Martial Law in Pakistan

[gtalum]

I think our intrest lies in those nukes they have...We feel half way safe with Musarraf in charge of them...

Which brings up an interestign question. Saddam Hussein was demonstrably less of a ruthless dictator to his own people and less dangerous to the rest of the world than Musharraf is. Why were we so anxious to take out his alleged WMD development program but happy to let Musharraf keep his known WMD arsenal?

[x-y-no]

I think our intrest lies in those nukes they have...We feel half way safe with Musarraf in charge of them...

Which brings up an interestign question. Saddam Hussein was demonstrably less of a ruthless dictator to his own people and less dangerous to the rest of the world than Musharraf is. Why were we so anxious to take out his alleged WMD development program but happy to let Musharraf keep his known WMD arsenal?

I certainly can't agree that he was "less of a ruthless dictator to his own people." I would agree that, post Gulf War 1, he was not much of a threat to the rest of the world.

[Edited - removed sentence which on reflection may be too political]

[dtrain44]

This is a negative development (says Captain Obvious). The worst thing here is that this move undermines, in dramatic fashion, any illusions that Musharraf is devoted to some sort of democratic transition. Three key problems that this raises for the US:

1) Musharraf's move will only energize extremist elements within Pakistan, many of whom make the Iranian regime appear to be quite moderate.

2) The American support for Musharraf now looks even worse in the Middle East and throughout the world. Of course, we've picked our pony, and it's not obvious what we would do about the matter anyway. Nevertheless, our claim to support democracy has never appeared less credible in this part of the world.

3) International terrorism is an interesting game, but it's the geopolitical equivalent of a naked swirl in the north Atlantic: interesting, lousy if you're there, but ultimately much less important than the real action, which is elsewhere. The primacy of terrorism on the international agenda is largely due to an enormous post-9/11 overreaction. Prior to recent developments over the past year in Pakistan, America was getting a (sort of) ally in the war on terror in exchange for a relatively costless tacit agreement to support an autocratic Musharraf regime. With the battle lines being more clearly drawn between extremists and Musharraf, America gets both a less clear commitment on terrorism and a much more costly relationship.

[edited to remove one political comment - x-y-no]

[feederband]

Are we trying to get this locked up?

[x-y-no]

Are we trying to get this locked up?

You're right - we're treading close to the edge. I edited my own comment and the one above yours.

Please heed the politics rule, everybody. (me too )

[feederband]

I think our intrest lies in those nukes they have...We feel half way safe with Musarraf in charge of them...

Which brings up an interestign question. Saddam Hussein was demonstrably less of a ruthless dictator to his own people and less dangerous to the rest of the world than Musharraf is. Why were we so anxious to take out his alleged WMD development program but happy to let Musharraf keep his known WMD arsenal?

Well Saddam did demostrate that he would use chemical weapons on a part of the Iraqi population and he had no problems invading his nieghbors and the same people that would like us dead have tried many time to kill Musharraf...

I think the difference is India and Pakistain are a example of nucs being used as a deterent...While country's like Iraq, Iran, Syria just want them to use them...

[x-y-no]

I think the difference is India and Pakistain are a example of nucs being used as a deterent...While country's like Iraq, Iran, Syria just want them to use them...

I see no basis for this. Rhetoric doesn't count - I bet I can dig up examples of members of our government saying intemperate things about using nukes too.

[dtrain44]

I think it's highly inappropriate to assume that Iraq, Iran, or Syria would have used nuclear weapons if they had them. Using a nuclear weapon is pretty much the one way to guarantee your destruction as a nation-state. Aside from that, we shouldn't simply assume that leadership is irrational and willing to indiscriminately lash out without regard for the consequences. If that were true, Saddam would have certainly used chemical weapons in the Gulf War, to say nothing of the damage that Iran and Syria would have attempted to cause in Israel.

[artist]

just as I feel sure there were those that felt Japan never would have bombed Pearl Harbor.

[gtalum]

just as I feel sure there were those that felt Japan never would have bombed Pearl Harbor.

By that logic, we should go to war with every nation on Earth, since they might conceivably attack us one day.

[dtrain44]

Gtalum is precisely right. Being aware of a potential threat is a much different proposition than lashing out militarily at every problem that surfaces. The key is looking for evidence that a state is planning on being aggressive and not simply assuming that they will attack for no reason. Besides, if mere possession of nuclear weapons is sufficient to indicate aggressive intentions, we're already at war (or should be) with every declared state.

I just wish folks could understand that foreign policy is not composed of dichotomous choices. States are not "best friends" and "worst enemies" - in reality, there is probably no state out there that fits neatly into either category.....

[artist]

if we were to lash out militarily with every threat then we would have been in a constant war somewhere since Pearl Harbor. We haven't. To make such a statement in my opinion shows where part of the problem lies. To you it is either all or nothing. What happened to sound reasoning to realize there are those that do wish us harm? And those people will do whatever it takes, whether we kiss their feet or not. Freedom does come with a price. Part of that price is having the wisdom to recognize those that will not settle for us having freedom and recognizing that they will destroy it at whatever costs to themselves. If you really look throughout history you will see they have been out there since the beginning of time and nothing, nothing anyone has ever said or done has stopped them from wanting to cause harm to those that do not believe as they do.

[artist]

I have a question for those that honestly think that they would talk to us and just leave us alone. Have you ever met a mad man in your life? If you haven't then you wouldn't know that there are those that do not think rationally as most of us do. No manner of talking or withdrawing, will ever change their beliefs as they are delusional. They have in their minds what the perfect world is and they will not stop until they achieve their delusions.

[gtalum]

1) What evidence do we have that Ahmadinijad is a "madman"?

2) Why not let the fomenting Iranian revolution take care of the problem? Creating another disaster like Iraq will kill the revolution and allow the Islamic extremists to take tighter hold.

If we have learned nothing else from Iraq, I hope we have finally learned that we cannot force democracy on people that aren't ready for it. In order to work, democracy has to be earned, not given.

[x-y-no]

I have a question for those that honestly think that they would talk to us and just leave us alone.

Well there's the problem right there. This is a completely false characterization of the alternative to war. Start with a false premise and everything which follows is meaningless.

Have you ever met a mad man in your life? If you haven't then you wouldn't know that there are those that do not think rationally as most of us do. No manner of talking or withdrawing, will ever change their beliefs as they are delusional. They have in their minds what the perfect world is and they will not stop until they achieve their delusions.

I'll give you some examples:

Joseph Stalin was a bona-fide madman. He had iron control of a massive military including a substantial nuclear arsenal. And yet we managed to deal with him by means of negotiation and deterrence.

Khruschev wasn't a madman but his rhetoric ("We will bury you" - complete with banging his shoe on the podium at the UN) was at least as "mad" ad anything Ahmedinejad had ever said. He too had iron control of a massive military and a vast nuclear arsenal - yet we managed to deal with him by negotiation and deterrence.


The Soviet aims of world domination were far more serious and realistic than anything dreamed of in Persia or the Arab world today, yet we didn't allow ourselves to be panicked into foolish "preemptive" war to avert them.


EDIT: Additionally, unlike the above examples, Ahmedinejad doesn't really control anything in Iran - all the real power rests in the council of Mullahs.

[HURAKAN]

Agree. Finally a passive voice in a world of aggression. War in the Middle East will be catastrophic for our own economy.

[feederband]

Khruschev wasn't a madman but his rhetoric ("We will bury you" - complete with banging his shoe on the podium at the UN) was at least as "mad" ad anything Ahmedinejad had ever said.

Yet Ahmedinejad ends his tyraits with "allah" willing...This makes him much more dangerous..

[gtalum]

Yet Ahmedinejad ends his tyraits with "allah" willing...This makes him much more dangerous..

Gee, I wonder, are there any other world leaders who invoke their god(s) in their speeches? Are they madmen too?

[feederband]

Yet Ahmedinejad ends his tyraits with "allah" willing...This makes him much more dangerous..

Gee, I wonder, are there any other world leaders who invoke their god(s) in their speeches? Are they madmen too?

No...

Not mad...They truly believe they are doing their gods work...When he says isreal will be wiped off the earth he truly believes his god has ok'd this...As we see it is very difficult to change this way of thinking..

[x-y-no]

Khruschev wasn't a madman but his rhetoric ("We will bury you" - complete with banging his shoe on the podium at the UN) was at least as "mad" ad anything Ahmedinejad had ever said.

Yet Ahmedinejad ends his tyraits with "allah" willing...This makes him much more dangerous..

Ummm ... that's an absolutely standard expression throughout the Muslim world. Am I "dangerous" because I regularly use expressions like "God willing" or "thank God?"