I wonder where this is going

Cancel7

Banned
Coalition in Pakistan Moves to Impeach Musharraf
By JANE PERLEZ
ISLAMABAD, Pakistan — Pakistan’s usually fractious coalition government moved decisively for the first time on Thursday to impeach President Pervez Musharraf, who has been an important American ally in the campaign against terror but who has largely been pushed to the sidelines since his party lost elections in February.
“It has become imperative to move for impeachment against General Musharraf,” said Asif Ali Zardari, the head of the Pakistan Peoples’ Party, standing beside Nawaz Sharif, the leader of the Pakistan Muslim League-N, at a noisy press conference.
The two, leaders of the main parties in the governing coalition, who have barely been on speaking terms in recent weeks, but they joined together in saying that Mr. Musharraf would be required to face a vote of confidence in the National Assembly, with the implication that if that vote did not pass then impeachment would immediately proceed.
As president, Mr. Musharraf — who seized power in a bloodless coup in 1999 — still has the constitutional power to fight back against the impeachment by dismissing Parliament.
But to do so he needs the agreement of the army, said Tariq Azim Khan, a former minister of information in Mr. Musharraf’s government and an ally of the president.
In an indication of the gravity of threat against him, Mr. Musharraf canceled Thursday his planned trip to Beijing to attend the opening ceremony of the Olympic Games.
The sudden cohesion of the coalition and the decision to try to remove Mr. Musharraf comes against the backdrop of a serious economic crisis in the country, a surging Taliban insurgency and popular sentiment that the four-month-old government has failed to deal with the urgent problems facing the country.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/08/world/asia/08pstan.html?_r=1&hp=&oref=slogin&pagewanted=print
 
Can't be good. I have to hand it to Musharaff, I thought he would be gone a year after we invaded Afghanistan.
 
So .. we're sure we want to rush into Pakistan and kill lots of innocent people .. AGAIN?

Anti-US protests in Pakistan and Afghanistan are wide spread, Musharref is going down, and the Taliban has gotten stronger.

Oh yeah .. and Pakistan has nukes.

So .. Obama wants to sort of end the war in Iraq so he can engage in a much more dangerous war in Afghanistan ...

Brilliant.
 
True dat. We should only engage in non-dangerous wars. Easy to win and all that, Maybe we can invade Iraq again.
 
True dat. We should only engage in non-dangerous wars. Easy to win and all that, Maybe we can invade Iraq again.

We should only engage in wars that have a purpose, a definable mission, and are in reaction to a direct action or threat.

Afghanistan meets none of the above.

Sounds like you were a cheerleader for the Iraq invasion.

With all due respect my brother .. spend some time with General Butler.

War is a Racket
http://www.ratical.org/ratville/CAH/warisaracket.html#c1

Written in 1939, but just as relevant today as it was then.

War is a racket, always has been, always will be.
 
We should only engage in wars that have a purpose, a definable mission, and are in reaction to a direct action or threat.

Afghanistan meets none of the above.

Sounds like you were a cheerleader for the Iraq invasion.

With all due respect my brother .. spend some time with General Butler.

War is a Racket
http://www.ratical.org/ratville/CAH/warisaracket.html#c1

Written in 1939, but just as relevant today as it was then.

War is a racket, always has been, always will be.
I have NEVER spoken in support of the Iraq war and you KNOW it. I do believe that we were correct in invading Afghanistan because they supported Al Qaeda. I think you should read Pat Buchanan's book, Hitler, Churchill and The Unneccesary War. You might find that you and he have more in common than you think. One of his beliefs is that England should have not resolved to defend Poland if attacked but let Germany have Liebenraum.
 
Back
Top