| Author | Message | ||
     Hexangler |
Anybody want to talk about world politics? I don't know anymore than I can gather from the news, but this assassination can't bode well for the middle east. Hex | ||
| Bcordb3 |
She certainly made a difference. Her fight is over, may she rest in peace. | ||
| Rocketman |
Your kidding. The ********* Rocket (Message edited by rocketman on December 27, 2007) | ||
| Imonabuss |
Hatred and vilification of freedom and new ideas has no bounds with the extremists. Many would like us to return to the Dark Ages and are doing their best to accomplish that. What a tragedy. Rest in peace indeed. That woman fought more than her fair share of the fight. | ||
| 86129squids |
  Islamic nutjobs Man that sucks. Time to exterminate these subhuman f*cks!!! Godspeed President Bhutto- may your soul find peace. | ||
| Phatkidwit1eye |
I don't like speaking ill towards the dead, but she wasn't the great person the media lead people to believe. Kind of like how people forgot about all the civilians Nelson Mandela and the ANC killed. | ||
| Bigdaddy |
6th century followers of a demon possessed child molester -- you should never be surprised by what they'll do. We(the collective we) will either kill them or they'll swallow western civilization. | ||
| Djkaplan |
"...she wasn't the great person the media lead people to believe." An astute observation. | ||
| Blake |
"she wasn't the great person the media lead people to believe" We know this how? Let me guess... from the media? Rest in Peace Ms. Bhutto. That woman exhibited some serious courage. In my experience, one doesn't come by such courage in support of nefarious or disingenuous intentions. | ||
| Rubberdown |
Godspeed. | ||
| Nevrenuf |
and perves is supposed to be better. anyone who rules a country behind a military uniform can't be that great of a person. rest in peace ms. bhutto. | ||
| Brumbear |
I smell a conspiracy didn't lil busch get the president of afganistan and the mushariff guy together this morning for BIFFTEEN minutes | ||
| Jimidan |
She knew that she may be killed if she returned to Pakistan, but she did it anyway. She survived one attempt, but this appeared to be an in-side job (how the heck did they get through the metal detectors with a gun and a bomb vest?). "...she wasn't the great person the media lead people to believe." Well, she and her husband robbed the country blind during her time in office and went into "self imposed exile" with tens of millions of dollars tucked away in a series of secret accounts. The couple were found guilty of laundering millions of dollars in bribes and kick-backs after a 6-year trial in Switzerland. When she first came to power, she tried to shove back against the religious fundies who are a prominent fixture in Pakistani politics but was largely unsuccessful. So, if you can't lick them, join 'em. As Prime Minister, she gave aid and support to the Taliban in Afghanistan...she saw them as a stabilizing force after all the chaos during the Russian occupation and after. Like nearly all world leaders, she condemning the Taliban after 9/11. But when it fit her agenda she flirted with the fundies just like everyone else has done in Pakistani politics, including Musharraf. Speaking of Musharraf, since he is about all that is left, he had the motive and the means, since she posed a real threat to his dictatorial aspirations. After he seized power with a military coup, he then passed laws essentially outlawing his political opponents' candidacies, and appointed his own judges to facilitate suspending the Constitution. One has to look at who had the most to gain from her death. She was a Harvard trained moderate who ironically will probably be a more effective martyr to democracy than she would have been as it's live spokeswoman. Pakistan has nukes that the Taliban would love to get their hands on. Here's the President's spin on the assassination of Benazir Bhutto: "The United States strongly condemns this cowardly act by murderous extremists who are trying to undermine Pakistan's democracy." The President looked tense and took no questions. It appears that the "murderous extremists" could be elements of the Pakistani military as much as anyone else. One has to wonder if the US had any part in it, since Musharraf is our dictator. Pakistan is indicative of the typical U.S. foreign policy: support the illegitimate dictator; disregard his abuses until he embarrasses us; then get State Department to start screwing around in the country's domestic politics especially if they are ignorant about its culture; and deal with the outcome that almost always will be bad. (Message edited by jimidan on December 27, 2007) | ||
| Pwnzor |
Jimidan,  | ||
| Blake |
"Pakistan is indicative of the typical U.S. foreign policy: support the illegitimate dictator; disregard his abuses until he embarrasses us; then get State Department to start screwing around in the country's domestic politics especially if they are ignorant about its culture; and deal with the outcome that almost always will be bad. " I don't necessarily disagree. What is your proposed alternative, and what are the likely ramifications concerning Pakistan and the region? | ||
| Jackbequick |
Well, they got them nukes over there now. Maybe they'll get around to turning themselves into parking lots? Pretty hard to see much light at the end of the tunnel over there. Jack | ||
| Captpete |
What is your proposed alternative(?) Elect Ron Paul as president. and what are the likely ramifications concerning Pakistan and the region? They deal with their own problem. Want a more in depth answer? Search "Ron Paul" on You Tube. Or, get a jump start with his interview with Bill Maher here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B9KWISuvZWs,http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B9KWISuvZWs Capt Pete | ||
| Jimidan |
We pushed Bhutto and Musharraf together and pushed him to hold elections, because our Pakistan policy was a train wreck and Musharraf was acting too much of a fool to ignore. The argument starts with our support of Musharraf, but continues with out a clear understanding of the political dynamics present in Pakistan. The administration thought that Bhutto was "a symbol of women's rights, a check to Musharraf's power, and a proponent of moderation," but many Pakistanis saw her as a symbol of corruption, others as a liberal, secular, Westernized woman about to take power. There were just too many who perceived this move as more US meddling in their countries' business. So they gave her the gun. An old analogy that expresses this situation is that if you put a snake and a rabbit in a bag, don't be surprised if the next day the rabbit is missing and the snake is fat. So don't act like you had nothing to do with making a meal for the snake. It seems apparent that our policies of trying to establish democracies in this region have failed, or are failing...there are just too many cultural and religious impediments for it to work. There are some folks who are ready and willing to give it a try, but there are so many more religious fanatics who need to be led, and resent being pulled into the 19th century. It just isn't worth the vast expenditure of our resources to try. On the day of her death, even Bhutto dismissed the notion that Pakistan needed foreigners to help quell resurgent militants linked to the Taliban and al-Qaida in the area bordering Afghanistan. In her speech in Rawalpindi addressing more than 5,000 supporters she said, "Why should foreign troops come in? We can take care of this, I can take care of this, you can take care of this." I don't know if they can or not, but there are 50 nukes at stake, with the volatile and strategic circumstance of this country in serious question. | ||
| Captpete |
In her speech in Rawalpindi addressing more than 5,000 supporters she said, "Why should foreign troops come in? We can take care of this, I can take care of this, you can take care of this." Indeed! | ||
| Bigdaddy |
I don't know if they can or not, but there are 50 nukes at stake, with the volatile and strategic circumstance of this country in serious question. They can't and they're not. Pervez Musharraf hired some Boy Scouts to watch his nuclear arms. | ||
| Jackbequick |
"..The administration thought that Bhutto was a symbol of women's rights..." Oh, I get it. Kind of like Hillary Clinton. I'm really surprised that all american politicians are not crossing party lines to endorse the rightness of her candicy. Jack | ||
| Blake |
Jimi, "There were just too many who perceived this move as more US meddling in their countries' business. So they gave her the gun. " Is that to contend that America is to blame for Bhutto's murder? If so, I disagree. The murderers themselves are to blame. "It seems apparent that our policies of trying to establish democracies in this region have failed, or are failing...there are just too many cultural and religious impediments for it to work." That may seem apparent to some, not to me, nor to many objective and thoughtful folk who understand that long term commitment is required for success in such endeavors. Again, what is your proposed alternative, and what are its likely ramifications concerning Pakistan and the region? Some folks were clamoring to ditch our support for the Shaw of Iran much as they are now clamoring for us to ditch our support for Musharraf. The result of ending our support for the secular Iranian leader must advise our behavior wrt Pakistan now. Allowing Pakistan to follow the same path as Iran is absolutely unacceptable, no? Never cease pursuit of freedom and justice, representative government; being necessary to the course achieving that broader longer term objective, we must sometimes support the lesser of two evils. The risk otherwise is simply much too dire and horrible to entertain. What is your alternative? | ||
| Hexangler |
I to like talk with people: "Hi, how are you? I mean it, how are you? You look interesting to me. Are you (as) comfortable (as I)? Would you like to work together to be more comfortable? Shall we forage and toil for food to share? Shall we build shelter from the environment? How about a shelter for all the people of our land? How about a leader? How about creating peace of mind, safety from mortality?" But the conversation never ends. It turns into a debate, and from those disagreements--WAR. I have never figured out why we make enemies and friends and friends with enemies, and enemies with friends, etc. We are a very complex and fickle bunch. What is OUR alternative? Well, here is one that is entertaining: This from Wikipedia: Isolationism is a foreign policy which combines a non-interventionist military policy and a political policy of economic nationalism (protectionism). In other words, it asserts both of the following: 1. Non-interventionism - Political rulers should avoid entangling alliances with other nations and avoid all wars not related to direct territorial self-defense. 2. Protectionism - There should be legal barriers to control trade and cultural exchange with people in other states. Isolationism is not to be confused with the non-interventionist philosophy and foreign policy of the libertarian world view, which espouses unrestricted free trade and freedom of travel for individuals to all countries. This "libertarian isolationist" view is best defined as a policy of nonparticipation in foreign political relations, but free trade and affability to all. "Isolationism" has always been a debated political topic. Whether or not a country should be or should not be isolationist affects both living standards and the ability of political rulers to benefit favored firms and industries. The policy or doctrine trying to isolate one's country from the affairs of other nations by declining to enter into alliances, foreign economic commitments, international agreements, and generally attempting to make one's economy entirely self-reliant; seeking to devote the entire efforts of one's country to its own advancement, both diplomatically and economically, while remaining in a state of peace by avoiding foreign entanglements and responsibilities. All the First World countries (the UK, United States, etc.) trade in a world economy, and are experiencing an expansion of the division of labor, generally raising living standards. However, some characterize this as "a wage race to the bottom" in the manufacturing industries that should be curtailed by protectionism. Some argue that isolating a country from a global division of labor--i.e. employing protectionist trading policies--could be potentially helpful. The consensus amongst most economists is that such a policy is detrimental, and point to the mercantilism of the pre-industrial era as the classic example. Others argue that as the world's biggest consumer, with its own natural resources, the U.S. can wisely dictate what conditions can apply to goods and services imported for U.S. consumption, misunderstanding the nature of prices and their emergent, non-centrally planned, nature. Countries and regions generally enjoy a comparative advantage over others in some area. Free trade between countries allows each country to do what it does best, and benefit from the products and services that others do best. But "best" too often means monetary, excluding human and ecological costs, due to firms externalizing costs as a result of inadequately defined property rights. Protectionism allegedly interferes in the market process, making people poorer than they would be otherwise. On the other hand, non-interventionism arguably benefits a country by reducing both military spending (as it is limited to defensive purposes) and the chances of provoking an attack (by not meddling or employing intrigues in the internal affairs of foreign nations). Hex BTW today is my birthday, I'm 42.  | ||
| Captpete |
BTW today is my birthday, I'm 42. Still young enough to think birthdays are cool.  | ||
| Jimidan |
NO, I don't think that the US was the blame for her death...she actually was carrying our interests. But remember the rabbit and the snake analogy... Again, what is your proposed alternative, and what are its likely ramifications concerning Pakistan and the region? I wish I had enough info to be able to make that call, but I only know what I read and watch in the news. What we are doing is not working though, and is steeped in ignorance of the region. We surely do not want to make the same mistakes as we did with the reformers in Iraq (see latest FRONTLINE), who supported us after 9/11 and then after we attacked Iraq, they bent over backwards trying to get us to enter into and agreement that we would not attack them...and we didn't even reply. So Ayatollah Khomeini let the hardliners back into power and now we have Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad to deal with. But what do we have with Musharraf...a tinhorn military dictator who will not allow real elections and who has cut deals with the Taliban in the western region (not the eastern, Mr. Huckabee) to not attack them, even though that was really all we were giving him all that money for. Speaking of money, did you hear that we lost track of $5 billion over there recently? Who knows where that cash will end up...probably somewhere in the Western region I will bet. We may see Musharraf bring back full military rule in the aftermath of the assassination. Military rule is designed to preserve order, and it did so for a few years in Pakistan, but no longer. Today it creates disorder and promotes lawlessness, like the dismissal of the chief justice and eight other judges of the country's supreme court. Their hand-picked replacements lack the backbone to do anything, let alone conduct a proper inquest to uncover the truth behind the carefully organized killing of a major political leader. The fact that the Pakistani government has refused offers of international forensic assistance makes them look very guilty indeed, as do their claims about "no bullets being fired." There were witnesses who washed the body that claimed a massive headwound was still weeping many hours after death. Ewe! This leads me to believe that they have something to hide. I read where Benazir had been tempted to boycott the fake elections, but she lacked the political courage to defy Washington. She had plenty of physical courage, and refused to be cowed by threats from local opponents, which lead to her death. "Dollars for Terror", by prize winning journalist Richard LeBeviere, is a must read to in understand how badly we have failed at playing game of "the enemy of my enemy is my friend" in the Middle East. Bhutto's execution indicates a US loss of control, if we ever had any. What this means to the stability in Pakistan is in question, while the Third World is increasingly antagonistic to the US. We need to replace the incompetents running our show, that is for sure. | ||
| Jimidan |
Happy birthday, Hex! | ||
| Corporatemonkey |
Geez I go away for a little while and this place turns into a political forum. Ok I will bite... First off I don't care about Pakistan, its people, or Bhutto. But the killing of Bhutto worries me greatly. This is going to plunge them into a civil war (maybe a minor one, but still). And you know our fine leaders will respond. Am I the only one that is tired of being the worlds police? A lot of these countries would self destruct just fine without our help. I don't care what happens, as long as it doesn't put our soldiers on the front lines. As for our protection, it is quite simple. Four easy steps to peace. 1) stop meddling in foreign affairs, let someone else do it. 2) Put some serious effort (think moon landing) into energy independence. 3) Turn Israel loose. Don't take this as a dislike of the Israel's, in fact quite the opposite. Untie their hands, and let them defend themselves. We all know what happened with Egypt. The Israelis are a ferocious force. In a short time we will be purchasing our oil from them... 4) Put the world on notice. We are done being the police. But with that we will show no mercy to any country that harbors people that wish to do harm to us. Mess with us, and glass you shall become... BTW Ron Paul rocks (except on Meet the Press, where he came off as a a douche bag) | ||
| Trac95ker |
We need to get away from a foreign policy that costs a trillion dollars a year. Taxpayers have to work four months a year to pay for this type of spending. This spending does nothing for our borders. Why should we pay for 750 military bases in 130 countries. That does nothing to protect our borders. Neoconservatism doesn't work and both parties are for it. Check out Ron Paul Here is an interesting video about the Federal Reserve. Watch all five parts. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_dmPchuXIXQ | ||
| Lost_in_ohio |
An informative discussion, I learned a bunch. Thx | ||
| Blake |
"I wish I had enough info to be able to make that call" Then how is it you seem to have enough information to make such bold assertions of failure? When presented devoid of an alternative for improving/resolving what one views as problematic/failed policy, criticism becomes nothing more than mere complaining. | ||
| Rocketman |
I do care for Pakistan. I do care for the people of Pakistan. It's a wonderful country, and a wonderful nation of people. That it is sad right now is a tragedy of human consequence. Rocket |
