Pakistan's Musharraf announces resignation

[Vulcan]

Originally Posted by blankall

I really don't think Bush was ever a huge fan of Musharraf. It was more of a situation where the enemy of my enemy is my friend. A lesser of two evils argument.

Despite the US making huge donations to Pakistan, there were several instances where both leaders publicly condemned the other.

Bush needed Musharraf as part of his war on terrorism. The Taliban and other extremist groups were operating in Northern Pakistan. If not for
Pakistan's cooperation all the Taliban in Afghanistan would have poured across the border into Pakistan. Instead Pakistan became heavily involved. It also meant pulling one of the Taliban's greatest backers.

Huge fan or not, you must see the two faced diplomacy behind Bush.

I think the best policy for the USA is to welcome the new government and try to get it in our corner rather than being belligerent towards it because of our fears.

[blankall]

Originally Posted by Vulcan

Huge fan or not, you must see the two faced diplomacy behind Bush.

I don't see it as two faced at all. Realities change and that forces you into new alliances. What would you suggest? Bush just refuse to cooperate with any government it disagrees with?

Being two-faced means there is an element of deceit. The US was quite clear about its ambitions. They were unhappy with Musharraf, but would give them military support if they attacked the Taliban in the North. When you are being two faced you do not publicly denounce the other side. That is the whole point of the metaphor.

Originally Posted by Vulcan

I think the best policy for the USA is to welcome the new government and try to get it in our corner rather than being belligerent towards it because of our fears.

I agree. They absolutely deserve the benefit of the doubt. That being said there exists a very real possibility of something nasty happening.

[Vulcan]

Originally Posted by blankall

I don't see it as two faced at all. Realities change and that forces you into new alliances. What would you suggest? Bush just refuse to cooperate with any government it disagrees with?

Being two-faced means there is an element of deceit. The US was quite clear about its ambitions. They were unhappy with Musharraf, but would give them military support if they attacked the Taliban in the North. When you are being two faced you do not publicly denounce the other side. That is the whole point of the metaphor.



I agree. They absolutely deserve the benefit of the doubt. That being said there exists a very real possibility of something nasty happening.

When the USA disagrees, they have a history in third world countries of backing and creating coup d'etats. Who knows they may have even be behind Musharrif's original coup.

[Azure]

Originally Posted by Vulcan

When the USA disagrees, they have a history in third world countries of backing and creating coup d'etats. Who knows they may have even be behind Musharrif's original coup.

You read too many NYT bestsellers.

[octothorp]

ah, wrong forum!

[Vulcan]

Originally Posted by Azure

You read too many NYT bestsellers.

I gave up reading a long time ago when I figured out I knew everything.

By the way, not wanting to let another culture determine their own destiny because you deem their culture is different and not not as good as yours, is rascist. I'm not calling you or any one else here a rascist, you just dont' understand the implications of your attitude.

If they turn out to be a threat, we'll have to deal with it then but right now, as blankal says they deserve the benefit of the doubt.

[Azure]

Originally Posted by Vulcan

I gave up reading a long time ago when I figured out I knew everything.

By the way, not wanting to let another culture determine their own destiny because you deem their culture is different and not not as good as yours, is rascist. I'm not calling you or any one else here a rascist, you just dont' understand the implications of your attitude.

If they turn out to be a threat, we'll have to deal with it then but right now, as blankal says they deserve the benefit of the doubt.

It was merely an observation, and certainly not intended to be racist.

[blankall]

Originally Posted by Vulcan

I gave up reading a long time ago when I figured out I knew everything.

By the way, not wanting to let another culture determine their own destiny because you deem their culture is different and not not as good as yours, is rascist. I'm not calling you or any one else here a rascist, you just dont' understand the implications of your attitude.

If they turn out to be a threat, we'll have to deal with it then but right now, as blankal says they deserve the benefit of the doubt.

Well technically culture and race are too different things. He was being more islamophobic than anything.

But like I said before its all a moot point anyway. They are having new leaders and for now it will be there choice.

Although I support democracy, I still think people should be held accountable for the choices they make under a democratic system. So if they elect a government opposed to the West, then the West should have the right to shun that government. Its a ridiculous argument that you have to agree with someone's choice because the majority voted for it and you have no right to defend yourself from that choice.

[Vulcan]

Originally Posted by blankall

Well technically culture and race are too different things. He was being more islamophobic than anything.

But like I said before its all a moot point anyway. They are having new leaders and for now it will be there choice.

Although I support democracy, I still think people should be held accountable for the choices they make under a democratic system. So if they elect a government opposed to the West, then the West should have the right to shun that government. Its a ridiculous argument that you have to agree with someone's choice because the majority voted for it and you have no right to defend yourself from that choice.

The important word here is "if" and the attitude that was expressed in the first part of this thread wasn't "if", it was a fact because since they're Muslims, they're going to turn into a terrorist state.

[Flame Of Liberty]

Originally Posted by Vulcan

I gave up reading a long time ago when I figured out I knew everything.

By the way, not wanting to let another culture determine their own destiny because you deem their culture is different and not not as good as yours, is rascist. I'm not calling you or any one else here a rascist, you just dont' understand the implications of your attitude.

If they turn out to be a threat, we'll have to deal with it then but right now, as blankal says they deserve the benefit of the doubt.

Oh please, not the racist card again. Islam is not a race.

I don't really get the relativism behind the idea that all cultures are "equal" and we must respect them for what they are. In that case you would have to respect canibal's culture to eat you for dinner

PS Thanks azure and blankall for being much clearer in getting the point across than I was.

[HOZ]

Originally Posted by blankall

Well technically culture and race are too different things. He was being more islamophobic than anything.

But like I said before its all a moot point anyway. They are having new leaders and for now it will be there choice.

Although I support democracy, I still think people should be held accountable for the choices they make under a democratic system. So if they elect a government opposed to the West, then the West should have the right to shun that government. Its a ridiculous argument that you have to agree with someone's choice because the majority voted for it and you have no right to defend yourself from that choice.

What is the proverb?

"People elect the government they deserve!"

[moon]

Originally Posted by Vulcan

I firmly believe she was killed because she was a threat to Musharraf, the uh dictator. I have to respect her sacrifice for the countries wish to re-establish a democracy.

She only wanted to re-establish that democracy if she was going to be the one to be elected so she could return to stealing the billions of dollars she was able to when first elected.

She had no more desire to have a real democracy than Musharraf did.

But now that she is dead and not a man she is deified as some great democratic matyr.