"Across much of Pakistan on Monday, the government was firmly in command -- squelching protests, blacking out television stations and picking up dozens more political prisoners to add to the thousands already in jail.

But in vast stretches of the country's rugged and wild northwest -- heartland of the Islamic extremist insurgency -- President Pervez Musharraf's army did not have any more control than it did when the military-led government imposed emergency rule nine days ago. In some areas, it had less.

While Musharraf has justified emergency rule by arguing that he needs a free hand to battle groups including the Taliban and al-Qaeda, local officials, residents and analysts say that so far, at least, the government's troops remain on the defensive against extremist forces, which have been gaining territory for more than a year.

Advisers to Musharraf have conceded that the main reason he suspended the constitution, fired most of the Supreme Court and declared an emergency was that the court was about to rule him ineligible for another term as president (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/11/12/AR2007111202043.html?hpid=topnews)."

"Like U.S. policy toward the shah's Iran in the 1960s and 1970s, the Bush administration, despite a rhetorical commitment to spread democracy around the world, has put all of its eggs in the basket of an autocrat unlikely to survive (http://antiwar.com/eland/?articleid=11039) – in this case, Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf.

In Iran, although the shah's government was brutal, the regime also became so identified with its unpopular U.S. benefactor that this became a major contributing factor in its collapse and replacement with a militant and enduring Islamist substitute (http://www.csmonitor.com/2003/0822/p08s01-wome.html)."

*

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/theblog/archive/bush_stupid.jpg

"GOLLY, Daddy.....what'm I gonna do, NOW??!!!"

If not musharraff, then who should we have been supporting in pakistan?

Waldo, don't argue with the "Neville Chamberlains" on this board. The only "win" situation with them is to appease everyone. There is NO reason to ally yourself with any regime/country, just play all sides. Take a lesson from the French, they are the masters of this "policy".

:thumbs:

Waldo and OldPhart, it is quite obvious that Mr. Shamin hates Bush so much that he would like to see Mushariff ousted from office even if it means Pakistan, a nation that possesses nuclear weapons, becomes totally anti-U.S.

Waldo, don't argue with the "Neville Chamberlains" on this board. The only "win" situation with them is to appease everyone. There is NO reason to ally yourself with any regime/country, just play all sides. Take a lesson from the French, they are the masters of this "policy".

:thumbs:

Yeah...Like in the movie - The Train - and Labiche hoodwinked
the German Colonel long enough to keep those valuable paintings
from being trained off into Germany.
Which they were in real life.A few years back,a series of underground
caves were found to have housed great art,snatched during the
waning days of Nazism.

The only "win" situation with them is to appease everyone.

How about we just cut "appeasment" entirely out of the equation and the U.S. keep its meddling ass at home and stop trying to bully the rest of the world into submission.

The meddling and the militaristic aggression of this country is what causes the dangers from terrorism that we now face.

Isolationism then?

Isolationism then?

Not isolationism to the extent that we do not buy-sell-and-trade with and share technology and ideas with other countries, but isolationism to the extent that we do not send military forces, unwanted, into other nations to force them to knuckle under to us and open their country up to predation by US Corporations.

Escpecially not --as is the case with the insane military misadventure in Iraq-- to wage war on other countries that have never harmed America and who are not threatening us in any way.

If not musharraff, then who should we have been supporting in pakistan?
How conveniently you Bush-fans have forgotten GOIN' It ALONE!!! :rolleyes:

Not isolationism to the extent that we do not buy-sell-and-trade with and share technology and ideas with other countries, but isolationism to the extent that we do not send military forces, unwanted, into other nations to force them to knuckle under to us and open their country up to predation by US Corporations.

Escpecially not --as is the case with the insane military misadventure in Iraq-- to wage war on other countries that have never harmed America and who are not threatening us in any way.

So what does that have to do with pakistan? Or are you alleging that we've meddled in pakistan?

How conveniently you Bush-fans have forgotten GOIN' It ALONE!!! :rolleyes:

So now you're advocating that we should go it alone?

So from the left we've got one guy advocating we should go it alone, another saying we should stay out. Beautiful:@@:

There is NO reason to ally yourself with any regime/country, just play all sides.
Kinda like how we financed both Iran & Iraq, in their War, right?? :rolleyes:

Whatta you Bush-fans DO, when you run-outta legs-to-stand-on??? :confused:

Waldo and OldPhart, it is quite obvious that Mr. Shamin hates Bush so much that he would like to see Mushariff ousted from office even if it means Pakistan, a nation that possesses nuclear weapons, becomes totally anti-U.S.
Gee.....kinda makes you rethink who we arm, huh?

Oh, well......as-long-as shareholders in The Defense Industry are happy, right?? :rolleyes:

So now you're advocating that we should go it alone?
What....you're TOO YOUNG to remember that being The Idiot Son's decision, on Iraq???!!!!! :eek:

So what does that have to do with pakistan? Or are you alleging that we've meddled in pakistan?
Gee.....someone give SKIPPY, THE FUCKIN' BRAIN-BOY a goddamned TROPHY (http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/07297/827799-374.stm)!!!! :woohoo:

Is this as coherent as you get? You whine like a little girl about the decision to work with musharaff and when questioned about alternatives all you've got is this?

That's so pathetically weak, intellectually dishonest, and frankly juvenile. I can get that type of nonsense from my teenage son. From an 'adult' (?) this is the best you can offer?

My guess is that you live in a northern climb and the cooler temperatures are affecting that room temperature IQ of yours. Stay indoors for at least an hour before posting.

Gee.....someone give SKIPPY, THE FUCKIN' BRAIN-BOY a goddamned TROPHY (http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/07297/827799-374.stm)!!!! :woohoo:

So this is another example of the penetrating insight we get from wee willie's wizard. Bhutto is now an american agent we've sent back to undermine our existing agent.( Perhaps because our existing agent isn't co-operating.) :rolleyes: So we pick someone who's twice been deposed by the military for corruption. And given that everyone knows that the military is the ultimate kingmaker in pakistan this is what we've settled on. So she's someone the military is sure to back when they dump musharraff. :rolleyes:

How stupid can you get? This type of explanation is about as butt-stupid as they come. You need to see a collorectal surgeon to solve these problems. Just because you've farted doesn't mean you've had a thought. And because you've left a substantial deposit in the WC doesn't mean you've had any substantial thoughts. Exercise a little bit of self-control.

If you want to express an opinion fine. See if you can make it marginally coherent. Something to shoot for.

So what does that have to do with pakistan? Or are you alleging that we've meddled in pakistan?


YES, I am saying that we have (to put it fucking mildly) *meddled in Pakistan*.

B*sh and the cadre of foreign-policy dimwits he has assembled around him put heavy pressure on Musharraf to let Benazir Bhutto come home, to participate in the elections and to be prime minister again.

You can argue that that was not the best thing they could have done, and I will not disagree. Start a thread on it if you like.

But the point remains that *yes*, B*sh and the U.S. very much meddles in the internal workings in Pakistan.

And the evidence for this consists of......? Anything more than your opinion?

A news report in a national newspaper.

But!!!....by all fucking means!!!.....since it might tend to contradict what you --as a good little flagwaving sheep-- have chosen to believe, please feel free to disregard it entirely, and claim it never happened.

But then, I'm sure that this is advise that is entirely unecessary to a willfully blind Rightwing fuckwit like you.

So this is another example of the penetrating insight we get from wee willie's wizard.
Yeah....it's called History....what some would consider Precedent (the bane of "conservatives"....and 20-somethings....nation-wide!). :rolleyes:

And the evidence for this consists of......? Anything more than your opinion?
Try crackin' a History-book (http://home.iprimus.com.au/korob/fdtcards/Asia.html), sometime, Skippy. I promise it won't make your head explode. :rolleyes:

A news report in a national newspaper.

But!!!....by all fucking means!!!.....since it might tend to contradict what you --as a good little flagwaving sheep-- have chosen to believe, please feel free to disregard it entirely, and claim it never happened.

But then, I'm sure that this is advise that is entirely unecessary to a willfully blind Rightwing fuckwit like you.

Which newspaper? And what does the report say? Why wouldn't you include that?

Is this another case of the US expressing it's hope that Pakistan would move toward democracy (and thus a form of meddling in your convoluted view)?

And of course if they said nothing, as they did before hussein invaded kuwait, you'd interpret that as meddling as well for not warning them off. Really is there any circumstance in which the US wouldn' t be guilty of whatever happened?

Yeah....it's called History....what some would consider Precedent (the bane of "conservatives"....and 20-somethings....nation-wide!). :rolleyes:

What's called history? That tripe you've posted? Pffffffffffffft. Your view of History....is so whacked out that you can't even put together a coherent explanation of events.

Here's your chance to demonstrate what a deep thinker you really are. Display you command of the facts. Take a few moments and give us the low-down on the situation in pakistan. Things like the players, the situation, the choices, the probability of outcomes and how the US should play it.

Any one want to take bets, give odds, that we get a big fat zero from the wee willie's wizard?

That's not a wand he's got in his hand.

Which newspaper? And what does the report say?
Your illiteracy is showing. :rolleyes:

Your illiteracy is showing. :rolleyes:

This is all you've got? That's it?!!!!!

Stop kidding with us you joker.

C'mon there must be something out there that you can c/p and claim as your own original thinking.

You're just baiting us, right? Right? you got something big you're just waiting to drop on us aren't you.

This is all you've got? That's it?!!!!!

The newspaper-article (posted) was too-challenging, for you, huh?

Gee.....who's problem is that?? :rolleyes:

free referred to a national newspaper report, not an editorial report in a local newspaper. The first rule of holes, stop digging.

BTW, how's that synopsis on the Pakistani situation coming? Beavering away?