Assassination
Thu Dec 27, 2007 10:51 am
Very sad news this morning. Former Prime minister Bhutto was killed at her home. She was an honors graduate of Harvard, spoke fluent English and I believe, was a friend to the United States and an opponent of Al Qaeda. She was the leading candidate for the election due soon, and may have used troops to combat terrorists finding shelter in Pakistan.
Recently, CBS analyst Katie Couric asked questions of the US candidates. One was "Which is the most dangerous country?( to the US) and most replied either Iraq or Iran. Sen. Clinton said Pakistan, as they have nuclear weapons and an unstable govt. Few or none said N. Korea. Edwards said China, thinking in a long term economic way. This does not make it any easier for the U S. I am not very informed on this situation, I hope I have the facts correct.
Recently, CBS analyst Katie Couric asked questions of the US candidates. One was "Which is the most dangerous country?( to the US) and most replied either Iraq or Iran. Sen. Clinton said Pakistan, as they have nuclear weapons and an unstable govt. Few or none said N. Korea. Edwards said China, thinking in a long term economic way. This does not make it any easier for the U S. I am not very informed on this situation, I hope I have the facts correct.
Last edited by Bill Greenwood on Fri Dec 28, 2007 10:48 am, edited 2 times in total.
Thu Dec 27, 2007 11:09 am
A friend of mine from India made a statement back when she first arrived back in Pakistan that things are going to get ugly there, he's was right. One of the Pakistanis that runs a local gas station here did not like her or her party due to the corruption of it. He stated that Musharef is the least corrupt political person in the running the country. Which ever way you lean in this political mess, it's going to be ugly. Any counrty that has nukes and is in turmoil is very dangerous, obviously.
corruption
Thu Dec 27, 2007 1:13 pm
B-29, I know very little about this, however my son is a C U graduate with a degree in political science. He says the corruption charges against Bhutto are for the most part false and were trumped up by the incumbent dictator Musharaf,. Frankly, I would be surprised if any govt in such a country would not be to some extent corrupt. There are many stories of how our aid to Iraq goes to profiteers, and I think bribes routine in Mexico.
As for our corruption, some years ago TV was doing an interview, sort of a life story of a lady who had been a Washington and White House corespondent for about 40 years and many administratons. She spoke matter of factly about lobbyist and payoffs in govt. Then one question the lady? (Sarah Mclendon?) was asked was "Isn't there anyone you feel is an honorable person?". It struck me that she looked totally surprised, at this silly question, sort of being asked if pigs fly. First she said not really, then she thought and came up with one name, Wisconsin Sen. Gaylord Nelson.
As for our corruption, some years ago TV was doing an interview, sort of a life story of a lady who had been a Washington and White House corespondent for about 40 years and many administratons. She spoke matter of factly about lobbyist and payoffs in govt. Then one question the lady? (Sarah Mclendon?) was asked was "Isn't there anyone you feel is an honorable person?". It struck me that she looked totally surprised, at this silly question, sort of being asked if pigs fly. First she said not really, then she thought and came up with one name, Wisconsin Sen. Gaylord Nelson.
Last edited by Bill Greenwood on Fri Dec 28, 2007 10:48 am, edited 1 time in total.
Thu Dec 27, 2007 1:40 pm
She's been a lightning rod her entire career. I think many of her policies were well-intentioned, but may have been to radical a shift for Pakistan. There have been at least four other confirmed attempts on her life in the short time she's been back in the country and a few more bomb blasts that may have been directed at her.
My gut feeling is I don't think Musharrif is behind it, but it wouldn't suprise me terribly if he was. These countries are very much "the ends justifies the means" places...wild west...and we haven't even brought extremist religion into the fray..
I honestly believe Musharrif is the most stable leader they have. I believe his coup was staged to PREVENT nuclear war with India. His concern was that current leaders were doing nothing but tit-for-tat escalation that had but one end & as a military man, he understood there is no way to win an nuclear exchange - it would destroy both countries.
I think he is trying to groom the country to truly accept a more democratic-type of government - the problem is, in countries as poor & poorly educated as Pakistan, tribal allegiances are life & death while politics is something the average Pakistani has little/no interest in - they're too busy eeking out an existance. Consequently, it's easy for tribes to vote as blocks by strictly controlling the info the elders provide to the populace.
Voting by uneducated people provides the illusion of democracy. A stable "dictatorship" may be better than an unstable democracy - at least when nuclear weapons are involved. Look at the USSR & the turmoil surrounding their WMD (nukes, chem, bio) after the fall of the iron curtain & the ushering in of democracy & capitalism (if not nukes for sale, nuclear knowledge).
The end result is we can only hope that whatever happens in Pakistan, saner heads will previal with respect to nuclear proliferation & use.
My gut feeling is I don't think Musharrif is behind it, but it wouldn't suprise me terribly if he was. These countries are very much "the ends justifies the means" places...wild west...and we haven't even brought extremist religion into the fray..
I honestly believe Musharrif is the most stable leader they have. I believe his coup was staged to PREVENT nuclear war with India. His concern was that current leaders were doing nothing but tit-for-tat escalation that had but one end & as a military man, he understood there is no way to win an nuclear exchange - it would destroy both countries.
I think he is trying to groom the country to truly accept a more democratic-type of government - the problem is, in countries as poor & poorly educated as Pakistan, tribal allegiances are life & death while politics is something the average Pakistani has little/no interest in - they're too busy eeking out an existance. Consequently, it's easy for tribes to vote as blocks by strictly controlling the info the elders provide to the populace.
Voting by uneducated people provides the illusion of democracy. A stable "dictatorship" may be better than an unstable democracy - at least when nuclear weapons are involved. Look at the USSR & the turmoil surrounding their WMD (nukes, chem, bio) after the fall of the iron curtain & the ushering in of democracy & capitalism (if not nukes for sale, nuclear knowledge).
The end result is we can only hope that whatever happens in Pakistan, saner heads will previal with respect to nuclear proliferation & use.
Fri Dec 28, 2007 1:42 am
Hell of a world we live in where a stable dictatorship is better than a democracy that might start armageddon, ain't it?
All I can say is the Paki's refused to help us out when we were downtown in Mogadishu. They had the armor that was supposed to be our backup and they let our guys hang. After that I have never trusted them at all. They don't like us, don't want us, and are only using us. If it weren't for the nukes I would say let them bang it out themselves, and have India sweep up what's left.
I don't know much about the current situation, that's just my personal bias. I don't trust them at all, and I think they're a bigger threat than any other nation on earth.
All I can say is the Paki's refused to help us out when we were downtown in Mogadishu. They had the armor that was supposed to be our backup and they let our guys hang. After that I have never trusted them at all. They don't like us, don't want us, and are only using us. If it weren't for the nukes I would say let them bang it out themselves, and have India sweep up what's left.
I don't know much about the current situation, that's just my personal bias. I don't trust them at all, and I think they're a bigger threat than any other nation on earth.
Fri Dec 28, 2007 9:10 am
muddyboots wrote:heck of a world we live in where a stable dictatorship is better than a democracy that might start armageddon, ain't it?
Ain't that the truth?
muddyboots wrote:All I can say is the Paki's refused to help us out when we were downtown in Mogadishu. They had the armor that was supposed to be our backup and they let our guys hang. After that I have never trusted them at all. They don't like us, don't want us, and are only using us.
That's something I hope no one forgets - yeah, they sort of let us do things & operate out of their little slice of heaven on earth, but only when it suits them.
muddyboots wrote: If it weren't for the nukes I would say let them bang it out themselves, and have India sweep up what's left.
I hear ya on that one - all that trouble over a cashmere sweater
muddyboots wrote: I don't trust them at all, and I think they're a bigger threat than any other nation on earth.
I'm not sure about that necessarily - depends on who sitting on the throne.
Sun Dec 30, 2007 1:15 pm
She was killed outside a rally in her car, not her home. FYI:
The govt there says she hit her head?
COUGH COUGH....BS.
The govt there says she hit her head?
COUGH COUGH....BS.
Sun Dec 30, 2007 4:44 pm
Paul Krumrei wrote:The govt there says she hit her head?
COUGH COUGH....BS.
Anyone who's been around a bit knows that first reports are always wrong - especially details. She's been shot, blasted w/shrapnel, & hit her head so far...it's mainly irrelevant though...she's dead primarily from a major wound to the neck. I doubt we'll ever know exactly which tidbit is the most accurate.
She's been on the Taliban hit list since her return, so anyone who thinks this is a surprise is being a bit naive. I'm not trying to make light of it, nor downplay its significance, just that it's not surprising...