Pakistan

[Cancel 2016.2]

http://article.nationalreview.com/print/?q=YzU2MTVlN2E2MmJmOWRjYjVkMjQ4ODI5NWRjZTJmOTU=

I know this is a long read and it is not a bush bashing article and thus expect only a handful will actually read it, but it brings up numerous possibilities of what "might" happen. It also admits that most of the experts are unsure of which way Pakistan will go.

My question to those who read the article is this...

What should the US do in this situation (in YOUR opinion)??

We obviously do not want to support a country that steps away from democracy, yet at the same time we do want to fight the islamic extremists that are hiding in the north of Pakistan (and where Osama is most likely to be at this time). So again, how should we proceed?

Personally, if we are asked to support the military and Musharraf in fighting the terrorists in the north, I think we should do so to the extent we can. At the same time we need to make it very clear publically that we expect a return to democracy upon the conclusion. We should also seek to garner UN forces for the effort as we are obviously stretched pretty thin with Iraq and Afghanistan.

Your thoughts, critiques etc.....?

 

[uscitizen]

It is Pakistans business not ours.

 

[Cancel7]

I can’t read an article that long at work. I can address your point though. What you are talking about is called “realpolitik” and it has a long and storied history in this country, and it is exactly why we were attacked on 9/11, because we have always supported dictators as long as they were “our” dictators.

So I say, no more realpolitik, no.

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

It is Pakistans business not ours.

So, to be clear....

1) you did not read the article

2) you did not address the fact that it is the same group of terrorists that are hitting us in Afghanistan and then hiding in Pakistan

3) you ignore the part where I ask whether we should help IF ASKED

4) you just felt like another of your one liners since you are quite obviously incapable of giving this any thought.

Got ya... thanks, glad you are so open to discussion.

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

I can’t read an article that long at work. I can address your point though. What you are talking about is called “realpolitik” and it has a long and storied history in this country, and it is exactly why we were attacked on 9/11, because we have always supported dictators as long as they were “our” dictators.

So I say, no more realpolitik, no.

But you did not address my point. Not in the least.

1) These terrorists in the north are the same group hitting us in Afghanistan

2) I stated clearly that we be very clear publically that we expected a return to democracy

3) I also stated that we should attempt to gain UN involvement as well

 

[uscitizen]

I am taking the same line on Pakistan as I did on Iraq.

I read all you stuff but not the big article.

My reasoning stands unchanged.

If the UN decides to go in we should do so as a participating UN member.
But nothing beyond that.

 

[Damocles]

But you did not address my point. Not in the least.

1) These terrorists in the north are the same group hitting us in Afghanistan

2) I stated clearly that we be very clear publically that we expected a return to democracy

3) I also stated that we should attempt to gain UN involvement as well

The UN tends to be afraid of involving themselves directly with nuclear powers.

The most you could expect from them is a strongly worded resolution telling them what they shouldn't be doing.

 

[Cancel7]

But you did not address my point. Not in the least.

1) These terrorists in the north are the same group hitting us in Afghanistan

2) I stated clearly that we be very clear publically that we expected a return to democracy

3) I also stated that we should attempt to gain UN involvement as well

All of your points are bs and the same old excuses.

No more realpolitik. When are you people going to learn? For every action there is an opposite and equal reaction. You support a dictator, the opressed will eventually come looking for your ass. Don't forget to look to the skies and plea "why do they hate us?" when that happens.

 

[uscitizen]

I predicted that Muskrats military govt would fall. And questioned why we were allying ourselves with him...

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

I am taking the same line on Pakistan as I did on Iraq.

I read all you stuff but not the big article.

My reasoning stands unchanged.

If the UN decides to go in we should do so as a participating UN member.
But nothing beyond that.

Except Iraq and pakistan are not the same. If the fight is against those we are already fighting in Afghanistan AND Pakistan has nuclear weapons, why the hell would we stand by and do nothing if there is a chance the islamist factions in the north could gain control?

Try to put a little thought into this. I promise... it won't kill you.

 

[uscitizen]

I put thought into it. I just think we should not dig our hole in the ME any deeper.
You are doing ther same old Bushist reasoning that got us into Iraq.

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

All of your points are bs and the same old excuses.

No more realpolitik. When are you people going to learn? For every action there is an opposite and equal reaction. You support a dictator, the opressed will eventually come looking for your ass. Don't forget to look to the skies and plea "why do they hate us?" when that happens.

Really? BS????

So the terrorists that are attacking us in Afghanistan have no base in northern Pakistan?

It is better to stand by and do nothing and just hope the "correct" group wins control of Pakistan?

Don't forget... the people also remember when you stand by and do nothing to help them when it was within your power to do so. We could just as easily try to get Bhutto and Musharraf together on setting a date for election as well as implementing a plan with them to get control of the north. (which would also help the people of Afghanistan)

But please, duck your head in the sand and let this play out on its own. Maybe we all should just hope for the best. That usually works.

 

[Cypress]

SF - let me clue you in. The US government has no interest in democracy in Pakistan. Assertions that we should encourage them to be a democracy are hollow words.

What we want is for them to have a secular strongman, with the fake trappings of "democracy" surrounding him.

We play with fire you get burned. You support dictators, and you piss people off. Its as simple as that. Even Ron Paul understands this.

I'm tired of waiting for bush fans to play catch up with reality. I said pakistan was a tinderbox, and potentially more dangerous to us than Saddam ever was. And I got laughed off by bush fans. This was less than a year ago.

Pretty much everything I've ever posted with regard to the iraq and the broader middle east has been right. And I had to run a guantlet of NeoCons laughing and telling me how wrong I was. I'm a little tired of that game. My answer to you: Do what Ron Paul or Dennis Kucinich would do, with regard to foreign policy and pakistan.

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

I put thought into it. I just think we should not dig our hole in the ME any deeper.
You are doing ther same old Bushist reasoning that got us into Iraq.

So you are saying that if a cival war broke out in Pakistan we should just hope those in the north don't win?

Good strategy.

 

[Cancel7]

"SF - let me clue you in. The US government has no interest in democracy in Pakistan. Assertions that we should encourage them to be a democracy are hollow words.

What we want is for them to have a secular strongman, with the fake trappings of "democracy" surrounding him.

We play with fire you get burned. You support dictators, and you piss people off. Its as simple as that. Even Ron Paul understands this. "

I agree Cypress.

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

"SF - let me clue you in. The US government has no interest in democracy in Pakistan. Assertions that we should encourage them to be a democracy are hollow words.

What we want is for them to have a secular strongman, with the fake trappings of "democracy" surrounding him.

We play with fire you get burned. You support dictators, and you piss people off. Its as simple as that. Even Ron Paul understands this. "

I agree Cypress.

What a completely ignorant statement. But I shouldn't expect any type of discussion from parrots.

 

[uscitizen]

So you are saying that if a cival war broke out in Pakistan we should just hope those in the north don't win?

Good strategy.

What if those in the North do win ? If we did not keep messing with them so much they would not mess with us.
like I say it is their country not ours.


Remember who started the Taliban SF ?

 

[TheDanold]

SF - let me clue you in. The US government has no interest in democracy in Pakistan. Assertions that we should encourage them to be a democracy are hollow words.

What we want is for them to have a secular strongman, with the fake trappings of "democracy" surrounding him.

We play with fire you get burned. You support dictators, and you piss people off. Its as simple as that. Even Ron Paul understands this.

I'm tired of waiting for bush fans to play catch up with reality. I said pakistan was a tinderbox, and potentially more dangerous to us than Saddam ever was. And I got laughed off by bush fans. This was less than a year ago.

Pretty much everything I've ever posted with regard to the iraq and the broader middle east has been right. And I had to run a guantlet of NeoCons laughing and telling me how wrong I was. I'm a little tired of that game. My answer to you: Do what Ron Paul or Dennis Kucinich would do, with regard to foreign policy and pakistan.

You're insane, I'd rather deal with a military dictatorship (Pakistan) than an islamic theocratic state (Iran). They both suck but only an idiot would claim that the former is worse for our security.
And if the Bush admin was not interested in democracy there they would have kept their mouth shut like many rather than chide Musharraf.
I see no way how we are supporting his dictatorship, there are no troops over there, foreign aid (no more than any other country) or what have you. So your point is nothing but a fearmongering red herring anyway.

I think this thread highlights how the left thinks that because they spoke a little louder against the war in Iraq that somehow it is presumed all things foreign policy they will end up right on. No one is saying you have to invade either Iran or Pakistan but for fucks sakes, it's not rocket science which one is in the nations better interest.

 

[Cancel7]

What a completely ignorant statement. But I shouldn't expect any type of discussion from parrots.

LOL I'm in such a good mood today SF, I don't care what you call me!

Later!

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

What if those in the North do win ? If we did not keep messing with them so much they would not mess with us.
like I say it is their country not ours.


Remember who started the Taliban SF ?

Do YOU remember WHY we trained them? Many of you seem to love harping on our support of first Iran, then Iraq, then those that became the Taliban, while ignoring WHY we did so.

AS for what if those in the north winning.... Pakistan, unlike Iraq, is nuclear. We do not want nukes in their hands.