T Nation

Bye Bye Pervez

Musharraf is on the ropes.

http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5iWe152N60O8rfHfthVTBaXBeBs3wD92K7VF00

Military dictators don’t go without a fight, but it seems this one is lost from the start. Note Washington’s position and the lessons the Bush administration has drawn from the last 8 years.

There is little doubt that Islamists and Shi’ites from late Bhutto’s People’s Party will benefit from this. And by transition, the Iranians will see their natural sphere of influence restored.

The two countries share so much in common that it’s a shame to see Islamabad allied with the feodal and racist scum in Saudi Arabia.

This century is Asia’s. Wake up and smell the coffee, everyone.

Hah!

Pakistan’s Musharraf steps down

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/7567451.stm

You ever notice how much the US political leaders hates dictators unless they stands to benefit from them?

WARNING! Cyber-Jihad in progress.

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
You ever notice how much the US political leaders hates dictators unless they stands to benefit from them?

[/quote]

The attitude is not limited to the US, although it might be observed more often because of the US’s large world presence.

It’s always easier to tolerate someone or something unpleasant if you’re getting something else out of it.

I don’t know if it was reported in the US media, but a medium-size stink was raised a few months ago here in Canada when a Canadian “nations who torture” list was found to list both Israel and the US. Tsk, tsk, it’s a big no-no to point out flaws in your allies (especially if you hypocritically participated by extraditing citizens you knew were going to be interrogated in an “enhanced” way…)

Publicizing every minute fault of enemies, while turning a blind eye to most transgressions of allies is nothing new; not a US phenomenon; and, sadly, probably not going anywhere soon.

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
You ever notice how much the US political leaders hates dictators unless they stands to benefit from them?

[/quote]

Our choices in this case are Taliban or Musharraff. We know what lixy would prefer, but I think we made the right choice with Musharraff.

[quote]lixy wrote:
Hah!

Pakistan’s Musharraf steps down

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/7567451.stm

[/quote]

So, lixy, has the era of glorious Islamic utopia in Pakistan now dawned, or will it just be more of the same? I’m pretty sure I know the answer, but I just want to hear the perspective from fantasyland.

[quote]PRCalDude wrote:
lixy wrote:
Hah!

Pakistan’s Musharraf steps down

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/7567451.stm

So, lixy, has the era of glorious Islamic utopia in Pakistan now dawned, or will it just be more of the same? I’m pretty sure I know the answer, but I just want to hear the perspective from fantasyland. [/quote]

The good news here is that we can now level the shit out of the protected tribal region of Pakistan with out the fear of pissing off an ally. After all they are harboring a terrorist who attacked us.

[quote]pat wrote:
PRCalDude wrote:
lixy wrote:
Hah!

Pakistan’s Musharraf steps down

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/7567451.stm

So, lixy, has the era of glorious Islamic utopia in Pakistan now dawned, or will it just be more of the same? I’m pretty sure I know the answer, but I just want to hear the perspective from fantasyland.

The good news here is that we can now level the shit out of the protected tribal region of Pakistan with out the fear of pissing off an ally. After all they are harboring a terrorist who attacked us. [/quote]

Good point. I bet we’re in there already. If we’re not, our country is in the hands of dangerous fools.

[quote]pat wrote:
PRCalDude wrote:
lixy wrote:
Hah!

Pakistan’s Musharraf steps down

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/7567451.stm

So, lixy, has the era of glorious Islamic utopia in Pakistan now dawned, or will it just be more of the same? I’m pretty sure I know the answer, but I just want to hear the perspective from fantasyland.

The good news here is that we can now level the shit out of the protected tribal region of Pakistan with out the fear of pissing off an ally. After all they are harboring a terrorist who attacked us. [/quote]

I don’t think the government is in on it. So, no. Not harboring.

Then there’s the issue of decimating towns and villages to kill one man. It’s genocide and I don’t think the American people will any lies dished out this time (well, I hope not).

Finally, Pakistan has nukes. It’s one thing to attack defenseless countries in shambles. Risking a nuclear war is a totally different matter.

[quote]lixy wrote:
pat wrote:
PRCalDude wrote:
lixy wrote:
Hah!

Pakistan’s Musharraf steps down

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/7567451.stm

So, lixy, has the era of glorious Islamic utopia in Pakistan now dawned, or will it just be more of the same? I’m pretty sure I know the answer, but I just want to hear the perspective from fantasyland.

The good news here is that we can now level the shit out of the protected tribal region of Pakistan with out the fear of pissing off an ally. After all they are harboring a terrorist who attacked us.

I don’t think the government is in on it. So, no. Not harboring.

Then there’s the issue of decimating towns and villages to kill one man. It’s genocide and I don’t think the American people will any lies dished out this time (well, I hope not).

Finally, Pakistan has nukes. It’s one thing to attack defenseless countries in shambles. Risking a nuclear war is a totally different matter.

[/quote]

Is that a threat? How does the newly-minted Taliban plan to deliver this nuclear device?

On Pakistan and American foreign policy.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/7569071.stm

[quote]lixy wrote:
On Pakistan and American foreign policy.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/7569071.stm[/quote]

Don’t worry… I don’t think anybody realistically expects reasonable behavior from an islamic led government. And seriously, what would they do with the those nukes?

Who would they use them against and not expect a full retaliatory strike that would most assuredly annihilate the entire country? Whose going to risk that?

[quote]pat wrote:
Who would they use them against and not expect a full retaliatory strike…? [/quote]

A hated country that does not have nukes.

[quote]pat wrote:
lixy wrote:
On Pakistan and American foreign policy.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/7569071.stm

Don’t worry… I don’t think anybody realistically expects reasonable behavior from an islamic led government. And seriously, what would they do with the those nukes?

Who would they use them against and not expect a full retaliatory strike that would most assuredly annihilate the entire country? Whose going to risk that?[/quote]

I’m not worried. Pakistan doesn’t have a history nor the resources of attacking other countries. Their problems are local. A good deal of the country lives in abject poverty.

I would have been worried about the US attacking them, but the country has got nukes (and is overt about it). So unless the next American president is totally clueless, the US will leave Pakistan be.

Not that the country isn’t an Islamism hotbed (compared to pre-2003 Iraq, the place is Benladensville), but can you do about it? I don’t think there’s any argument that Washington can sell this time around? You can’t quite say you’re spreading “freedom and democracy” when a few days earlier, you were the toppled dictator’s main backer.

You can’t say they’re hiding WMDs. And you can’t sell the idea that triggering a nuclear war is inevitable, when the alternative is to accept that US influence over the region goes down a notch or two.

Of course, the above assumes the White House resident consults the people. And that’s never been the president’s forte.

The big question here isn’t whether the next government of Islamabad will distance itself from Washington. That’s a given. Rather, it’s how closer it’ll become to Tehran.

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
pat wrote:
Who would they use them against and not expect a full retaliatory strike…?

A hated country that does not have nukes.[/quote]

or allies, which would be???

What about the nuclear bomb they developed? Weren’t you just threatening “nuclear war” if Pakistan was attacked? What about all the hell their intelligence service raises in India?

How long before the newly-minted Pakistani Taliban is stoning adultresses according to the words of Mohammed, lixy?

[quote]PRCalDude wrote:
I’m not worried. Pakistan doesn’t have a history nor the resources of attacking other countries. Their problems are local. A good deal of the country lives in abject poverty.

What about the nuclear bomb they developed? Weren’t you just threatening “nuclear war” if Pakistan was attacked? What about all the hell their intelligence service raises in India?

How long before the newly-minted Pakistani Taliban is stoning adultresses according to the words of Mohammed, lixy?[/quote]

Or exterminating non-believers like in Sudan. It’s a peaceful extermination befitting of the religion of peace.

[quote]PRCalDude wrote:
I’m not worried. Pakistan doesn’t have a history nor the resources of attacking other countries. Their problems are local. A good deal of the country lives in abject poverty.

What about the nuclear bomb they developed? Weren’t you just threatening “nuclear war” if Pakistan was attacked? What about all the hell their intelligence service raises in India?

How long before the newly-minted Pakistani Taliban is stoning adultresses according to the words of Mohammed, lixy?[/quote]

And rape victims…

[quote]lixy wrote:
pat wrote:
lixy wrote:
On Pakistan and American foreign policy.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/7569071.stm

Don’t worry… I don’t think anybody realistically expects reasonable behavior from an islamic led government. And seriously, what would they do with the those nukes?

Who would they use them against and not expect a full retaliatory strike that would most assuredly annihilate the entire country? Whose going to risk that?

I’m not worried. Pakistan doesn’t have a history nor the resources of attacking other countries. Their problems are local. A good deal of the country lives in abject poverty.
[/quote]

So India doesn’t count as a country?