1
   

Pakistan

 
 
xingu
 
  1  
Reply Thu 8 Nov, 2007 06:56 am
After Pervez Musharraf declared martial law this weekend, Condoleezza Rice vowed to review U.S. assistance to Pakistan, one of the largest foreign recipients of American aid. Musharraf, of course, has been a crucial American ally since the start of the Afghanistan war in 2001, and the U.S. has rewarded him ever since with over $10 billion in civilian and (mostly) military largesse. But, perhaps unsure whether Musharraf's days might in fact be numbered, Rice contended that the explosion of money to Islamabad over the past seven years was "not to Musharraf, but to a Pakistan you could argue was making significant strides on a number of fronts."

In fact, however, a considerable amount of the money the U.S. gives to Pakistan is administered not through U.S. agencies or joint U.S.-Pakistani programs. Instead, the U.S. gives Musharraf's government about $200 million annually and his military $100 million monthly in the form of direct cash transfers. Once that money leaves the U.S. Treasury, Musharraf can do with it whatever he wants. He needs only promise in a secret annual meeting that he'll use it to invest in the Pakistani people. And whatever happens as the result of Rice's review, few Pakistan watchers expect the cash transfers to end.
http://www.tpmmuckraker.com/archives/004658.php
0 Replies
 
xingu
 
  1  
Reply Thu 8 Nov, 2007 07:00 am
President Bush tells Pakistan President Pervez Musharraf to take off his uniform and warns--with a straight face--that "you can't be President and head of the military at the same time":
0 Replies
 
Advocate
 
  1  
Reply Thu 8 Nov, 2007 09:33 am
It is a bit incongruous for Bush to tell Mushariff to take doff his uniform. While Bush doesn't wear a uniform, he is commander-in-chief of the military.
0 Replies
 
xingu
 
  1  
Reply Thu 8 Nov, 2007 09:55 am
Notice Bush did not tell him to stop being Commander-in-Chief. He told him to take off his uniform.

Is there more to this friendship with Mushariff than meets the eye?

Like to hear what Jon Stewart has to say about this.
0 Replies
 
xingu
 
  1  
Reply Thu 8 Nov, 2007 09:57 am
Maybe George has Laura wear camos for pajamas and his mind was wandering when he was speaking about Mushariff.
0 Replies
 
Advocate
 
  1  
Reply Thu 8 Nov, 2007 10:04 am
Maybe he was thinking of the bush.
0 Replies
 
Ramafuchs
 
  1  
Reply Fri 9 Nov, 2007 11:18 am
0 Replies
 
xingu
 
  1  
Reply Fri 9 Nov, 2007 12:27 pm
Musharraf's new court to give him 5-year term
By Isambard Wilkinson in Islamabad
Last Updated: 2:26am GMT 08/11/2007

Pakistan's Supreme Court is expected to declare within days that President Pervez Musharraf can legally stay in office for another five years.

If this landmark endorsement emerges, it would clear the way for Gen Musharraf to end the state of emergency having secured his grip on power. Allies predict he would then resign as army chief, in accordance with Western demands, and allow elections to be held.

Gen Musharraf imposed emergency rule when the Supreme Court was about to strike down his re-election by the National Assembly last month on the grounds that the constitution forbids anyone from combining the offices of president and army chief.

Having seized emergency powers, Gen Musharraf immediately sacked the Chief Justice, Iftikhar Chaudhry, and purged other independent judges.

He has since packed the Court with new justices. So far nine have been enlisted, eight of whom duly struck down the last decision of the previous bench who had declared Gen Musharraf's order imposing emergency rule to be illegal.

The aim is for the new appointees to give Gen Musharraf's re-election a clean bill of health.

"Within the next few days the court will be constituted and will rule on the case in short order," said a senior legal advisor to the regime.

"It will be good for the country as it will lead to a lifting of the emergency and to elections. But it will be opposed by Musharraf's political allies who do not want elections and his political enemies."

Senator Tariq Azim, the deputy information minister, said: "The case is pending before the court and we hope to have the verdict as soon possible."

He said the ruling could emerge before Gen Musharraf's term ends on Nov 15. He would then resign as army commander - in accordance with his earlier pledge.

"This will settle the major issue. When the ruling is given he can take oath for a second term and take off his uniform," said Mr Azim.

The White House yesterday warned Gen Musharraf that America's patience is not "never-ending" and that it expects him to return "soon" to the path of democracy.

David Miliband, the Foreign Secretary, told the Commons that Gen Musharraf "must" allow parliamentary elections to take place in January in accordance with the constitution.

"We are convinced that democracy, human rights and the rule of law are essential prerequisites for Pakistan's development," said Mr Miliband.

Gen Musharraf may agree to these demands - having seen his rule formally extended by a carefully packed Supreme Court.

The threat of unrest combined with increasingly bold strikes by Islamist miliants has caused Pakistan to withdraw thousands of troops from the Indian frontier, according to the defence ministry in New Delhi.

There are now "gaping holes" where Pakistani divisions once confronted their Indian counterparts. The reason for this re-deployment - which Pakistan's army officially denied had taken place - may be that Gen Musharraf is planning to send more troops to confront Taliban fighters on the north-west frontier.

Benazir Bhutto, the former prime minister, has called for mass demonstrations against the regime.

Ms Bhutto, who returned to Pakistan having come to the verge of agreeing to share power with Gen Musharraf, issued an ultimatum for the end of emergency rule.

"I appeal to the people of Pakistan to come forward. We are under attack," she said after meeting other opposition leaders in the capital, Islamabad.

Ms Bhutto vowed to hold a rally in the neighbouring city of Rawalpindi on Friday despite police threats of a crackdown.

After the press conference, several hundred of her supporters staged a small protest.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/11/08/wpak108.xml
0 Replies
 
blueflame1
 
  1  
Reply Sun 11 Nov, 2007 11:59 am
0 Replies
 
xingu
 
  1  
Reply Sun 11 Nov, 2007 02:17 pm
Those Nuclear Flashpoints Are Made in Pakistan

By Douglas Frantz and Catherine Collins
Sunday, November 11, 2007; B01

George W. Bush is hardly the first U.S. president to forgive sins against democracy by a Pakistani leader. Like his predecessors from Jimmy Carter onward, Bush has tolerated bad behavior in hopes that Pakistan might do Washington's bidding on some urgent U.S. priority -- in this case, a crackdown on al-Qaeda. But the scariest legacy of Bush's failed bargain with Gen. Pervez Musharraf isn't the rise of another U.S.-backed dictatorship in a strategic Muslim nation, or even the establishment of a new al-Qaeda haven along Pakistan's lawless border. It's the leniency we've shown toward the most dangerous nuclear-trafficking operation in history -- an operation masterminded by one man, Abdul Qadeer Khan.

For nearly four years, under the banner of the "war on terror," Bush has refused to demand access to Khan, the ultranationalist Pakistani scientist who created a vast network that has spread nuclear know-how to North Korea, Iran and Libya. Indeed, Bush has never seriously squeezed Musharraf over Khan, who remains a national hero for bringing Pakistan the Promethean fire it can use to compete with its nuclear-armed nemesis, India. Khan has remained under house arrest in Islamabad since 2004, outside the reach of the CIA and investigators from the International Atomic Energy Agency, who are desperate to unlock the secrets he carries. Bush should be equally adamant about getting to the bottom of Khan's activities.

Bush's sluggishness over Pakistan-based proliferation, even as he has funneled about $10 billion in military and financial aid to Musharraf since Sept. 11, 2001, is even harder to explain when one considers the damage Khan has done to the world's fragile nuclear stability. Khan used stolen technology and black-market sales to help Pakistan obtain its nuclear arsenal, setting the stage for a possible atomic showdown with India. He played a pivotal role in helping Iran start what we increasingly fear is a clandestine nuclear-arms program, allowing Tehran to make significant progress in the shadows before its efforts were uncovered in 2002. He gave key uranium-enrichment technology to North Korea. And if all this weren't enough, he was busily outfitting Libya with a full bomb-making factory when his network was finally shut down in late 2003. Khan has been held incommunicado ever since, leaving the world with new nuclear flashpoints -- and some burning, unanswered questions about his black-market spree.

The most urgent line of inquiry -- particularly given Bush's bellicose statements about the threat posed by Iran's nuclear ambitions -- centers on what exactly Khan provided to the Iranians over 15 years of doing business with them. He could help answer the questions on which war may depend: Is Iran trying to get the bomb? If so, how close is Tehran to obtaining it? Or are the mullahs simply pursuing a civilian nuclear capacity? We do know that Khan sold Iran advanced equipment to manufacture and operate the centrifuges that can enrich uranium, either to generate electricity or to provide the fuel for a weapon. But Khan's nuclear bazaar trafficked in other goodies as well -- including the blueprints for a Chinese-made nuclear warhead, which were found in Libya after Moammar Gaddafi abandoned his atomic aspirations in December 2003 and fingered Khan as his chief supplier.

Despite all these compelling reasons for interrogating Khan, the Bush administration has treated Musharraf with kid gloves, insisting that the general is simply too critical to the fight against Islamic extremism to jeopardize his tenuous hold on power by forcing him to hand over such a national icon. (The same type of flawed rationale is now being rolled out to defend U.S. timorousness in the face of Musharraf's repugnant crackdown on his political foes, the judiciary, the media and human rights groups.) The nastiest legacy of Musharraf's reign will almost certainly not be his turn toward tyranny. It will be his reluctance to get tough on Khan in the past and to question him now -- a reluctance echoed by U.S. reticence about demanding that Pakistan's leaders control its rogue nuclear network. The dangers those failures created will threaten the world long after Musharraf and Bush are gone.

In fact, Khan could have been stopped before he got started. In the mid-1970s, he was working as a mid-level scientist at a research laboratory in Amsterdam, preparing to steal top-secret Dutch plans for building centrifuges and busily compiling a list of potential suppliers for Pakistan's nascent atomic-weapons program -- the seeds of the procurement network that led Pakistan to the bomb. In the fall of 1975, the Dutch secret service discovered what Khan was up to and grew eager to arrest him on espionage charges. But more pragmatic officials from the Dutch economics ministry urged them to hold off, worried about the embarrassment of exposing a spy in the heart of their nuclear establishment.

The CIA turned out to be a tiebreaker. Ruud Lubbers, the Dutch economics minister at the time and later prime minister, told us that the security service had asked the CIA to support its pleas to bust Khan. But the Americans surprised their Dutch colleagues, asking that the scientist be allowed to continue working so that they could monitor his budding procurement operation. Instead of being thrown in jail, Khan was transferred to a less sensitive job. That demotion tipped him off that time was running out, so he bolted for home, taking with him the nuclear secrets that would help make Pakistan a nuclear power. It was a "monumental error," said Robert Einhorn, a senior State Department official who worked on arms control under Bush and President Bill Clinton.

Four years later, Washington got a second chance to stop Khan. By 1979, U.S. intelligence agencies had a clear picture of Pakistan's pursuit of nuclear arms and Khan's crucial role as the chief of its uranium-enrichment efforts. In April, Carter slapped economic sanctions on Pakistan -- a shrewd move that turned out to be woefully short-lived.

On Christmas Eve 1979, Soviet troops landed at Kabul International Airport, and by Christmas morning, Red Army soldiers were rolling across pontoon bridges in northern Afghanistan and fanning out across the country. Zbigniew Brzezinski, Carter's national security adviser, saw an opportunity to confront the Soviets by funneling money and arms to the nascent Afghan resistance movement, dominated by the zealous Muslim fighters who would one day become the Taliban and al-Qaeda. But Brzezinski's plan required using Pakistan as a conduit for aid to the anti-Soviet jihad, which meant abandoning the sanctions on Islamabad. "This will require a review of our policy toward Pakistan, more guarantees to it, more arms aid, and, alas, a decision that our security policy toward Pakistan cannot be dictated by our nonproliferation policy," Brzezinski wrote Carter in a memo dated Dec. 26, 1979.

Carter reluctantly agreed. But by revoking the sanctions, he granted Pakistan -- and Khan -- carte blanche on the nuclear front. Washington sacrificed the goal of stopping Pakistan's nuclear-arms effort, and the moral authority that the United States had used to advocate the cause of nuclear nonproliferation was severely damaged.

The blame did not end with Carter. During a campaign stop in Florida in January 1980, Ronald Reagan was asked about Pakistan's atomic ambitions. "I just don't think it's any of our business," he replied.

In office, Reagan and his aides made an art of ignoring Pakistan's march toward the bomb, including intelligence in 1987 that warned that Khan had transferred nuclear equipment to Iran. That transaction started Tehran's clandestine atomic program and marked Khan's transformation from a buyer of nuclear technology to a seller of it. Once again, an opportunity to stop him -- and to derail Iran's fledgling efforts -- was missed.

Bush brags that he helped shut down Khan's network. In fact, much of the damage had already been done. And even Bush's supposed great nonproliferation victory -- persuading Libya to abandon its secret nuclear program -- was too little, too late.

Between 1997 and 2003, we found, Libya paid Khan and his associates nearly $100 million for bomb-making technology and expertise. Among Libya's purchases were detailed plans, which arrived in Tripoli in 2000 or early 2001, for a Chinese warhead. International experts who have seen those designs strongly suspect that the Libyans copied them before turning the plans over to the Americans, along with their nuclear hardware.

In fact, the Americans could have acted against Khan before Libya ever got the nuclear designs. A CIA case officer nicknamed "Mad Dog" had recruited a Swiss technician at the center of Khan's ring who was providing regular reports on what was going to Libya. We don't know whether the mole was aware of the warhead plans, but we do know that he provided the CIA with a list of equipment so frighteningly thorough that British intelligence, after learning how much material Gaddafi was receiving, was clamoring for action against Libya well before the Americans agreed to move.

The mole also revealed another bombshell. In previously secret briefings with senior IAEA officials in Vienna, he disclosed that he had made electronic copies of the warhead plans in the fall of 2003, acting on orders from Khan, according to diplomats with direct knowledge of the briefings. The mole said that he sent the copies to Khan and one of his associates. But the plans have never surfaced.

Other items from Khan's deadly inventory are missing, too, including a shipment of centrifuge components and precision tools that disappeared in mid-2003. International inspectors worry that the material wound up in the hands of a previously unknown Khan customer -- perhaps Saudi Arabia or Syria, both countries where Khan had tried to peddle his wares before he was arrested. Another possible destination: Iran, where some U.S. and Israeli intelligence officials suspect that the military is operating a second, parallel enrichment program buried deep within the mountains that cover much of the country. But solving such dangerous riddles is apparently not as attractive as propping up a dubious ally in the fight against Islamic extremism.

In the Carter and Reagan years, the justification for going soft on Pakistan's nuclear adventures was always the hope of defeating the Soviets in Afghanistan. Under George H.W. Bush and Clinton, the CIA argued convincingly that it needed more information before striking at Khan. When it comes to Pakistan, there's always something -- some perfectly sensible, hard-headed reason for putting the dangers of nuclear proliferation on the back burner. And Washington's priorities may well stay that way until the very moment when the unthinkable occurs.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/11/07/AR2007110702280.html
0 Replies
 
Finn dAbuzz
 
  1  
Reply Sun 11 Nov, 2007 02:36 pm
spendius wrote:
Only last week about 150 people were killed in an attempt on Ms Bhutto's life.

And just think- we had it all taped once and American jealousy of our Empire brought us here. (That's an opinion held by many here).

Fair enough since there is an opinion held by many here that a large contributor to the current state of world affairs is the jealousy of America held by the Crumbled Empires. This theory of jealousy as a mover of current events, though, smells a bit of sour grapes when it flows from your side of the Atlantic. When it flows from here it probably smells a bit of arrogance so again, fair play..

I sometimes think that the US would rather be No1 in a complete bollocks-up than No2 in the gravy train.

Unlike, of course, the British Empire which voluntarily surrendered its place on the train when it saw its screw-ups mounting so alarmingly. quote]
0 Replies
 
Finn dAbuzz
 
  1  
Reply Sun 11 Nov, 2007 02:36 pm
spendius wrote:
Only last week about 150 people were killed in an attempt on Ms Bhutto's life.

And just think- we had it all taped once and American jealousy of our Empire brought us here. (That's an opinion held by many here).

Fair enough since there is an opinion held by many here that a large contributor to the current state of world affairs is the jealousy of America held by the Crumbled Empires. This theory of jealousy as a mover of current events, though, smells a bit of sour grapes when it flows from your side of the Atlantic. When it flows from here it probably smells a bit of arrogance so again, fair play..

I sometimes think that the US would rather be No1 in a complete bollocks-up than No2 in the gravy train.

Unlike, of course, the British Empire which voluntarily surrendered its place on the train when it saw its screw-ups mounting so alarmingly. quote]
0 Replies
 
blueflame1
 
  1  
Reply Sun 11 Nov, 2007 04:16 pm
Xingu, seems like there are Kahns closer to home too. Sibel Edmonds has a lot to say about nuclear sales but the government wants her to stay shut up. "SE: Essentially, there is only one investigation - a very big one, an all-inclusive one. Completely by chance, I, a lowly translator, stumbled over one piece of it.

But I can tell you there are a lot of people involved, a lot of ranking officials, and a lot of illegal activities that include multi-billion-dollar drug-smuggling operations, black-market nuclear sales to terrorists and unsavory regimes, you name it. And of course a lot of people from abroad are involved. It's massive. So to do this investigation, to really do it, they will have to look into everything."
0 Replies
 
Finn dAbuzz
 
  1  
Reply Sun 11 Nov, 2007 04:34 pm
Setanta wrote:
Kiss kiss Mr. Mountie.

So many times, they make it so easy to shoot them down in flames.


"Them?" Who are "them?"

Support of the military junta in Burma is hardly a Conservative position and so one has to wonder what you believe the source of "conservative propoganda" on this subject might be.

The poster who suggested that the military dictatorships in Burma and Pakistan are simply the only or best way to combat jihadism in their regions may indeed consider himself a conservative, but it is quite a stretch to assign some sort of official or semi-offical
Conservative support of this position based on his posting.

In reality, there are no serious conservative voices suggesting that the Burmese military regime is a bastion against Islamism, let alone that it should be supported for being same.

Your argument against the contention of the poster is, to the largest extent, valid, however it suffered greatly when you felt compelled to seek the affirming pats on the head of Squire Blatham et al.
0 Replies
 
Centroles
 
  1  
Reply Sun 11 Nov, 2007 04:35 pm
xingu wrote:
Letter from a Pakistani lawyer Juan Cole posted;

Shahin M. Cole, Esq., writes:

'I am one of those Pakistan-trained lawyers you have been hearing about. I have spent the last few days watching on television how my colleagues have been dragged, kicked, and beaten by hired hands, just because of their political views. My former law school professors, some of whom are now judges or justices, are under house arrest. There is a real sense in which I left my country of birth precisely because of obstacles to the free expression of political and religious views.

Americans, who enjoy constitutional liberties of long standing, should support the lawyers in their protest against the suspension of the Pakistani constitution. Lawyers are supposed to act as the guardians of the rule of law. They are not supposed to be prisoners and hostages to the powers that be. There is no excuse for Gen. Pervez Musharraf to treat educated, accomplished attorneys and barristers, many of them human rights workers such as the prominent woman activist, Asma Jahangir, this way. Ironically, the general has often posed as a supporter of women's rights, as when he established quotas to ensure the presence of women in parliament. Yet, he is now moving against women intellectuals and politicians for being outspoken.

How much of the blame for this crackdown can be laid at the feet of the Bush administration's unconditional support for the Pakistani military? The events of this week put the lie to the idea of a democratizing Pakistan with an independent judiciary and rule of law. If the US wants to play a fair and honest role in helping Pakistan achieve democracy and reducing the threat of religious extremism, here is what it can do.

The US should be earmarking aid to Pakistan not for military use but for funding and building schools for the millions of poor Pakistani children (some of them still from refugee Afghan families displaced by the US struggle with the Soviet Union in the Cold War). Such schools should stress east-west understanding. That would be one way of keeping children out of fundamentalist-funded madrassas and keeping them from being turned into Taliban. Provision of rural adult education through television and of free country-wide wi-fi internet access would also aid development. This educational aid would cost a pittance in comparison with what is being spent on military aid, and would be far less expensive than is fighting wars in the region.


Washington should keep pressure on the present government to hold free and fair elections for parliament on schedule. US aid for election observers and voter education would be well spent. The Bush administration has stressed democratization and the rule of law in the Muslim world. If it does not take practical steps toward those ideals in this crisis, America will altogether lose the confidence of the educated Muslim middle classes. If that happens, the ultimate winners may well be the Taliban and al-Qaeda. '

Shahin M. Cole holds an LL.B. from Punjab University Law School in Lahore, Pakistan.



Good point here. Brainwashing children in the anti-Western madrassas gives recruits to the Teliban and AQ. Those madrasses were, and may still be, funded by our good friend Saudi Arabia (ever think about how many Teliban and AQ terrorist Saudi Arabia created vs. Saddam Hussein?). We have to compete for the young minds and not think the military is the only solution.

Our enemies are smart enough to know that this is a long term conflict and they start recruiting young children through their schools. We help them along by doing stupid things such as attacking Iraq and reinforcing their message that we are nothing more than colonialist trying to steal their oil.


Thats a great post. If only this administration had that kind of common sense.
0 Replies
 
blueflame1
 
  1  
Reply Tue 13 Nov, 2007 08:30 am
http://wpcomics.washingtonpost.com/feature/07/11/12/po071112.gif
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Tue 13 Nov, 2007 04:33 pm
Finn dAbuzz wrote:
Setanta wrote:
Kiss kiss Mr. Mountie.

So many times, they make it so easy to shoot them down in flames.


"Them?" Who are "them?"

Support of the military junta in Burma is hardly a Conservative position and so one has to wonder what you believe the source of "conservative propoganda" on this subject might be.

The poster who suggested that the military dictatorships in Burma and Pakistan are simply the only or best way to combat jihadism in their regions may indeed consider himself a conservative, but it is quite a stretch to assign some sort of official or semi-offical
Conservative support of this position based on his posting.

In reality, there are no serious conservative voices suggesting that the Burmese military regime is a bastion against Islamism, let alone that it should be supported for being same.

Your argument against the contention of the poster is, to the largest extent, valid, however it suffered greatly when you felt compelled to seek the affirming pats on the head of Squire Blatham et al.


"Them" refers to those who swallow crap such as that member posted. The contention that we must support unpalatable and often murderous dictators has been a stock position of conservative propa[/b]ganda for decades. I don't claim that "serious" conservative "voices" suggest these sorts of things--it is not people who give serious thought to what motivates any particular regime and who have done their homework who come up with crapola such as that. But whether it was Ferdinand Marcos in the bad old days of the cold war (and a whole host of others whom we supported because they were ostensibly anti-communist), or Hosne Mubarek today, the song and dance is that we need strong leaders in such nations to keep a lid on the threat from . . . fill in the blank. Once that blank was filled in with "communism," now the blank is filled in with "Muslim terrorists." So, a segment of the public which knows no better swallows the claim that some people in the world are inherently dangerous, and incapable of maintaining a democratic state, and that therefore, we should accept that "strong men" who are the enemies of our enemies maintain brutal regimes.

Your suggestion that my remarks were made to acquire the approbation of Mr. Mountie, or anyone else, was a puerile attempt to insult--the sneer is your stock in trade, and i expect no less. You have succeeded marvelously in maintaining your low, low standards.
0 Replies
 
Ramafuchs
 
  1  
Reply Tue 13 Nov, 2007 05:25 pm
0 Replies
 
Finn dAbuzz
 
  1  
Reply Tue 13 Nov, 2007 06:23 pm
Setanta wrote:
Finn dAbuzz wrote:
Setanta wrote:
Kiss kiss Mr. Mountie.

So many times, they make it so easy to shoot them down in flames.


"Them?" Who are "them?"

Support of the military junta in Burma is hardly a Conservative position and so one has to wonder what you believe the source of "conservative propoganda" on this subject might be.

The poster who suggested that the military dictatorships in Burma and Pakistan are simply the only or best way to combat jihadism in their regions may indeed consider himself a conservative, but it is quite a stretch to assign some sort of official or semi-offical
Conservative support of this position based on his posting.

In reality, there are no serious conservative voices suggesting that the Burmese military regime is a bastion against Islamism, let alone that it should be supported for being same.

Your argument against the contention of the poster is, to the largest extent, valid, however it suffered greatly when you felt compelled to seek the affirming pats on the head of Squire Blatham et al.


"Them" refers to those who swallow crap such as that member posted. The contention that we must support unpalatable and often murderous dictators has been a stock position of conservative propa[/b]ganda for decades. I don't claim that "serious" conservative "voices" suggest these sorts of things--it is not people who give serious thought to what motivates any particular regime and who have done their homework who come up with crapola such as that. But whether it was Ferdinand Marcos in the bad old days of the cold war (and a whole host of others whom we supported because they were ostensibly anti-communist), or Hosne Mubarek today, the song and dance is that we need strong leaders in such nations to keep a lid on the threat from . . . fill in the blank. Once that blank was filled in with "communism," now the blank is filled in with "Muslim terrorists." So, a segment of the public which knows no better swallows the claim that some people in the world are inherently dangerous, and incapable of maintaining a democratic state, and that therefore, we should accept that "strong men" who are the enemies of our enemies maintain brutal regimes.

Your suggestion that my remarks were made to acquire the approbation of Mr. Mountie, or anyone else, was a puerile attempt to insult--the sneer is your stock in trade, and i expect no less. You have succeeded marvelously in maintaining your low, low standards.


That you, of all people, object to sneering insults is quite rich.

In any case, how do you reconcile your objection to the "neo-con" philosophy that led to the invasion of Iraq, and your claim that the dance with the devil aspect of real politik is the essence of conservative foreign policy?

What is the third way for enlightened souls such as yourself? Isolationism?

No one can acuse Nancy Pelosi of being a conservative and yet she proved more than willing to dance with the devil in Syria. As well, Sec of State Albright who was thrilled to dance with the devil of North Korea.

Maybe you're a closet neo-con.
0 Replies
 
Ramafuchs
 
  1  
Reply Thu 15 Nov, 2007 01:41 pm
"Anyone who still wonders why so many people in the Muslim World hate the west needs look no further than Pakistan, where, in the name of `democracy' and `counter-terrorism' Washington and London are stirring a witches brew of dictatorship, intrigue and violence."--Eric S. Margolis
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
  1. Forums
  2. » Pakistan
  3. » Page 2
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 04/26/2024 at 08:26:36