NationStates Jolt Archive

http://www.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/asiapcf/10/18/pakistan.bhutto/index.html

Former Pakistani Prime Minister Benazir Bhutto landed in Karachi as throngs of supporters pulsed through the streets to welcome her. The arrival ends eight years of self-imposed exile for the first woman ever to lead an Islamic nation. Bhutto told CNN that threats against her life result from a "fear" of her return.

Yay!! Let the fun begin

The thread title made me expect to read she was dead or something. :eek:

i don't know why she bothered, it's not like there's any way in hell the US would ever allow the current military dictatorship to come to an end. we're too hellbent on spreading "the global democratic revolution" in iraq to actually guide it along where it could naturally occur.

i don't know why she bothered, it's not like there's any way in hell the US would ever allow the current military dictatorship to come to an end. we're too hellbent on spreading "the global democratic revolution" in iraq to actually guide it along where it could naturally occur.

Don't be dumb. The US had it's best relations with Pakistan under Bhutto.

The only reason they tolerate the current dictatorship is that it's viewed as better than either anarchy or the pro-extremist government it got rid of.

The current Pakistani government is tolerated, not supported.

Don't be dumb. The US had it's best relations with Pakistan under Bhutto.

The only reason they tolerate the current dictatorship is that it's viewed as better than either anarchy or the pro-extremist government it got rid of.

The current Pakistani government is tolerated, not supported.who's being dumb? you said we "tolerate", not "support" musharraf's regime, yet we give them billions of dollars annually in both military and economic aid. that's not support? who's being dumb?

here's a link to the budget request for fiscal year 2008: http://www.state.gov/documents/organization/80151.pdf

looks like president bush wants to continue his policy of not supporting pakistan by giving them even more tens of billions of our hard-earned tax-dollars on his way out of office. and yes, it's because we understand that a democratic pakistan would NOT be an ally in our "war on terror".

by the way, i didn't say we didn't have good relations with bhutto. don't be dumb.

Two car-bomb explosions hit former Pakistani prime minister Benazir Bhutto's convoy today, killing at least 78 people as she returned to Pakistan from eight years in self-imposed exile.

Police said at least 151 people were injured in the blasts, which appeared to be carried out by at least one suicide attacker. At least 20 police were among the dead, officials said.

Ms Bhutto, 54, who was travelling in a heavily-armoured truck, was unhurt, officials said.

"Benazir Bhutto was immediately taken to her ancestral Bilawal house after the blast,'' interior ministry spokesman Javed Cheema said. "She's absolutely safe.''

The biggest of the two blasts happened just metres from the truck carrying Ms Bhutto as it inched through crowds of supporters in Karachi, Pakistan's most violent city. The explosion shattered the truck's windows.

Bodies could be seen on the ground near the scene of one of the blasts. Pakistan television was playing images of mutilated bodies on the street.

An Associated Press photographer at the scene said he saw between 50 and 60 dead or badly injured people. He said some of the bodies were in parts.

An initial small explosion was followed by a huge blast just in front of the truck carrying Ms Bhutto.

Militants linked to al Qaeda, angered by Ms Bhutto's support for the United States war on terrorism, had threatened to assassinate her.

About 20,000 security personnel had been deployed to provide protection as hundreds of thousands of people took to the street to greet Ms Bhutto's convoy..

Intelligence reports suggested at least three jihadi groups linked to al Qaeda and the Taliban were plotting suicide attacks, according to a provincial official.

Ms Bhutto had returned to lead her Pakistan People's Party into national elections meant to return the country to civilian rule.

For years Ms Bhutto had vowed to return to Pakistan to end military dictatorship, yet she came back as a potential ally for President Pervez Musharraf, the army chief who took power in a 1999 coup.

The United States is believed to have quietly encouraged their alliance to keep nuclear-armed Pakistan pro-Western and committed to fighting al Qaeda and supporting NATO's efforts to stabilise Afghanistan.

Dressed in a green kameez, a loose tunic, her head covered by a white scarf, Ms Bhutto had earlier stood in plain view on top of her truck, ignoring police advice to stay behind its bullet proof glass, as it edged through crowds waving the red, black and green tricolour of her Pakistan People's Party (PPP).

Billboards along the route bore giant images of BB, as she is known, and her late father, Zulfikar Ali Ms Bhutto, the country's first popularly elected prime minister, who was ousted and executed by his army chief, General Mohammed Zia-ul-Haq.

"Now that the people have given their verdict, it is necessary that the elections should be free and fair," she said before setting off at the head of a procession into Karachi.

Source (http://www.theage.com.au/news/world/dozens-die-in-attack-on-bhutto-convoy/2007/10/19/1192300985523.html)

God damn...

Source (http://www.theage.com.au/news/world/dozens-die-in-attack-on-bhutto-convoy/2007/10/19/1192300985523.html)

God damn...

Damn AQ to hell.

who's being dumb? you said we "tolerate", not "support" musharraf's regime, yet we give them billions of dollars annually in both military and economic aid. that's not support? who's being dumb?

here's a link to the budget request for fiscal year 2008: http://www.state.gov/documents/organization/80151.pdf

looks like president bush wants to continue his policy of not supporting pakistan by giving them even more tens of billions of our hard-earned tax-dollars on his way out of office. and yes, it's because we understand that a democratic pakistan would NOT be an ally in our "war on terror".

by the way, i didn't say we didn't have good relations with bhutto. don't be dumb.

No, that's support for the COUNTRY, not the government. The US has had several opportunities to help legitimize Musharraf's regime, and not taken them.

And I quite disagree. A democratic Pakistan under a regime centered around the southern cities (as opposed to the previous government, who's power base was the primitive tribal areas) would be a better ally than Musharraf. Musharraf has to try to balance all of the factions - if he fails to do so, he'll lose some of his military support, which he can't afford. A new Bhutto government would think steamrolling the tribals was just peachy.

The US has had several opportunities to help legitimize Musharraf's regime, and not taken them.How could the US legitimize a regime outside its own borders? By changing history?

Damn AQ to hell.

Who says it's their doing? Even if they threatened her?

How could the US legitimize a regime outside its own borders? By changing history?

Legitimacy is in the eye of the beholder. However, in the case of governments, the only beholders that matter are the nation in question's populace, and the international community as a whole.

Musharraf desperately wants to be seen as the saviour of Pakistan rather than as merely the latest in a line of military dictators (which he is). He has several things going for him in this regard:

The previous government, as well as being religious fundamentalists, were a bunch of asshat incompetents who couldn't find their butts with both hands.

Said previous government was disliked in the southern, more cosmopolitan cities.

The coup was more or less bloodless. The more people you kill to get into government, the less legitimate you appear. (Oddly, once in power you can kill as many people as you like, it seems, and as long as they aren't all of one ethnic group no one will care.)

The US needs Pakistan to keep the Taliban and AQ forces in the area from using it as a staging ground against Aghanistan.

So, he's holding some good cards. And he seems to have gotten the seal of legitimacy from a majority of his own population.

However, he by and large isn't viewed that way OUTSIDE Pakistan. And that's important, because without being seen as legitimate, he can never be a real power internationally. Other governments will keep him at arm's length, international organizations will seek out "more stable governmental conditions", etc., etc.

The US has a LOT of international influence. Probably more than it's really comfortable dealing with - Bush burps and the antacid market skyrockets, if you see what I mean. They could have been using that influence to legitimize Musharraf in the eyes of the world - and they rather conspicuously haven't been. He's referred to as an "ally" rather than a "friend". Nothing is said against him - but nothing is said for him either.

There are plenty of dictatorships that have been "legitimized" the same way. The only reason I can see why they haven't done it for Musharraf is that they just either don't like him, or don't trust him. Or both.

Who says it's their doing? Even if they threatened her?

I see you missed it where they linked it to them?

No, that's support for the COUNTRY, not the government. The US has had several opportunities to help legitimize Musharraf's regime, and not taken them.that is asinine. when we give billions of dollars to the government of pakistan, we're supporting the government of pakistan. the military dictatorship of pakistan. if you're trying to draw a distinction between "country" and "government", then you have failed miserable. or else we would be giving the money directly to the people; dropping it from airplanes over the cities and countrysides. but we don't do that. we hand it directly to the government.

And I quite disagree. A democratic Pakistan under a regime centered around the southern cities (as opposed to the previous government, who's power base was the primitive tribal areas) would be a better ally than Musharraf. Musharraf has to try to balance all of the factions - if he fails to do so, he'll lose some of his military support, which he can't afford. A new Bhutto government would think steamrolling the tribals was just peachy.but meanwhile on planet earth, "a democratic pakistan" means "a democratic pakistan". if we came in and said the tribal areas and young jihadis had no say in the government, then it wouldn't be a democratic pakistan. i've worked with several pakistani naval officers who are under the assumption that the second musharraf falls, they better get the hell out of dodge. seems that there's a growing backlash against the lapdog government of pakistan, which would tell us that a truly democratic government therein would not embrace bhutto.

that is asinine. when we give billions of dollars to the government of pakistan, we're supporting the government of pakistan. the military dictatorship of pakistan. if you're trying to draw a distinction between "country" and "government", then you have failed miserable. or else we would be giving the money directly to the people; dropping it from airplanes over the cities and countrysides. but we don't do that. we hand it directly to the government.

but meanwhile on planet earth, "a democratic pakistan" means "a democratic pakistan". if we came in and said the tribal areas and young jihadis had no say in the government, then it wouldn't be a democratic pakistan. i've worked with several pakistani naval officers who are under the assumption that the second musharraf falls, they better get the hell out of dodge. seems that there's a growing backlash against the lapdog government of pakistan, which would tell us that a truly democratic government therein would not embrace bhutto.

I never said anything about the tribal areas being disenfranchised. All I said was that a Bhutto regime with a power base in the cities would be a better ally than Musharraf.

As for "asinine" - supporting a country without supporting it's government is quite common. The US maintains strong support for every member of NATO, even when they have a government we can't stand. We send millions of dollars in aid every time Iran has a major earthquake. We support Columbia, despite a government that is probably the most corrupt in the world.

And at least it's better than the reverse.

As for "asinine" - supporting a country without supporting it's government is quite common. The US maintains strong support for every member of NATO, even when they have a government we can't stand. We send millions of dollars in aid every time Iran has a major earthquake. We support Columbia, despite a government that is probably the most corrupt in the world.now you're moving the goal posts. we were never talking about emergency disaster relief. that is an entirely different matter. you were trying to say that we don't support pakistan's government. yet we GIVE them TENS OF BILLIONS of dollars in economic AND military aid each year. don't try to change the context of the discussion now. you painted yourself into a corner by making idiotic statements, and you should try to be a big boy about it.

also, above you said that "The US has had several opportunities to help legitimize Musharraf's regime, and not taken them."

http://images.scotsman.com/2006/09/23/2309stoneb.jpg
OOPS!
http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/2006/03
OOPS!
http://i.a.cnn.net/cnn/2006/WORLD/asiapcf/03/04/bush.pakistan.sat/t1.04.bush.afp.gi.jpg
OOPS!
http://media3.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/photo/2007/02/04/PH2007020401057.jpg
OOPS!
http://www.truthdig.com/images/reportuploads/bushmush_300.jpg
thanks for showing up, princess.

I see you missed it where they linked it to them?

Yes, especially since that hasn't happened yet.

From today's story:
The BBC's Barbara Plett in Karachi says it is believed he was an Islamic militant.

Police have not said which group sent him.

President Pervez Musharraf has asked officials for the results of an urgent preliminary inquiry by Monday.

No-one has admitted targeting Ms Bhutto's triumphal procession through Karachi.

Pro-Taleban militants, who have threatened to send suicide bombers to kill her, are the prime suspects, although she has accused ex-army officials of involvement, too.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/7054339.stm

But hey, feel free to blame AQ without knowing the facts. It's easier than to wait until we find out if they or others were behind this atrocity, I guess.

Damn AQ to hell.

Umm....lawl. Read Gravlen's post. Blaming al-Queda for everything, good job! *sarcasm*

Umm....lawl. Read Gravlen's post. Blaming al-Queda for everything, good job! *sarcasm*

Well, they are the usual suspects - but jumping to conclusions here is... well, silly. There are other possible perpretrators standing in line to get at her.

No, that's support for the COUNTRY, not the government. The US has had several opportunities to help legitimize Musharraf's regime, and not taken them.

And I quite disagree. A democratic Pakistan under a regime centered around the southern cities (as opposed to the previous government, who's power base was the primitive tribal areas) would be a better ally than Musharraf. Musharraf has to try to balance all of the factions - if he fails to do so, he'll lose some of his military support, which he can't afford. A new Bhutto government would think steamrolling the tribals was just peachy.

Whose government was that?

No, it would be the same thing with different faces.

Bhutto can't rule without changing the constitution, funny what people who love Democracy are willing to do.

Well, they are the usual suspects - but jumping to conclusions here is... well, silly. There are other possible perpretrators standing in line to get at her.

True, it could be someone else, but I think it was either them or some similar group. Let's look at Benazir Bhutto:

* She's a female leader - They no like
* She's educated and (somewhat) modern - They no like
* She's has some sympathy for Shias - They no like
* She doesn't use random and obscure Hadiths for justification - They no like
* She was corrupt while in office - They no like (This is actually justified, but no justification to kill someone)
* Did I mention she's a female leader?

Whose government was that?

No, it would be the same thing with different faces.

Bhutto can't rule without changing the constitution, funny what people who love Democracy are willing to do.

Given that Bhutto was in charge before, and I don't believe Pakistan has term limits, why would they need to change the constitution?

Given that Bhutto was in charge before, and I don't believe Pakistan has term limits, why would they need to change the constitution?

The term limit is two, and she's been in twice.

The term limit is two, and she's been in twice.

Well, both the times she was not allowed to complete the 5 year term...so..

Besides, IIRC, Nawas Shariff, the leader of PML -the other major political party, has also done two terms. I don't think he complete both either...not the last one at least when he was overthrown by Musharraf.

The leader of the third major pary, MQM is also in exile in the UK. Before BB's return, the leaders of all three major parties were in exile. :p

Well, both the times she was not allowed to complete the 5 year term...so..

Besides, IIRC, Nawas Shariff, the leader of PML -the other major political party, has also done two terms. I don't think he complete both either...not the last one at least when he was overthrown by Musharraf.

The leader of the third major pary, MQM is also in exile in the UK. Before BB's return, the leaders of all three major parties were in exile. :p

Well the argument could go either way (I'm honestly not sure whether they have to complete the term or not, it would make sense to have to do so, but it's Pakistan), but I think it would be advantageous for a newcomer since they wouldn't have to deal with that issue (as Nawaz and Benazir will have to).

The term limit is two, and she's been in twice.

Ah, thank you.

I would suspect the "not completed" issue wouldn't come up. The wording is probably something like "may not be elected to more than two terms." If that's the case, both people have had their fair share.

Well the argument could go either way (I'm honestly not sure whether they have to complete the term or not, it would make sense to have to do so, but it's Pakistan),

The constitution has no sanctity since it has been changed to suit the needs of the powerful and downright ignored when changing needed too much work. The Pakistani constitution is probably the most prostituted one ever.

but I think it would be advantageous for a newcomer since they wouldn't have to deal with that issue (as Nawaz and Benazir will have to).

What newcomer?

None of these parties have any internal democracies. Their leaders are leaders for life.

The constitution has no sanctity since it has been changed to suit the needs of the powerful and downright ignored when changing needed too much work. The Pakistani constitution is probably the most prostituted one ever.



What newcomer?

None of these parties have any internal democracies. Their leaders are leaders for life.

a) Your point?

b) None right now, but you never know who will show up.

c) Thanks for restating my point.