http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20071018/ap_on_re_as/pakistan US priority should be stabilizing Pakistan. Now.
Why even bother anymore? BushCo has ********ed the world so badly that a searing, fiery death is simply inevitable for all of us. I'm gonna grab a vodka + soda. ******** it. ******** it all. EDIT: Hail Grimes!
I'd say the #1 US priority should be getting things to chill out in Pakistan - in Jan 2009. Right now esteemed president Screwup Whatever-i-Touch should be focusing on clearing brush on his ranch and not weedwacking his head off, not "helping" make things better in Pakistan
And help the dictator consolidate his power, I guess. At least he seems like a relatively benevolent dictator.
I don't understand. We should send more money? Guns? Lawyers? What? I think you're just making light of the fact that you have no positive comment.
There's a lot to worry about, but right now we should be expressing our sorrow and compassion for the thousands suffering from this horrific act. It's so senseless.
They'll keep trying. They can miss many times, only have to be successful once. It's not senseless. Barbaric, yes. This is exactly the aQ & Taliban strategy: use of terror to force all to comply with them. How dare a liberal woman try to participate in a democracy?
Mrs. Bhutto has her own ideas on the attackers: http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/asia/article2694292.ece "accused high-ranking members of Pakistan's intelligence services of being behind the attack" "Ms Bhutto said: "The Talebs and the Islamists extremists cannot act alone. They can't commit their suicide attacks from a mountain cave. They need logistics, food, weapons and someone to supervise them." ... called for the head of the Intelligence Bureau, the civilian intelligence agency, to be dismissed." http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/asia/article2693557.ece
First, we need to make sure Bhutto gets offed. I'm not saying the CIA actually needs to kill her, just be sure it gets done. And then there's those millions of Pakistanis who want democracy back. Bombs and other terrorist acts alone won't be enough to put them down; Musharef is going to need to go-ahead to really crack some skulls and get medieval of their asses. And the earlier concessions made to the Supreme Court need to be revoked--secular, rule-of-law types got the wrong message from that. THEN Musharef can get back to his original strategy of appeasing the Islamist elements in Pakistani society and keeping hands off of the Tribal areas. Sorry, I just think the Cold War-era "He may be an SOB but he's OUR SOB" -type thinking needs to go into the trashbin of history.
More than 100 killed in Pakistan bomb blast near Bhutto Mrs. Bhutto has some more ideas about the attackers: http://breakingnews.nypost.com/dynamic/stories/P/PAKISTAN?SITE=NYNYP&SECTION=HOME "There was one suicide squad from the Taliban elements, one suicide squad from al-Qaida, one suicide squad from Pakistani Taliban and a fourth group, I believe, from Karachi," she in a news conference. ... Bhutto blamed militants for the attack, which drew international condemnation. ... She did not blame the government ... "I'm not accusing the government but certain individuals who abuse their positions and powers," she said.
The recent governments of Pakistan have been very corrupt. Musharraf has done his bit to clean things up a little, but he needs to manage a transition to democracy. By money, guns and lawyers, the US has (had) the opportunity to set up infrastructure projects like roads, schools and health clinics during the early phases of the war on terror. The infrastructure would've provided much insight to how the culture in rural Pakistan was evolving, we would have learned about their social and power strcuture, and we would have curried favor with the locals. Unfortunately, the Saudis made the investment, so schools tended to madrassas instead of secular schools. By guns, I meant military support for Musharraf, an appropriate amount of intelligence support and additional training for their police services. Musharraf has been a key ally in the war on terror. They do have the bomb. They do have a chance of becoming a non-secular state, more aligned with al Qaeda. By lawyers, we need contracts with them. Business arrangements, military cooperation agreements, trade and technology exchanges. Deepen our financial relationships with the country, and they are much more likely to aligned with our interests. We would be on a common path to a free market democracy. But no, we bombed the shit out of Iraq and created a huge training ground for "insurgents."
I believe that in referencing the Warren Zevon song, he was saying that this is a desperate situation and we should be using all the tools in our disposal.
Wait, what? Don't we want this chick to be running things as she's the secular candidate? Seems to me having an extremist-friendly guy like Musharraf in control is backwards in fighting terrorism in Waziristan.
I was being sarcastic. My point was that calling Musharraf (I think I was spelling it wrong before) a "benevolent dictator" was not only the same sort of short-sighted realpolitik which created so many of our current international problems, it also ignores the fact that a great many Pakistanis want real democracy, and Bhutto might very well be the figure to help transition their country BACK to that state of political affairs.
It appears that those who don't want democracy in Pakistan brought that message directly to Mrs. Bhutto yesterday. They are not discouraged by failure and will act again. How will Mrs. Bhutto be able to deal with these groups?
Well, the unspoken knowledge is that Musharef relies on the support of the Pakistani version of the CIA/FBI/NSA to maintain control. But those are the same guys who are closely connected to muslim extremists (& taliban). They are useful to him because they keep the western tribes focused on talibanizing Afghanistan, and killing Indians in the disputed border to the east. Musharef ain't done a heckuva lot to get rid of them. Mrs Bhutto on the other hand ain't got close ties to those folks. She may not be able to neutralize them, but I'd have to imagine that if in power, she'd issue a lot of pink slips in the Pakistani CIA/FBI/NSA. Which may not eliminate the threat, but would remove them from the corridors of power in Pakistan - which Pervez refuses to do. That's gotta be a positive step forward.
Bhutto is not the solution to the problem. She is part of the problem. As we find out in her first day, her return is not going to relieve political tensions but instead of increasing it. Bhutto's return and assumes the job of Prime Minister is being considered as a new Western-style regime change in many of Pakistani's eyes. The extremist fuctions even called her a dog of US and viewing her return as Northern Alliance moves in to Kabul. Bhutto's stances are: --support US military incursions into tribal areas --support US direct questioning of Dr. A. Khan These two issues will cause major sentiments in Pakistan. She also --being cleared her corruption charge (pressures from US and UK) that unfreezing $1.5B of her Swiss bank accounts. That is not going well with the population are still very poor. --also only politican who support Red Masque crackdown strongly. If US and UK (70% of attack in UK are Pakistani related) want a stable Pakistan, they should stay out of way. Any move that is viewed US and UK generated will not go too well in Pakistan. Instead of creating a pro-Western government, US should try to have a government that doesn't hate West.