|
FAQ | Members List | Calendar | Today's Posts | Search |
Topic Review (Newest First) |
Nov 13th, 2007 03:07 PM | |||||
KevinTheOmnivore | See, you were doing so well, and then you had to ruin it. | ||||
Nov 13th, 2007 02:47 PM | |||||
Geggy | I find it hard to believe the bush administration didnt see this one coming with what...their unconstitutional spying program...? | ||||
Nov 12th, 2007 11:49 PM | |||||
Preechr |
Let's try to keep in mind the limb the uniformed dictator wanna-be Musharraf stepped out on when he coerced his government into supporting our raids into Afghanistan, shall we? Remember that? Remember how we abandoned Pakistan altogether after the Iron Curtain fell and we no longer needed those listening posts? Do you recall how that allowed the Western Region to fall under the reign of the Taliban waaaaaaay back then? We were lucky to retain Pakistan's support at all. We barely edged in under the door of what happens when we abandon a country to Islamist extremism. If anything, you guys really need to be watching this through the filter of what happens if we ditch Iraq and Iran. We already did ditch Pakistan, and do you like what you see? Sure it's messy, but it's our mess. What we need is an America united on the task of straightening this mess out, not one divided against itself. It's obvious now that The Surge® is working, which means we actually do have a chance at succeeding with this crazy plan of Democratizing that entire armpit. Why NOT work together on further progress? Huh? |
||||
Nov 12th, 2007 08:38 PM | |||||
KevinTheOmnivore | There ya go, try that more often. | ||||
Nov 12th, 2007 04:42 PM | |||||
Geggy | What are you talking about? How can it be spam if the link i posted was related to the matter? If we get clear answers as of what had happened on that day when the jihad movement who have allegedy performed terror attacks in attempt to assassinate bhutto, who is pro-democracy as well as pro-war on terror, we would get better understanding of musharraf's motives for declaring state of emergency in pakistan and throwing bhutto in jail. The investigation continues to be inadeguate because the pakistan government have continously blocked inquiry into the terro attacks. Its no surprise that its widely suspected that pakistan government and their security angency had involvement because of the sour relationship between bhutto and musharraf. musharraf is probably nothing but a hypocrite who use terror as a tool to expand power to imprison those deemed a threat to his throne. | ||||
Nov 12th, 2007 10:21 AM | |||||
Geggy | Sorry Geggy, no more spam posts. - Kevin | ||||
Nov 9th, 2007 10:38 PM | |||||
ScruU2wice | I've probably read as much as you guys have, so I'm not any type of beacon for information on pakistani politics. I've actually completely ignored the workings of the "old country" until this mess started. | ||||
Nov 9th, 2007 03:26 PM | |||||
KevinTheOmnivore |
I use Leftist to differentiate people from Left-of-center types and Liberals. I don't think some of the activist/blogger-type elements we're seeing today are genuinely Liberals, and I think they should be separated. For consistency, let's call them "progressives" so that you not think me a McCarthyite or something. We disagree because you want to harp on and on about how wrong our policy is in Pakistan in the first place. It isn't. Foreign Policy is a collection of unfun choices, something a lot of presidents in the 20th Century, be them Democrats or Republicans, often learned the hard way. Strategically, if you supported the operation in Afghanistan (which I believe you did), it required a situation like this. Musharraf is abusing our partnership, and it's time to rein him in. I think Musharraf has gone too far. But with all due respect to Scru, the main reason anybody here in the States cares about this issue is because of our strategic relationship with Musharraf. There are Russian forces in Georgia right now beating the shit out of anti-government protestors, and their government is also considering a state of emergency. How much press does that get? Not a whole lot. So the lens we look through with Pakistan is how it alters our own goals. If the alliance with Musharraf was bad, well what would've been better? I've seen some advocating elections there, arguing that the Islamists are rather unpopular. I'm not so sure about that, perhaps Scru could enlighten us a bit. But to turn this into "omg, some war on terror! ha! Bush am i right!" seems silly to me. |
||||
Nov 9th, 2007 12:35 PM | |||||
mburbank |
Wait, you're ujnwilling to suspend our efforst in afghanistan, but you are willing to cut off his cash? Where to we disagree? And Kevin, pure curiosity here, what are you talking about when you talk about listening to 'leftists'. This isn't the 1950's. If all you mean is left of center, okay, but whenever you say 'leftists' you sound like some old gaurd McCarthyite to me. |
||||
Nov 9th, 2007 09:33 AM | |||||
KevinTheOmnivore |
Once again, there are two different discussions here. Max, if you're content to abandon the effort in Afghanistan, or at least suspend it, then you have an argument. But I have to listen every day to Leftists telling me about how we need to utilize more "realism" in our foreign policy...well this is realism. We have a strategic need in the region, and we're using an ally in the area to achieve it. I know every issue has to have a Bush angle with you, but I'm still waiting on an alternative strategic idea from you on how to properly arm and supply our forces in Afghanistan. It's not just a "bombing campaign" like you suggested. Would you rather get cozy again with Uzbekistan? How about our friends the Chinese? There's civil unrest brewing in both of those nations too, so which would you like? Coke or Pepsi? Musharraf has gone way too far. People are drawing the Shah of Iran parallel, but there are problems with that. Regardless, We should suspend his cash and threaten to cut him off entirely until he releases Bhutto. It's unacceptable that he is making these arrests. He gave in to rescheduling elections again, but he needs to remove the uniform and be kept away from the country's elections. (Which, btw, the Bush administration has been pushing for). |
||||
Nov 9th, 2007 08:47 AM | |||||
mburbank | It does seem ironic that the way to fight fanatical extremism is by locking up pro democracy Lawyers and Judges and shutting down the press. | ||||
Nov 8th, 2007 11:47 PM | |||||
ScruU2wice |
yeah I didn't really give a shit what america needs to or is doing. No matter how fucked up our government is getting I can praise the lord that Bush isn't arresting people for political dissent. This situation is fucking ridiculous. There is absolutely no event that provoked this besides that cunt face losing a grip hold on his power. Maybe I'm just being a loud angry youth but I can't see how you can justify this or even sugar coat it like these lawyers and peace advocates are thugs and brutes trying to disrupt the ice cream social that is Pakistan |
||||
Nov 7th, 2007 01:09 PM | |||||
KevinTheOmnivore |
NY Times Quote:
|
||||
Nov 6th, 2007 02:44 AM | |||||
Preechr |
Hmmm... I'll defer to Kevin on this one. lol What exactly IS our alternative here, Max? Anybody? |
||||
Nov 5th, 2007 04:46 PM | |||||
KevinTheOmnivore |
Quote:
If we never had that, the invasion (and bombing) of Afghanistan would've been different. Not happen? No, we still would've attacked. But the point is pull out a map, and check out the despots and failed states surrounding Afghanistan. We needed Pakistan. Quote:
We didn't "look the other way," either. We can compel that regime in ways we can't do to others. We certainly wouldn't be able to do so with an Islamic regime. Quote:
There's a balancing act to just how much Musharraf can do for us, lest he come across as he is coming across right now. When a dictator acts, people tend to notice. Motives be damned. Quote:
Musharraf can crush the radicals militarily, but then he loses a political battle. I believe the actions over the last two days are the result of a neurotic and besieged military ruler...albeit a basically secular one, who snubs the religious courts and the radical Islamists. None of this is pretty, and none of it is easy. But our government has taken the correct position here--dismay and discretion. It has been a few days, and we need to see how it plays out. |
||||
Nov 5th, 2007 04:08 PM | |||||
mburbank |
I'm not advocating abandoning Mushariff. We have little choice but to stick by him, which he knows, which is why he acts so freely. My objection was getting so chummy with him in the first place, but like everything else, it's far too late now. Did we need his support to route the Taliban? It was helpful, but that first step was mostly bombing. We could have used him as a wall at Tora Bora, we tried, it didn't work. After that we absolutely needed whatever he cared to give us since we took the war to Iraq. It's ironic that weapons of mass destruction, and passing nuclear knowledge to terrorist regimes, the supposed reasons we had to invade Iraq, are things we looked the other way for with Pakistan, because they were our allies. Realistically, we have about zero levarage with Pakistan. They can do whatever they want. However, I don't think we should beg for table scraps we're not going to get anyway. Mushariff has his own reasons to fear Al Quaeda. He's got a pretty narrow choice to make right now. Either go up against the tribal areas in a very ugly way he hasn't been willing to do this far, or make a deal with them. If he makes a deal, we are so in the shit it costs us little to cut off his cash. If he doesn't, we finance a nuclear military dictatorship in the cause of spreading democracy. But those were almost certainly the choices we'd end up with from the moment we chose to make Mushariff a lynchpin of our foreign policy. |
||||
Nov 5th, 2007 12:17 PM | |||||
KevinTheOmnivore |
It's not that simple, Max. The Left cries on and on about realism based foreign policy...well how would abandoning Musharraf be that? If we lose Pakistan, we lose military capabilities in Afghnistan. Which post-bloc, undemocratic regime would you like to make nice with in their place? Uzbekistan (they soured on us after we denounced some of their past behavior)? Kazakhstan? China??? Abandon Pakistan, and you abandon a legitimate focal point in the war on terrorism. And who should we instead support in Pakistan? Ali Eteraz recently put it best: Quote:
|
||||
Nov 5th, 2007 11:48 AM | |||||
mburbank |
It's pretty bad news, and Mushariff knows the US won't do anything more about it than make noise. Who would have thought the military dictator would prove such an unreliable ally in our efforts to spread democracy? |
||||
Nov 4th, 2007 09:03 PM | |||||
ScruU2wice |
Pakistan <3 martial law http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/04/world/asia/04cnd-pakistan.html?bl&ex=1194325200&en=348706ccda3156b4 &ei=5087%0A Now I'll admit that the only reason this has rattled my otherwise apolitical cage is because my parents are from this country and I have family there. That being said it still seems like some elaborate joke. Like every time you hear someone say that someplace is built on a indian burial ground you snicker a little. That's how I feel when I hear someone is working on doing a reenactment of V for Vendetta or 1984 with a real country. |