mimo2005

General Pervez Musharraf declares emergency rule in Pakistan

http://www.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/asiapc...ncy/index.html

__________________

TSF has outgrown its server, again. Please help


"Gutta cavat lapidem,
non vi sed saepe cadendo"

DumberDrummer

oh goody, and now to emergencyly declare war

__________________

Living with Louie dog's the only way to stay sane
_____________________________________________

... and with those words so begins my lifetime of longing for the devil's warm embrace

yustr

I wonder if he's got any weapons of mass destruction?

__________________
I didn't mean to say it. But I meant what I said. J. McMurtry

In Vino Veritas

bruiser

I think Pakistan is a nuclear power.

linderman

you dont really need to posses them; our king only has to "say" they have them to wage war

__________________



If you cant be polite and friendly; then please be silent.

Chode

I think today may mark a "First" for the forum. Unfortunately, it would be DumberDrummer, yustr, and linderman "not getting it" simultaneously.

Look, we've known for a long time that Musharraf is really nothing but a tin-horn dictator cut from the same cloth as Hugo Chavez, et. al., but he has been an ostensible supporter of the "War on Terrorism" so Bush has funneled lots of dollars and weapons his way. Even though most of Musharraf's support has just been lip service.

So, maybe we should be concerned about how this affects the people of Pakistan? Is it too much to expect that in a universe that revolves around the United States, that we could spare some consideration for the hardship, suffering, and bloodshed that this "state of emergency" is going to cause in Pakistan?

Yeah, didn't think so. Believe I'll leave my thoughts about other politcal and security implications for a later post.

__________________
Sweet!

linderman

I will give Musharef credit, he is a great student


he watched King George carefully, anyone who disagrees with his policies simply "fire" them (like the pakistan judges or the U.S. attorney generals office)

Musharef is nothing more than another "puppet" supported by the US government, when it all collapses just like the shaw of iran The U.S. will have YET again fueled the hatred of the masses with the desires of dictators that could care less about the needs and wants of its population.



then the citizens of the U.S. which are comfortably numb can sit back and wonder why they have yet another country that hates us.

__________________



If you cant be polite and friendly; then please be silent.

yustr

Of course they are...I should have put in the icon...

And Chode, I agree we need to look out for the people of Pak - I cannot recall when it ever has been beneficial when a dictator takes over all phases of a government.

Another case of "The enemy of my enemy is my friend" logic...lets hope we have sufficient influence to keep him from making even more of a mess in that part of the world.

__________________
I didn't mean to say it. But I meant what I said. J. McMurtry

In Vino Veritas

cstr20cstr

That statement offends me, better lock the thread.
/end sarcasm

That's the difference between the radical left, and the "radical" right in this country. The republicans believe in freedom of speech, even if it offends them. Leftists supress that free speech whenever offends them, or smacks them in the face for something they're wrong about.
That's what make the leftists in the U.S. more radical and dangerous than the right.

Chode

I was sorely in need of a good laugh today. Thanks, cstr, for providing one. More than one actually. First your post is totally off topic. Second, I can only assume it came from a '60's Acid flashback. The far right would never brand those who disagreed with them as traitors, Communists, atheists, or the like. They would certainly never fire them or attempt to publicly humiliate them simply because the disagreed with THE DOGMA.

But, I digress. How about turning some of that same keen insight toward the topic at hand. That would be Pakistan's State of Emergency and its implications; not whatever you are actually holding in your hand.

__________________
Sweet!

cstr20cstr

Actually, I wasn't too far off topic. Musharraf is supressing free speech in his country, and leftists try doing the same thing whenever something's not PC or against their "main stream" ideas.

linderman

Yeah, so why doesnt the current admin put more pressure on him to allow the "free" elections to move forward ?

The U.S. has a notorious reputation for supporting just such a suppressive dictator as long as our country's self interested are served. Similar to The Shaw of Iran, Marcos of the Phillipines and actually Sadamm too years ago, the list goes on and on.


Our nation talks more of freedom than we really propagate.

__________________



If you cant be polite and friendly; then please be silent.

Chode

"Not too far off" is relative. Like "just down the road a piece." But what concerns me about Pakistan isn't how much Musharraf's crackdown on political dissent mimics the Democratic Left's ruthless suppression of Anne Coulter and Rush Limbaugh, but how this is going to affect Pakistan, and ultimately, U.S. interests, and what attempts (if any) the U.S. should make to influence the situation.

On the one hand, I'm amused by how fast Bush can backtrack on his "Freedom Agenda" to promote Democracy, but on the other, I'm afraid that his "pragmatic" support of Musharraf is going to hurt our interests in the long run. I certainly don't think that the U.S. can wave a magic wand and remake the world in our own image, but I do believe the Administration should be more vocal about distancing itself from Musharraf right now. Sooner or later, he's going down just like the Shah, and I think we'd be wise to express more support for Democracy in Pakistan. After all, we could get the Taliban all over again: Iran v. 2.0.

I realize this wouldn't sit too well with Musharraf and could damage U.S./Pakistan cooperation, but Hell! last time I looked the Pakistanis weren't doing too much up on the Afghan border where most of the action is, and the use of troops to quell civil unrest is just going to detract from their already ineffective efforts.

__________________
Sweet!

cstr20cstr

Actually, the current administration has been condemning Musharraf's actions. It's just a matter of how much force people think people should or should not use against Musharraf.

For all we know, he may become another Sadam Hussein
And then GWB and the republicans would be condemned in the future for collaborating with him.......

Chode

Cstr, I think saying that the Administration is "condemning" Musharraf's "State of Emergency" is overstating it a bit. I'd say "Oh, bad Pervez! Oh, bad, wicked, naughty Pervez!" is closer to Bush's position.

But, on the bright side, if Musharraf should be supplanted by an Iranian-backed fundamentalist regime, we won't have to worry anymore about a potential Iranian nuclear weapons project. It'll be a done deal.

__________________
Sweet!

linderman

I am very skeptical / sorry



what the admin says in public and what they actually do to support musharef are often two different messages


anyone heard of any talk of sanctions ????????????

__________________



If you cant be polite and friendly; then please be silent.

linderman

isnt it odd how you may have to change your tactics when the "other" guy has a big stick too !

__________________



If you cant be polite and friendly; then please be silent.