Pakistan's Dictatorship

[PatrickHenry]

It seems the US media and the gullible right on this forum are plenny hoohoo about Chavez and Venezuela...

But they have nothing to say about the dictator of Pakistan and martial law there after years of suppressing democracy.

Is this because most of you are licking Uncle Sam's culo and nuclear-armed, democratically-challenged Pakistan is proclaimed an ally by the captive media?

That's what I think.

Here's what Benazir Bhutto, former PM of that nation had to say on CNN: http://rss.cnn.com/~r/rss/cnn_topstories/~3/179742501/index.html
I have long claimed that the rise of extremism and militancy in Pakistan could not happen without support from elements within the current administration. My return to my country poses a threat to the forces of extremism that have thrived under a dictatorship. They want to stop the restoration of democracy at any price. They have exploited a poor, desperate, and powerless people and allowed extremists the right environment in which to flourish.

The ruling party is an artificial, political party created in the headquarters of the Inter-Services Intelligence (Pakistan's equivalent of the CIA) during the General Elections of 2002. Its core support comes from the political partners of the military dictator of the '80s, General Zia al-Haq, who empowered the most radical elements within the Afghan Mujahedeen who went on to morph into al-Qaeda, Taliban and the Pakistani militants of today.

This party has called for a banning of outdoor rallies, demonstrations and caravans. They would thus suspend all activity that demonstrates to the people of Pakistan and to the people of the world which parties enjoy mass support amongst the people.

Why focus on Venezuela when "the terrorists" reside in an Islamically radicalized, nuclear armed Pakistani dictorship?

Because you are told what to think that's why...And good little children always do as they are told...

[Wndrtch]

It seems the US media and the gullible right on this forum are plenny hoohoo about Chavez and Venezuela...

But they have nothing to say about the dictator of Pakistan and martial law there after years of suppressing democracy.

Is this because most of you are licking Uncle Sam's culo and nuclear-armed, democratically-challenged Pakistan is proclaimed an ally by the captive media?

That's what I think.

Here's what Benazir Bhutto, former PM of that nation had to say on CNN: http://rss.cnn.com/~r/rss/cnn_topstories/~3/179742501/index.html
I have long claimed that the rise of extremism and militancy in Pakistan could not happen without support from elements within the current administration. My return to my country poses a threat to the forces of extremism that have thrived under a dictatorship. They want to stop the restoration of democracy at any price. They have exploited a poor, desperate, and powerless people and allowed extremists the right environment in which to flourish.

The ruling party is an artificial, political party created in the headquarters of the Inter-Services Intelligence (Pakistan's equivalent of the CIA) during the General Elections of 2002. Its core support comes from the political partners of the military dictator of the '80s, General Zia al-Haq, who empowered the most radical elements within the Afghan Mujahedeen who went on to morph into al-Qaeda, Taliban and the Pakistani militants of today.

This party has called for a banning of outdoor rallies, demonstrations and caravans. They would thus suspend all activity that demonstrates to the people of Pakistan and to the people of the world which parties enjoy mass support amongst the people.

Why focus on Venezuela when "the terrorists" reside in an Islamically radicalized, nuclear armed Pakistani dictorship?

Because you are told what to think that's why...And good little children always do as they are told...


Hey Pat, what nation(s) out there do you think is doing it "right", or is Humanity just doomed? I'm curious if there is a society out there that meets your expectations.

[Elrathin]

I think PH has a good point. Many conservatives and many of those on the right have been slamming Chavez and the like for socialism, but here we now see Pakistan falling into a military dictatorship and not hearing too many cries about it from the right. Why?

[Scorpion]

I think PH has a good point. Many conservatives and many of those on the right have been slamming Chavez and the like for socialism, but here we now see Pakistan falling into a military dictatorship and not hearing too many cries about it from the right. Why?


It's obvious why Chavez is the bad guy and Mushariff is not. Chavez is allied with Cuba and Iran's current regimes and preaches hatred for the US. Mushariff is allied with the US in the war against terrorism and his regime is despised by by the Taliban and Al Qaeda.

Chavez is frankly stupid, has a big mouth but he's no threat to the US. Mushariff is cagey, smart and runs a nuclear power.

Also, Pakistan has been a military dictatorship for quite awhile now so the current limitations on whatever freedoms are left is tolearated to maintain our alliance. Strange bedfellows, to be sure.

[Elrathin]

Yet another dictatorship the U.S. is supporting to turn right around and bite us in the ass.

You'd think some people would learn from history and that supporting dictators is not a good thing period.

[Scorpion]

Yet another dictatorship the U.S. is supporting to turn right around and bite us in the ass.

You'd think some people would learn from history and that supporting dictators is not a good thing period.


After Hussien you'd think that the US would have learned, but no.

[Wndrtch]

Yet another dictatorship the U.S. is supporting to turn right around and bite us in the ass.

You'd think some people would learn from history and that supporting dictators is not a good thing period.


After Hussien you'd think that the US would have learned, but no.


The problem is that nothing ever stays the same. Alliances change, leaderships change, policies change, threats change, etc...

It would be great if we lived in a static, peacful World, but has there ever been sustained "peace" across the board?

All you can do, is deal with the here and now, and for now Musarif's enemies and Americas enemies are the same folks. Chavez has chosen to side with those same enemies.

So, to you peace-nicks out there who hate America's infuence and policies, and hate our military industrial complex, just ask all the "bad-guys" in the World to behave, and we won't even need police officers anymore. Start there FIRST, then come to me and tell me how evil our society is.

[Tsky]

Yet another dictatorship the U.S. is supporting to turn right around and bite us in the ass.

You'd think some people would learn from history and that supporting dictators is not a good thing period.


After Hussien you'd think that the US would have learned, but no.


The problem is that nothing ever stays the same. Alliances change, leaderships change, policies change, threats change, etc...

It would be great if we lived in a static, peacful World, but has there ever been sustained "peace" across the board?

All you can do, is deal with the here and now, and for now Musarif's enemies and Americas enemies are the same folks. Chavez has chosen to side with those same enemies.

So, to you peace-nicks out there who hate America's infuence and policies, and hate our military industrial complex, just ask all the "bad-guys" in the World to behave, and we won't even need police officers anymore. Start there FIRST, then come to me and tell me how evil our society is.


Dictatorship - An autocratic form of absolute rule by leadership unrestricted by law, constitutions, or other social and political factors within the state.

So it's ok to side with such a regime that suppresses it's people because they like the U.S.? Does the fact that OBL is likely hiding in Pakistan and the Pakistani gov't has done nothing to assist in our efforts to find him make them a friend of the U.S.? Does the fact that the Condoleeza Rice spent hours trying to talk Musharraf out of declaring Marshall Law and yet he did it anyway mean that Pakistan cares what the U.S. thinks?

They are showing themselves not to be a true ally. What does America do next? Do we kill Musharraf like we did Hussein? Musharraf does not stand for democracy, doesn't the U.S. want to liberate the Pakistani people? Don't all people under the rule of a dictatorship need to be liberated? Why does the U.S. love the Irai people so much? Why are they the only ones we felt the need to liberate from a leader who possessed WMD's? Should the North Koreans feel safe?

[Elrathin]

The problem is that nothing ever stays the same. Alliances change, leaderships change, policies change, threats change, etc...


You saw what happened when the U.S. supported Saddam and now you're willing to do it again with another dictator? Sad, really sad.

No wonder people hate America so much, our foreign policies are hypocritical to the extreme. I can't believe there are those out there that think it is right to support a dictator. Really really sad.

[preservanation]

I can't believe there are those out there that think it is right to support a dictator. Really really sad."Chavez" is on another thread, check it out.

[Elrathin]

I can't believe there are those out there that think it is right to support a dictator. Really really sad."Chavez" is on another thread, check it out.


Yeah too bad I was talking about Pakistan. Proves many on the RIGHT are FOR dictatorships if this board is any indication of the true conservative population.

[lily]

The problem is that nothing ever stays the same. Alliances change, leaderships change, policies change, threats change, etc...

True enough.........then our opinion of Chavez may change.



All you can do, is deal with the here and now, and for now Musarif's enemies and Americas enemies are the same folks. Chavez has chosen to side with those same enemies.

America's enemy is the former prime minister of Pakistan, the Pakistani Supreme court, protesters agains Musharif, suspend the constitution, cut off Pakistani television and in some cases the phone system? You're new here, so I'll cut you some slack....but posters here were outraged when Chavez cut off all the news stations......the question Patrick asked is a valid one.

This all happened withing a couple of weeks......not months all because his power was challenged. Not to keep repeating.....but he was voted in with %98 of the vote......it would have been %100 if some remeaining few didn't agree with his stance with Bush. We all scoffed when Sadaam got %100 of the vote, but compeletely accept that he is so loved that he legitimately got %98?

[Wndrtch]

The problem is that nothing ever stays the same. Alliances change, leaderships change, policies change, threats change, etc...

It would be great if we lived in a static, peacful World, but has there ever been sustained "peace" across the board?

All you can do, is deal with the here and now, and for now Musarif's enemies and Americas enemies are the same folks. Chavez has chosen to side with those same enemies.

So, to you peace-nicks out there who hate America's infuence and policies, and hate our military industrial complex, just ask all the "bad-guys" in the World to behave, and we won't even need police officers anymore. Start there FIRST, then come to me and tell me how evil our society is.


Dictatorship - An autocratic form of absolute rule by leadership unrestricted by law, constitutions, or other social and political factors within the state.

So it's ok to side with such a regime that suppresses it's people because they like the U.S.? Does the fact that OBL is likely hiding in Pakistan and the Pakistani gov't has done nothing to assist in our efforts to find him make them a friend of the U.S.? Does the fact that the Condoleeza Rice spent hours trying to talk Musharraf out of declaring Marshall Law and yet he did it anyway mean that Pakistan cares what the U.S. thinks?

So, I guess you'll be returning all the crap you own, with "made in China" written on it, given that China HARVESTS ORGANS FROM POLITICAL PRISONERS, violates basic human rights, kills Tibetan monks, invades its neighbors, and burns coal/oil!!

Do you even know who Musharif is even fighting against? Obviously not, if you say he's not helping in the War on Terror. He's enemies are the Taliban, Al Queada, and other Islamic Jihad groups!! He doesn't want American troops on the ground there, because he has been fighting off a civil war with these Islamic groups for a long time. So, Condi's comments were for show only. Believe me, we don't want to hinder him in this fight of his.

They are showing themselves not to be a true ally. What does America do next? Do we kill Musharraf like we did Hussein? Musharraf does not stand for democracy, doesn't the U.S. want to liberate the Pakistani people? Don't all people under the rule of a dictatorship need to be liberated? Why does the U.S. love the Irai people so much? Why are they the only ones we felt the need to liberate from a leader who possessed WMD's? Should the North Koreans feel safe?


IF, in ten years from now, he has violated a cease-fire agreement with the UN, 17 UN Resolutions, and starts talks of cooperation with Jihad groups, then Yes, I would have no problem taking him out at that point in time.

The reason we went to Iraq, was to occupy a strategic location, central to the Middle East. Iraq boarders Iran, Syria and Saudi Arabia. With Iran, we also have troops on their Eastern boarder, called Afghanistan. We have Iran sandwiched between our forces. THAT is why Iraq is important, not for WMD's.

[preservanation]

Yeah too bad I was talking about Pakistan. Proves many on the RIGHT are FOR dictatorships if this board is any indication of the true conservative population.
C'mon El.
The libs love Chavez but seem to hate Musharraf.
My theory is that one is critical of Bush and our war on terror and the other is not.
Quite simple really.

BTW, I have not weighed in on my opinion of Musharraf or what is happening in Pakistan, so please stop putting words in my mouth.
Thank you.

[Elrathin]

THAT is why Iraq is important, not for WMD's.



Funny I don't remember that as being the MAIN reason said over and over again about invading Iraq from Bush. In fact one of the main reasons was "STOCKPILES of WMDs".

Can you show me which speech Bush let us know we were invading Iraq to sandwich Iran?

[preservanation]

Musharraf is not fighting terrorism has he has successfully done in the past, he now seems to be fighting his courts, judges and his own people...ISLAMABAD, Pakistan (AP) - Police fired tear gas and clubbed thousands of lawyers protesting President Gen. Pervez Musharraf's decision to impose emergency rule, as Western allies threatened to review aid to the troubled Muslim nation. Opposition groups put the number of arrests at 3,500, although the government reported half that. http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D8SNO2000&show_article=1
We are not standing idly by, or as some seem to suggest, condoning his actions...

The US and Britain are today expected to demand that Pakistan's president, Pervez Musharraf, honour pledges to hold elections in the next two months and step down as the army chief, or face a cut in western support.http://www.guardian.co.uk/frontpage/story/0,,2205389,00.html
WASHINGTON (AP) - President Bush on Monday exhorted Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf to hold elections and relinquish his army post "as soon as possible." He said he instructed Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice to deliver that message in a telephone call with Musharraf.

WASHINGTON (AP)—Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice called Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf on Monday to underscore U.S. opposition to his decision to impose a state of emergency, a senior U.S. official said.

The official, who spoke on condition of anonymity ahead of Bush's announcement, said Rice had made clear that the United States was deeply disappointed in the weekend move and wanted Musharraf to rescind the decision as well as hold elections as scheduled in January.

The Bush administration is currently reviewing U.S. assistance to Pakistan in light of the developments, including a crackdown on the opposition and independent media. Such aid has amounted to $9.6 billion dollars since 2001. That does not include another $800 million that the administration is requesting from Congress for Pakistan for the current budget year. http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D8SNNIOO0&show_article=1

[moses2792796]

I think people would have been less angry at Bush if he just came out and said they were going to war because Hussein was a murderous dictator.

[preservanation]

The reason we went to Iraq, was to occupy a strategic location, central to the Middle East. Iraq boarders Iran, Syria and Saudi Arabia. With Iran, we also have troops on their Eastern boarder, called Afghanistan. We have Iran sandwiched between our forces. THAT is why Iraq is important, not for WMD's. Excellent observation Wndrtch!
I've been mulling over that idea for years.
I think your wise contention bolsters the fact that Iraq is the central front in our war on terror.
Pakistan is a very important ingredient in that sandwich.

[Elrathin]

I think people would have been less angry at Bush if he just came out and said they were going to war because Hussein was a murderous dictator.


To bad that isn't true. The truth is we only invade countries that have murderous dictators IF they don't like the U.S. If they do like America, then we will support them like Pakistan.

[preservanation]

I think people would have been less angry at Bush if he just came out and said they were going to war because Hussein was a murderous dictator.


To bad that isn't true. The truth is we only invade countries that have murderous dictators IF they don't like the U.S. If they do like America, then we will support them like Pakistan.
If this is true why haven't we invaded Cuba or Venezuela?
Sheesh
anyway...The US and Britain are today expected to demand that Pakistan's president, Pervez Musharraf, honour pledges to hold elections in the next two months and step down as the army chief, or face a cut in western support.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/frontpage/stor...89,00.html
Doesn't seem like he's getting much support from us for his actions.
Where do you come up with your contentions?

[Scorpion]

There is the real possibility that if Mushariff is deposed the resultant power vacuum offers an opportunity for the Taliban and Al Qaeda to attempt to gain control of Pakistan's nuclear devices. Can you imagine the outcome of fundamentalists obtaining even one device. It would take terrorism to a much higher level.

[preservanation]

I agree Scorp, it worries me very much as well.
It's going to take a couple of days to shake out.
The urge to jump all over Condi and Bush about this seems to be irresistible though, without ever adressing the real issues that this presents.

[Pogo]

It seems the US media and the gullible right on this forum are plenny hoohoo about Chavez and Venezuela...

But they have nothing to say about the dictator of Pakistan and martial law there after years of suppressing democracy.

Is this because most of you are licking Uncle Sam's culo and nuclear-armed, democratically-challenged Pakistan is proclaimed an ally by the captive media?

That's what I think.


It bears noting that is was the ISI that wired Mohammed Atta 100k. Yup, quite an ally Pakistan has proved to be. :ponder:

[PatrickHenry]

Can anyone prove that Musharraf is opposed to AlQaeda or the Taliban?

Let me ask this: Why is General Mahmoud Ahmad in comfortable retirement instead of taking a dirt nap after funding Mohammad Atta?

Heh. AlQaeda is a CIA_creation and the Taliban was nurtured for decades by Pakistan's powerful ISI. Without ISI support, Musharraf is a goner.

AlQaeda and the Taliban were evacuated in November 2001 from Afghanistan via US transport aircraft, just as it appeared they would lose to the Northern Alliance at Kunduz. mid-November, 2001: At the request of the Pakistani government, the US secretly allows rescue flights into the besieged Taliban stronghold of Kunduz to save Pakistanis fighting for the Taliban and bring them back to Pakistan. [Independent,] The New Yorker magazine reports that, "What was supposed to be a limited evacuation apparently slipped out of control and, as an unintended consequence, an unknown number of Taliban and al-Qaeda fighters managed to join in the exodus."

http://www.newyorker.com/archive/2002/01/28/020128fa_FACT

[Scorpion]

Can anyone prove that Musharraf is opposed to AlQaeda or the Taliban?


http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/3692606.stm

How agressively the Musharaf regime is pursing terrorists in Pakistan is a matter of conjecture but even the Bush administration concedes that Pakistan could and should be much more aggressive in dealing with terrorists within its borders.

[Elrathin]

Can anyone prove that Musharraf is opposed to AlQaeda or the Taliban?


http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/3692606.stm

How agressively the Musharaf regime is pursing terrorists in Pakistan is a matter of conjecture but even the Bush administration concedes that Pakistan could and should be much more aggressive in dealing with terrorists within its borders.


That was back in 2004, what has he done "aggressively" in the past two years?

[Pogo]

How agressively the Musharaf regime is pursing terrorists in Pakistan is a matter of conjecture but even the Bush administration concedes that Pakistan could and should be much more aggressive in dealing with terrorists within its borders.

Considering that the Bush administration never bothered to request the extradition of General Mahmoud Ahmad for his connection with Mohammed Atta, it seems safe to say that the war on terrorism is a fraud much like the war on drugs.

[lily]

[quote=preservanation]
Musharraf is not fighting terrorism has he has successfully done in the past, he now seems to be fighting his courts, judges and his own people...

I think we are in agreement.



We are not standing idly by, or as some seem to suggest, condoning his actions...

No, we're pretty much doing the same thing we did during the Israel.Lebonon war. Saying tsk, tsk.......while looking the other way. DOn't get me wrong......I don't want another invasion......what I do want is strong condemnation and withholding of funds until he straightens his ass out.[hr]
There is the real possibility that if Mushariff is deposed the resultant power vacuum offers an opportunity for the Taliban and Al Qaeda to attempt to gain control of Pakistan's nuclear devices. Can you imagine the outcome of fundamentalists obtaining even one device. It would take terrorism to a much higher level.


It's not going to get that far....the world is watching. If they wanted to get ahold of anything nuclear, they would have had it by now....or just get in touch with Kahn.....he's always willing to help.


Right now, we're stuck between a rock and a hard place. Not the best planning.

[Scorpion]

How agressively the Musharaf regime is pursing terrorists in Pakistan is a matter of conjecture but even the Bush administration concedes that Pakistan could and should be much more aggressive in dealing with terrorists within its borders.

Considering that the Bush administration never bothered to request the extradition of General Mahmoud Ahmad for his connection with Mohammed Atta, it seems safe to say that the war on terrorism is a fraud much like the war on drugs.


Hmmm. Are you suggesting that because one person was not extradited that the war on terror is a fraud? If so, there are an awful lot of US and coalition troops that would disagree with your assessment.

[Elrathin]

The war on terror is a fraud because we allow some dictators to spread their terror. And in some cases ignore acts of terror (say in Africa) all together. The war is a fraud.

[Scorpion]

Can anyone prove that Musharraf is opposed to AlQaeda or the Taliban?


http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/3692606.stm

How agressively the Musharaf regime is pursing terrorists in Pakistan is a matter of conjecture but even the Bush administration concedes that Pakistan could and should be much more aggressive in dealing with terrorists within its borders.


That was back in 2004, what has he done "aggressively" in the past two years?


El:

You asked a question which I sufficiently answered. Because you apparently don't like the answer please don't try to disregard the facts my article presents by adding qualifiers. Musharaf has and is addressing Al Qaeda and the Taliban within Pakistan's borders but I concede not as aggressively as the US would like.

[Pogo]

Considering that the Bush administration never bothered to request the extradition of General Mahmoud Ahmad for his connection with Mohammed Atta, it seems safe to say that the war on terrorism is a fraud much like the war on drugs.


Hmmm. Are you suggesting that because one person was not extradited that the war on terror is a fraud? If so, there are an awful lot of US and coalition troops that would disagree with your assessment.

There wasn't even a request for his extradition. You care to try to reconcile that with an honest-to-god war on terrorism?

[Scorpion]

Considering that the Bush administration never bothered to request the extradition of General Mahmoud Ahmad for his connection with Mohammed Atta, it seems safe to say that the war on terrorism is a fraud much like the war on drugs.


Hmmm. Are you suggesting that because one person was not extradited that the war on terror is a fraud? If so, there are an awful lot of US and coalition troops that would disagree with your assessment.

There wasn't even a request for his extradition. You care to try to reconcile that with an honest-to-god war on terrorism?


Again, are you saying that because a request to extradite one man wasn't made that makes the war on terrorism a fraud. A simple yes or no, please.

[Pogo]

There wasn't even a request for his extradition. You care to try to reconcile that with an honest-to-god war on terrorism?


Again, are you saying that because a request to extradite one man wasn't made that makes the war on terrorism a fraud. A simple yes or no, please.

You getting cold feet? :unreal:

Yes, because that "one man" is a finanacer of the 9/11 attacks, which makes him a primary target if one takes the war on terror at face value.

OK, I gave you your answer, so can you reconcile the lack of an extradition request for this man with a legitimate war on terror?

Good luck.

[Scorpion]

There wasn't even a request for his extradition. You care to try to reconcile that with an honest-to-god war on terrorism?


Again, are you saying that because a request to extradite one man wasn't made that makes the war on terrorism a fraud. A simple yes or no, please.

You getting cold feet? :unreal:

Yes, because that "one man" is a finanacer of the 9/11 attacks, which makes him a primary target if one takes the war on terror at face value.

OK, I gave you your answer, so can you reconcile the lack of an extradition request for this man with a legitimate war on terror?

Good luck.


I have no problem with the war on terror proceeding regardless of the allegations against one man who you believe should be extradited. One has nothing to do with the other.

[Pogo]

Yes, because that "one man" is a finanacer of the 9/11 attacks, which makes him a primary target if one takes the war on terror at face value.

OK, I gave you your answer, so can you reconcile the lack of an extradition request for this man with a legitimate war on terror?

Good luck.


I have no problem with the war on terror proceeding regardless of the allegations against one man who you believe should be extradited. One has nothing to do with the other.

It does indeed appear that the war on terror has nothing whatsoever to do with 9/11, I quite agree.

[Elrathin]

El:

You asked a question which I sufficiently answered. Because you apparently don't like the answer please don't try to disregard the facts my article presents by adding qualifiers. Musharaf has and is addressing Al Qaeda and the Taliban within Pakistan's borders but I concede not as aggressively as the US would like.


I asked a simple question what he has done lately. Because we have many reports that Al-Q is operating out of Pakistan. I'm sorry but an article from 2004 doesn't address what he has been doing actively in Pakistan NOW.

It is almost as he is giving safe haven to leaders of Al-Q and the Taliban.

[Tsky]

So, I guess you'll be returning all the crap you own, with "made in China" written on it, given that China HARVESTS ORGANS FROM POLITICAL PRISONERS, violates basic human rights, kills Tibetan monks, invades its neighbors, and burns coal/oil!!

[Only if you'll do the same. Or am I subject to principles that exclude you?]

Do you even know who Musharif is even fighting against? Obviously not, if you say he's not helping in the War on Terror. He's enemies are the Taliban, Al Queada, and other Islamic Jihad groups!! He doesn't want American troops on the ground there, because he has been fighting off a civil war with these Islamic groups for a long time. So, Condi's comments were for show only. Believe me, we don't want to hinder him in this fight of his.

[What information do you have that he is assisting with the war on terror? NONE. And now you don't trust your beloved Condi? So Condi and Bush are all the rage 99% of the time but this one time when it suits your argument Condi is full of it. Typical.]

IF, in ten years from now, he has violated a cease-fire agreement with the UN, 17 UN Resolutions, and starts talks of cooperation with Jihad groups, then Yes, I would have no problem taking him out at that point in time.

[10 years? What tha? 10 years? We are in a war on terror. If it is a legitimate war on terror why would you give him ten years? You and your President are a joke.]

The reason we went to Iraq, was to occupy a strategic location, central to the Middle East. Iraq boarders Iran, Syria and Saudi Arabia. With Iran, we also have troops on their Eastern boarder, called Afghanistan. We have Iran sandwiched between our forces. THAT is why Iraq is important, not for WMD's.

[I love how nothing you say, which obviously indicates the ideals you believe in, actually coincide or agree with anything the administration (you put your faith in) has done or is doing. Why do you even vote?]

[I Like Beer]

The libs love Chavez but seem to hate Musharraf.
My theory is that one is critical of Bush and our war on terror and the other is not.
Quite simple really.


One is DEMOCRATICALLY elected and, in copious polls in 2006, enjoyed wide spread public support (I can put the polls back up for you if you want).

The other is a dictator.

As you say... quite simple really. ;)

[Wndrtch]

THAT is why Iraq is important, not for WMD's.



Funny I don't remember that as being the MAIN reason said over and over again about invading Iraq from Bush. In fact one of the main reasons was "STOCKPILES of WMDs".

Can you show me which speech Bush let us know we were invading Iraq to sandwich Iran?


Generaly, you don't want your enemies to know much about what you are going to do, why, or how. The less they know, the better it is for our forces. It's kinda inportant and all.

"Loose lips, sink ships"

[I Like Beer]

The truth is we only invade countries that have murderous dictators IF they don't like the U.S. If they do like America, then we will support them like Pakistan.
If this is true why haven't we invaded Cuba or Venezuela?
Sheesh
anyway...
Bay of Pigs, anyone? ;)

Oh, and once again, Chavez was ELECTED. I know democracy doesn't mean anything to you. However, some of us are kinda big on it.

Preserve, shall we go over the list of brutal dictators supported by the US in the past? Or the democratically elected governments that have been overthrown?

I have a couple of quotes for you...

Madeline Albright
"In 1953 the United States played a significant role in orchestrating the overthrow of Iran's popular Prime Minister, Mohammed Massadegh. The Eisenhower Administration believed its actions were justified for strategic reasons; but the coup was clearly a setback for Iran's political development. And it is easy to see now why many Iranians continue to resent this intervention by America in their internal affairs."

Colin Powell
"With respect to your earlier comments about Chile in the 1970s and what happened with Mr. Allende, it is not a part of American history that we're proud of."

[Wndrtch]

The reason we went to Iraq, was to occupy a strategic location, central to the Middle East. Iraq boarders Iran, Syria and Saudi Arabia. With Iran, we also have troops on their Eastern boarder, called Afghanistan. We have Iran sandwiched between our forces. THAT is why Iraq is important, not for WMD's. Excellent observation Wndrtch!
I've been mulling over that idea for years.
I think your wise contention bolsters the fact that Iraq is the central front in our war on terror.
Pakistan is a very important ingredient in that sandwich.


Thanks!

I was looking at a map of the Middle East a few years ago, and made that connection. Generally speaking, things like that don't happen by accident, when talking about military operations. It's intentional. We also don't usually go around and anounce such things, which is why I think we pushed the WMD stuff, not that WMD's are not important, just not the main treasons for going to Iraq. It was primerily a strategic desicion for fighting the GWoT.

Iraq is a central boarder country in the Middel East, which makes it easy for terrorist to get to, and be killed by our troops. How do you fight a Global war, with enemies that are scattered to the four winds? By creating a place they want to go to, in essence, concentrating them in one spot to be picked off, which is exactly what is taking place. Ironacally, John Kerry stumbled on that concept by accident in one of the Presidential debats, but was too stupid to see it. "Iraq was not a magnet for terrorists, until George Bush made it one..." no shit Sherloc!

It also puts added pressure on Iran, to cooperate, or suffer the consequences. If, we decide we need to hit a location in Iran, Syria, or anywhere else in the ME, we don't need permission from anyone to do it. No France.

Regarding Musharif, I read that he imposed Martial Law, because he wanted to push into the North, and rout the Taliban/AQ up in the mountians, but was denied by his Court (Gee, does this sound familiar?). This gets around that problem, so he can kick some ass. He does have to do this quickly however.

[bobbylien]

So all this talk about democracy is a bunch of bullshit if the democracy doesn't support our foreign policy? Bush needs to shut his mouth or tell it like it is.
We will support any despot no matter how cruel his regime is, so long as he supports us. Hell, many of the weapons Saddam's regime was using against our troops were supplied to him by Reagan.

Regarding Musharif, I read that he imposed Martial Law, because he wanted to push into the North, and rout the Taliban/AQ up in the mountians, but was denied by his Court (Gee, does this sound familiar?). This gets around that problem, so he can kick some ass. He does have to do this quickly however.
Then why is Bush calling for him to end these anti-democratic moves?

Are you guys too foolish to realize that we are setting ourselves up for another Iranian style revolution? By (possibly) gaining a little security now, we will be creating an enemy of the Pakistani people for decades.

[AlanC]

Hell, many of the weapons Saddam's regime was using against our troops were supplied to him by Reagan.


Saddam's weapons were as follows:
Planes - both Russian and French
Helicopters- Russian
Radar - Russian.
Anti-aircraft missels - Russian
Artillary- Russian
Tanks - Russian
Anti-ship missels - Chinese
Scud missels and launchers - Russian
Small arms and machine guns - Russian
Rocket launchers - Russian and Chinese
Aircraft Bunkers and command bunkers - German

I'm curious, what weapons did Regan give him that were used against our troops?

[Pogo]

Hell, many of the weapons Saddam's regime was using against our troops were supplied to him by Reagan.


Saddam's weapons were as follows:
Planes - both Russian and French
Helicopters- Russian
Radar - Russian.
Anti-aircraft missels - Russian
Artillary- Russian
Tanks - Russian
Anti-ship missels - Chinese
Scud missels and launchers - Russian
Small arms and machine guns - Russian
Rocket launchers - Russian and Chinese
Aircraft Bunkers and command bunkers - German

I'm curious, what weapons did Regan give him that were used against our troops?


The ones that were listed in the rather large section of the Iraqi arms declaration that the US censored, ya think? :lmao:

[AlanC]

The ones that were listed in the rather large section of the Iraqi arms declaration that the US censored, ya think?

In other words.... you have no idea?

[Pogo]

The ones that were listed in the rather large section of the Iraqi arms declaration that the US censored, ya think?

In other words.... you have no idea?

Yeah, we must have censored it because we didin't want France and Russia to be embarrassed. :madlaugh:

[lily]

We also don't usually go around and anounce such things, which is why I think we pushed the WMD stuff, not that WMD's are not important, just not the main treasons for going to Iraq. It was primerily a strategic desicion for fighting the GWoT.

Freudian Slip?:lmao:

Iraq is a central boarder country in the Middel East, which makes it easy for terrorist to get to, and be killed by our troops. How do you fight a Global war, with enemies that are scattered to the four winds? By creating a place they want to go to, in essence, concentrating them in one spot to be picked off, which is exactly what is taking place. Ironacally, John Kerry stumbled on that concept by accident in one of the Presidential debats, but was too stupid to see it. "Iraq was not a magnet for terrorists, until George Bush made it one..." no shit Sherloc!

Well, the theory is good......but not only aren't they all going to one place, we are creating more.

It also puts added pressure on Iran, to cooperate, or suffer the consequences. If, we decide we need to hit a location in Iran, Syria, or anywhere else in the ME, we don't need permission from anyone to do it. No France.

Which would also make our soldiers sitting ducks for the bombs that they would be lobbing back.

Regarding Musharif, I read that he imposed Martial Law, because he wanted to push into the North, and rout the Taliban/AQ up in the mountians, but was denied by his Court (Gee, does this sound familiar?). This gets around that problem, so he can kick some ass. He does have to do this quickly however.

I'd like to read that article.

[preservanation]

Bay of pigs? Mohamed Mossadegh, 1953? Chili, 1970 something?
Bah, welcome to 2007.
The US has made it clear that Musharraf has to get his st*t together and stop acting like a foot stomping little baby like Chavez does.
He is not acting like a responsible leader when he starts attacking his own people, judges, the supreme court and media.
This is unacceptable when it comes to an important ally on our war on terror.

If what some of you libs seem to say is true, we would be ignoring this behavior and letting him go on his merry way.
WE ARE NOT!
The US and Britain have made it very clear that this is unacceptable and we will tighten the purse strings and retract our support if he continues down this road.

[lily]

Mark this day on the calendar.........preservation and I agree.....well except for this:

If what some of you libs seem to say is true, we would be ignoring this behavior and letting him go on his merry way.

I don't see any libs doing this.

[preservanation]

Thanks lily.
RRD:
Will you condemn Bush's "key" ally, Musharraf, in the War on Terror for doing the very same things in Pakistan against the Pakistani people as Chavez is doing against his own people in Venezuela? Or is it only bad when Chavez does it because he's a socialist?

How about it, Preservanation? Fushar?Maybe I am misunderstanding the intent and insinuation of this post, but it seems to me that RRD thinks that we are ignoring or "taking it easy" on Musharraf while actively overthrowing Chavez.
I see no evidence of either.

(BTW this quote was on another parallel thread)

[lily]

(BTW this quote was on another parallel thread)


DISCLAIMER

I am only responsible for what I post and threads I read.;)

[preservanation]

Yessm'
Always a pleasure lily.
Some of these threads get a bit conflaggulated (just made that up) sometimes.

[I Like Beer]

Bay of pigs? Mohamed Mossadegh, 1953? Chili, 1970 something?
Bah, welcome to 2007.

So, it's irrelevant? The storming of the US embassy in Iran had NOTHING to do with Mossadeq and the US' chummy relationship with the brutal Shah? Is that what you're saying?

Seems to me you reap what you sow. The actions of the CIA 50 years ago are biting the US, and the world, in the ass. But, this time the US will 'do the right thing'?