally admit it? HELLOOOOOOOOO, I'm a politically center-right American. You don't have to tell me what bullsh*t the MSM shovels to the masses. Geez.

Alex:

3. Why are you so rabid about defending what Ahmadinijad is saying? The jerk is a loose cannon.

Thanks for any response.

Come on chuck, be reasonable. You say he is a loose cannon, presumably based on statements made by Western sources such as "he has said he wants to wipe Israel off the map". When that is refuted, you come round full circle and ask why he should be defended because he is a loose cannon, based on a statement that has had alot of doubt put on it...... round and round we go. Surely the circle stops at the most credible piece of evidence? In this case, that Ahmedinejad has been misquoted (probably deliberately at that because it fits the Western right-wing agenda).

So you're saying that the millions of Iranians protesting him are brianwashed by poor Western translations of his speeches? As well as his arab neighbors I guess. What friends/allies does he have in the world? Hugo Chavez? Yet another nutjob - again according to his own people.

There's alot of reason there. The "War On Drugs" was decalred a bit before the "War on Terrorism".

Incidentally, DynCorp is the group that have just offered me a contract.....I will have to research them further.

I know some folks in management with DynCorp. I used to play golf every weekend with the Middle East VP in Riyadh. They are a reputable company. You want a reference from me?

Alex:

3. Why are you so rabid about defending what Ahmadinijad is saying? The jerk is a loose cannon.

Thanks for any response.

Come on chuck, be reasonable. You say he is a loose cannon, presumably based on statements made by Western sources such as "he has said he wants to wipe Israel off the map". When that is refuted, you come round full circle and ask why he should be defended because he is a loose cannon, based on a statement that has had alot of doubt put on it...... round and round we go. Surely the circle stops at the most credible piece of evidence? In this case, that Ahmedinejad has been misquoted (probably deliberately at that because it fits the Western right-wing agenda).

So you're saying that the millions of Iranians protesting him are brianwashed by poor Western translations of his speeches? As well as his arab neighbors I guess. What friends/allies does he have in the world? Hugo Chavez? Yet another nutjob - again according to his own people.

No, I'm not saying that at all. I'm saying that the argument that he is evil or a nutter based on, "he has vowed to wipe Israel off the map" is spurious, and thus it is silly to ask "why are you defending him?" simply because it has been pointed out that the argument is hollow.

Get it?

Even if you believe that, how about all the other stuff that you purposely ignore?

Alex:

3. Why are you so rabid about defending what Ahmadinijad is saying? The jerk is a loose cannon.

Thanks for any response.

Come on chuck, be reasonable. You say he is a loose cannon, presumably based on statements made by Western sources such as "he has said he wants to wipe Israel off the map". When that is refuted, you come round full circle and ask why he should be defended because he is a loose cannon, based on a statement that has had alot of doubt put on it...... round and round we go. Surely the circle stops at the most credible piece of evidence? In this case, that Ahmedinejad has been misquoted (probably deliberately at that because it fits the Western right-wing agenda).

There you go again, Harcourt. You are assuming my claim about him being a loose cannon is..." presumably based on statements made by Western sources such as "he has said he wants to wipe Israel off the map".

Wouldn't you think my decision making would be flawed if somebody came to me and told me, "You know, that fellow Harcourt is a real idiot. Did you read his post today on the XYZ thread?"

Now, if I answered in the affirmative and agreed that you are, indeed a real idiot based on only that one post, would it not seem that I was totally unfair in my judgement and really not thorough in my decision making?

However, if I answered, "Yes, I have read the body of his work and I agree with you that he is a real idiot", then it would seem I had been deductive in my reasoning and I had made a responsible decision based on all the facts at my disposal.

I try to make my decisions based on the best available information at hand and hardly have made my decision that Ahmadinejad is a "loose cannon" based on the one quote you have cited. My decision is based on the body of work I have seen coming from him, much as my opinion of you is based on your entire body of work and not merely one post.

This post and reference to you should not be taken as any admission or opinion from me that you are, in fact, a real idiot. I have used this example for instructional purposes only.

You made it very plain that you were judging Ahmadinejad for more than one incident. An award winning post!

Don't worry Alex, when chuck can't find evidence to disprove an argument, he resorts to Republican-tactics of smear, character assasination, petty and irrelevant technicalities, or, spelling or word choice. He also is sceptical of anyone's intellect.

You on the other hand, run and hide. You still haven't answered my question. What horrific event was perpetrated by the U.S. against BL that justified BL committing numerous acts of terrorism? You will recall your brilliant conclusion - "I know the automatic answer from you will be that America is only retaliating (regarding BL).....and so are they, tit for tat, ad infintum. So, I ask you - what horrific event was perpetrated by the U.S. against BL that justified BL committing numerous acts of terrorism?

I didn't answer because your question sounds like you mean Bin Laden, personally. Which is a silly question.

What is silly about it? You try to justify his murders constantly. What did the U.S. supposedly do to him?

UG, I knew he would not stand up. So, he's relying upon his use of the word 'they' (spinning) in the tit for tat sentence. Ok, then what did the US do to 'them' to justify the numerous terrorist attacks perpetrated by Bin Landen? By the way HC, you are also wrong about my not admitting mistakes. Perhaps you are not familiar with the concept of 'manning-up'. Come to think of it, that would explain a lot.

A lot indeed.

More blowback?

http://www.atimes.com/atimes/South_Asia/LC30Df01.html

Karzai's China-Iran dalliance riles Obama

Mar 30, 2010 By M K Bhadrakumar

Great moments in diplomatic timing are hard to distinguish when the practitioners are inscrutable entities. Afghan President Hamid Karzai's visits to China and Iran within the week rang alarm bells in Washington which were heard in the Oval Office of the White House.

Karzai's two days of talks in Beijing last week were scheduled exactly at the same time as the high-profile strategic dialogue taking place between the United States and Pakistan in Washington.

Karzai has coolly defied the President Barack Obama's do-or-die diplomatic campaign to "isolate" Iran in the region - not once but twice during the past fortnight. Karzai earlier received his Iranian counterpart, Mahmud Ahmadinejad, with manifest warmth in Kabul while the US Defense Secretary Robert Gates was on a visit to Afghanistan.

Washington lost no time signaling its displeasure. Obama flew into Kabul on Sunday unannounced for an "on the ground update" from Karzai.

US national security advisor James Jones told the White House press party that Obama hoped to help Karzai understand that "in this second term there are things he has to do as the president of his country to battle the things that have not been paid attention to almost since day one".

Jones's unusually sharp comment bears out the New York Times report from Kabul that Obama "personally delivered pointed criticism" to the Afghan president that "reflected growing vexation" with him.

It seems Karzai had barely got back to Kabul from Tehran when the US Air Force One carrying Obama landed in Bagram air base north of the Afghan capital. Obama has since asked Karzai to go over to Washington on May 12.

Spring is in the air Clearly, the Americans are furious that Karzai is steadily disengaging from the US's grip and seeking friendship with China and Iran. Pretences of cordiality are withering away even as Washington realizes that the ground beneath its feet is shifting.

...

But Beijing cannot be oblivious of the underlying US regional strategy to frustrate China's efforts to gain access routes to the Persian Gulf region via Central Asia bypassing the Malacca Strait, which is effectively under American control. The US strategy cannot work unless Pakistan falls in line.

....

WR says:

Build the Kra (Thai) canal! oops, that will screw Indonesia, Singapore, and turn Thailand into a strategic player... and thus a target. Plus rumour has it that Singapore supports Thailand, in order to retain its position as master of the straits...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thai_Canal

Afghanistan shares a border with Iran and China. There is no reason why Karzai shouldn't meet with them. Long after the USA & NATO leave, those countries will still be neighbors.