NationStates Jolt Archive

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/6912947.stm
Pakistan has again said it opposes any military strike by the United States against Osama Bin Laden, if he is confirmed to be in Pakistan.

The strange thing about their reasoning is that they fear that there could be civilian casualties. Now apart from the question of whether those immediately around Osama Bin Laden are really innocent civilians, that just smacks of hypocrisy...something tells me the possible death of civilians wasn't the first on the Pakistani military's agenda during the fight for the Red Mosque recently.

The only rule of behaviour that would be consistent in both cases is if Musharraf doesn't really give a shit about Islamism or terrorism, and is only concerned with staying in power. In that case he would use Islamists when possible to stay on top (check), he would fight Islamists if they oppose his rule (check), he would support the US when it helps him stay in power (check) and oppose it if it makes his position less secure (check).

How good an ally is Musharraf really, and how should the US (and by extension, the West) treat him and his regime? There is a legitimate, non-Islamist and pro-democratic opposition there...these guys (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/in_pictures/6442747.stm) aren't Islamists. Maybe the US should just drop the pretexts and demand freedom of operations in the Border Regions and Waziristan and for Musharraf to choose between his job in the military and being head of government if he wants to run again. He can't have both.

Which US Presidential candidate is most likely to do that and do it convincingly?

The only rule of behaviour that would be consistent in both cases is if Musharraf doesn't really give a shit about Islamism or terrorism, and is only concerned with staying alive.

Fixed.

Fixed.
Meh, he'd just move to London like Taksin did.

Does he even realize that Osama Bin Laden is wanted for the murder of thousands of innocence civilian himself? If he's so concern about civilian causalities, then he's looking at the wrong guy.

Why on earth would Musharaff want to destroy the insurgency and Bin Laden, every year the 'War on Terror' goes on it means more military aid, money from the US flows into Pakistan, and why would he want that to stop? He can also just keep the Islamists around as an all purpose bogeyman to maintain his grip on power. I have to concede though they he has truly milked this situation for all it's worth, how much money do you the US has given him?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pakistan_People%27s_Party
That's the ONLY party that isn't radically Islamist or a puppet of Musharaff.

There is a legitimate, non-Islamist and pro-democratic opposition there...these guys (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/in_pictures/6442747.stm) aren't Islamists.

Sure they're not Islamists.

I hope that Musharraf gets whats coming to him. Im not one for violence, but he is deserving of some sort of punishment by his people.

I hope that Musharraf gets whats coming to him. Im not one for violence, but he is deserving of some sort of punishment by his people.

I hope you're put in his place.

I had an airline client once and, as we were assessing their main issues, they came out with a classic statement:

"Our airline would run fine if it weren't for the passengers"

Pakistan would be a great country if it wasn't for the population, and I'm sure Musharref knows that all too well.

Sure they're not Islamists.
Note the women with make-up and no headscarves. The protests against Musharraf sacking that Supreme Court judge weren't motivated by Islam or wanting to change society into something more conservative. They were against the military taking further control and continuing to destroy the foundations of the Pakistani legal state.

And as such they enjoyed extremely wide-spread support among Pakistanis, particularly educated ones. So the argument that Musharraf is the only alternative to the Islamists is stupid. There's a bunch of democratic politicians in exile and as you can see a huge host of people who care about the constitutional state in Pakistan. You can't tell me that putting the two together isn't a viable ruling coalition.

Note the women with make-up and no headscarves. The protests against Musharraf sacking that Supreme Court judge weren't motivated by Islam or wanting to change society into something more conservative. They were against the military taking further control and continuing to destroy the foundations of the Pakistani legal state.

And as such they enjoyed extremely wide-spread support among Pakistanis, particularly educated ones. So the argument that Musharraf is the only alternative to the Islamists is stupid. There's a bunch of democratic politicians in exile and as you can see a huge host of people who care about the constitutional state in Pakistan. You can't tell me that putting the two together isn't a viable ruling coalition.

So which of these exiled politicians would you like to see in office then?

I hope you're put in his place.

I had an airline client once and, as we were assessing their main issues, they came out with a classic statement:

"Our airline would run fine if it weren't for the passengers"

Pakistan would be a great country if it wasn't for the population, and I'm sure Musharref knows that all too well.

Right because the military dictator is such a good leader.:rolleyes:

He is the leader of an Islamic nation, supposedly being a muslim himself, and he does terrible things to some of his people, because the west wills it. Traitors will feel the flame first.

So which of these exiled politicians would you like to see in office then?
Well, the good thing is that I don't get to decide, since I can't vote in Pakistan. If I had to pick one though, Benazir Bhutto would be the obvious choice, though Shahbaz Sharif looks like a good enough leader.

Well, the good thing is that I don't get to decide, since I can't vote in Pakistan. If I had to pick one though, Benazir Bhutto would be the obvious choice, though Shahbaz Sharif looks like a good enough leader.

She's already been in office twice and booted twice as well, corruption I believe. Do you really think she would be a lot better?

She's already been in office twice and booted twice as well, corruption I believe. Do you really think she would be a lot better?

She wouldn't be worse. Besides, if it's not her, it's either Musharraf or the Islamists.

Justifying military dictatorship Barringtonia, that's a new low.

Justifying military dictatorship Barringtonia, that's a new low.

I've sunk much lower :)

It's not that I'm justifying it so much, it was simply in response to Zilam's comment.

I'm not sure Musharraf enjoys his days ruling Pakistan, I'd say it was a fight for his life.

Could things be better, oh how I wish they were.

I, for one, would not want to be ruling Pakistan.

She's already been in office twice and booted twice as well, corruption I believe. Do you really think she would be a lot better?
If she was elected, definitely.

This is the exact same reason that the US didn't act on him in the 90s. Erm it doesn't come as that much of a surprise to me.

Pakistan not so keen on killing Bin Laden

Actually, it is

USA not so keen on killing Bin Laden

:cool:

how much money do you the US has given him?

More than 10 Billion and counting.

I've sunk much lower :)

It's not that I'm justifying it so much, it was simply in response to Zilam's comment.

I'm not sure Musharraf enjoys his days ruling Pakistan, I'd say it was a fight for his life.

Could things be better, oh how I wish they were.

I, for one, would not want to be ruling Pakistan.

You do realize right that theres substantial evidence and many people in Pakistan and abroad think that the Islamists are a played-up force funded by Musharaff himself to keep the US terror aid coming in, and justify him having command of the military at the same time as being a permanent president.

We stopped caring about Bin Laden in 2002.

Pakistan would be a great country if it wasn't for the population.
Same could be said about the US, but I support your assertion.