Pakistan's Turmoil Requires A Prudent U.S. Foreign Policy Response - Page 7

winston53660 · 11-13-07, 08:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bhkad

SELF DESTRUCTION made his administration a WMD threat to his neighbors.

Amazing the contradictory hoops you guys will jump through. I bet the Knights that say "ni" scare ya too.

cascadian · 11-13-07, 09:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bhkad

SELF DESTRUCTION made his administration a WMD threat to his neighbors.

He was always a threat. That's why we liked him. It was only when he attacked the wrong neighbor that we got p*ssed.

bhkad · 11-17-07, 04:48 AM

Quote:

Aunt Benazir's false promises
Bhutto's return bodes poorly for Pakistan -- and for democracy there.

By Fatima Bhutto

November 14, 2007

KARACHI -- We Pakistanis live in uncertain times. Emergency rule has been imposed for the 13th time in our short 60-year history. Thousands of lawyers have been arrested, some charged with sedition and treason; the chief justice has been deposed; and a draconian media law -- shutting down all private news channels -- has been drafted.

Perhaps the most bizarre part of this circus has been the hijacking of the democratic cause by my aunt, the twice-disgraced former prime minister, Benazir Bhutto. While she was hashing out a deal to share power with Gen. Pervez Musharraf last month, she repeatedly insisted that without her, democracy in Pakistan would be a lost cause. Now that the situation has changed, she's saying that she wants Musharraf to step down and that she'd like to make a deal with his opponents -- but still, she says, she's the savior of democracy.

The reality, however, is that there is no one better placed to benefit from emergency rule than she is. Along with the leaders of prominent Islamic parties, she has been spared the violent retributions of emergency law. Yes, she now appears to be facing seven days of house arrest, but what does that really mean? While she was supposedly under house arrest at her Islamabad residence last week, 50 or so of her party members were comfortably allowed to join her. She addressed the media twice from her garden, protected by police given to her by the state, and was not reprimanded for holding a news conference. (By contrast, the very suggestion that they might hold a news conference has placed hundreds of other political activists under real arrest, in real jails.)

Ms. Bhutto's political posturing is sheer pantomime. Her negotiations with the military and her unseemly willingness until just a few days ago to take part in Musharraf's regime have signaled once and for all to the growing legions of fundamentalists across South Asia that democracy is just a guise for dictatorship.

Continued at link.

http://www.latimes.com/news/printedi...ck=1&cset=true

Remember how quickly we all wanted to throw out Musharraf and anoint Benazir Bhutto the heir apparent?

The more information we get the more clearly we can see the subtle truths that exist just beyond the first impressions.

bhkad · 11-17-07, 05:26 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by winston53660

Then why the invasion?

Quote:

Originally Posted by bhkad

It was a policy that served us for 20 years and didn't have to end. Saddam self destructed.

Quote:

Originally Posted by bhkad

Why do you think?

And don't PLAY dumber than you actually are. You have read the reasons here many, many, many times.

Quote:

Originally Posted by winston53660

If Saddam self destructed as you are now claiming why the invasion?

Or should I just expect another obsfucating ephemeral dodge from you?

Quote:

Originally Posted by bhkad

SELF DESTRUCTION made his administration a WMD threat to his neighbors.

Quote:

Originally Posted by cascadian

He was always a threat. That's why we liked him. It was only when he attacked the wrong neighbor that we got p*ssed.

Franklin Roosevelt once said about some Latin American dictator, "He may be an SOB, but at least he's our SOB."

Saddam may have been an SOB, but he was OUR SOB until he no longer was.

And before he got the idea of invading Kuwait and threatening Israel he was as many, many other sovereigns in the world was and still are -- partially supported by the U.S.A. Like the Palestinians are. Like Egypt is. And that's just two that come to mind.

Did we support him to keep Iran in check? You betcha!

Was it a smart move from our point of view? You betcha!

Did any other nations benefit from this dynamic? Sure.

Why don't some of you ask what the USA would have done had Saudi Arabia tried to expand or threaten Israel with WMD's or develop a Nuclear weapon?

bhkad · 11-17-07, 05:40 AM

And let's not forget nor overlook this important fact:

Quote:

Wolf Blitzer at CNN reminded us a few years ago: "Almost every time U.S. military forces have been called into action to risk their lives and limbs, it's been on behalf of Muslims," to save the Afghanis against the Soviets, to liberate Kuwait from Saddam Hussein, to help Somalis, to help Muslims in Bosnia and then Kosovo and to overthrow the Taliban. To Afghanistan in our current global war on terror, we can add Iraq--and come to the realization that our policies and our military have liberated over 50 million Muslims in just the past five years."

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/art..._on_earth.html