We all know Bhutto is dead, here is the vs. topic:

Status
Not open for further replies.
pittpizza

pittpizza

CAGiversary!
Should the U.S. get involved to ensure democracy prevails? After all this is not a situation where we would be "installing" a democracy like Iraq.

Democracy existed (in a weak form) before all this bullshit w. Musharraf. In Pakistan, we would be helping it thrive, not helping it start.

Should the U.S. get involved to ensure democracy prevails? What are your opinions?
 
Musharraf is untrustworthy, as he showed with his spat of marshal law and his dismissal of the entire fucking Supreme Court earlier this year. We can only hope that he doesn't rig the elections and stays in power.
 
i mean it sucks that she died, but she really wasn;t the cure for Pakistan. She embezzled so much money it was ridiculous. She really was a case of grass is always greener.
 
[quote name='Ikohn4ever']i mean it sucks that she died, but she really wasn;t the cure for Pakistan. She embezzled so much money it was ridiculous. She really was a case of grass is always greener.[/quote]

Agreed. It's too easy to assume that democracies are perfect little utopias and if you are for democracy than you are for freedom and prosperity for all, the good guys, etc. Democracy in Pakistan was unbelievably corrupt. The coup actually benefited the country and Musharraf was a pretty quality leader even though in western eyes dictator="evil tyrant." While perhaps it is time he released the reigns, I think it's silly to assume that reintroduction of democracy will bring joy and food to the people.
 
[quote name='Liquid 2']Musharraf is untrustworthy, as he showed with his spat of marshal law and his dismissal of the entire fucking Supreme Court earlier this year. We can only hope that he doesn't rig the elections and stays in power.[/QUOTE]

As someone who is Pakistani I have to say that Musharraf is the best thing for Pakistan. Bhutto has a family history of being corrupt, both Musharraf and Bhutto want democracy in Pakistan. The only reason Musharraf declared marshall law was to keep the mullahs out of power. And come on Musharraf was on the Daily Show, he's not a "bad guy" as you make him out to be.
 
[quote name='CrimGhost']As someone who is Pakistani I have to say that Musharraf is the best thing for Pakistan. Bhutto has a family history of being corrupt, both Musharraf and Bhutto want democracy in Pakistan. The only reason Musharraf declared marshall law was to keep the mullahs out of power. And come on Musharraf was on the Daily Show, he's not a "bad guy" as you make him out to be.[/QUOTE]
Embezzler >> Dictator.

And Musharraf declared marshal law and dismissed the Supreme Court because they were going to rule against his re-election as president. He's greedy and power hungry, and we can only expect him to react more and more violently if things don't go his way.
 
Let Pakistan sort out their own house. But we should be much more involved in Afghanistan.

You have economic sanctions, trade restrictions, and arms embargos at your disposal to leverage their government into playing nice. But interfering with their internal politics is out of bounds.
 
[quote name='Liquid 2']Embezzler >> Dictator.

And Musharraf declared marshal law and dismissed the Supreme Court because they were going to rule against his re-election as president. He's greedy and power hungry, and we can only expect him to react more and more violently if things don't go his way.[/QUOTE]

Musharraf is still doing more good than any of the other past leaders. Pakistan's supreme court is a joke. And the past leaders have all been corrupt murderous assholes. Without Musharraf the country would have been taken over by a government similar to the Taliban. Bhutto's husband has killed thousands of innocent people in Karachi and Islamabad. But hey go ahead call him a dictator, that's what I'd expect from someone like you.
 
[quote name='CrimGhost']Musharraf is still doing more good than any of the other past leaders. Pakistan's supreme court is a joke. And the past leaders have all been corrupt murderous assholes. Without Musharraf the country would have been taken over by a government similar to the Taliban. Bhutto's husband has killed thousands of innocent people in Karachi and Islamabad. But hey go ahead call him a dictator, that's what I'd expect from someone like you.[/QUOTE]
So Musharraf replaced the Supreme Court conveniently before they ruled against his reelection because they were "corrupt, murderous assholes" and not because they were going to uphold the Constitution? Yeah, makes total sense.

And what the fuck is your last sentence supposed to mean?
 
[quote name='Liquid 2']So Musharraf replaced the Supreme Court conveniently before they ruled against his reelection because they were "corrupt, murderous assholes" and not because they were going to uphold the Constitution? Yeah, makes total sense.

And what the fuck is your last sentence supposed to mean?[/QUOTE]

You have no idea about Pakistan's political history, do you? He got rid of the Supreme Court's decision because chances are some mullah would have been elected. There's no "real" democratic leader who could have been elected, and Musharraf and the people of Pakistan know this. He had to put things in order. He didn't want to leave Pakistan in the hands of its shady Supreme Court. Bhutto came back to Pakistan with some false promises and people ate it up, because they saw Musharraf's decisions as brash. Both Bhutto and Nawaz Sharif wouldn't have been welcomed back to Pakistan if Musharraf hadn't replaced the Supreme Court. The people of Pakistan know how messed up Pakistan's politics and society are, but someone like Musharraf can make things right.
 
[quote name='CrimGhost']You have no idea about Pakistan's political history, do you? He got rid of the Supreme Court's decision because chances are some mullah would have been elected. There's no "real" democratic leader who could have been elected, and Musharraf and the people of Pakistan know this. He had to put things in order. He didn't want to leave Pakistan in the hands of its shady Supreme Court. Bhutto came back to Pakistan with some false promises and people ate it up, because they saw Musharraf's decisions as brash. Both Bhutto and Nawaz Sharif wouldn't have been welcomed back to Pakistan if Musharraf hadn't replaced the Supreme Court. The people of Pakistan know how messed up Pakistan's politics and society are, but someone like Musharraf can make things right.[/QUOTE]
You realize that you're justifying Musharraf's illegal presidency and saying that it's alright for him to wipe his ass with the Constitution whenever he pleases, for the sake of "putting things in order," right?
 
Ugh, Liquid I'm done with you. You just don't get it, let's just see what happens to Pakistan in the coming days.
 
[quote name='pittpizza']Should the U.S. get involved to ensure democracy prevails? What are your opinions?[/QUOTE]

We're not the world's police.

(This is something Republicans used to cry about, until the neo-cons came to power).
 
I sort of side with Liquid in your little spat w/ Crimghost.

Crim, when you said it was a good thing he disbanded the Paki Supreme Court because if they let an election go through a (somethingorother) would have been elected. Well this is how democracy works, people elect someone and if it doesnt work out, they elect someone different according to the laws of the constitution. The const is the law of hte land and when Musharraf violates this it hurts democracy.

Someone once said (its probably not exactly right) "The tree of liberty must be nourished from time to time with the blood of patriots." I couldnt help but be reminded of this quote when I heard about Bhutto's death. I listened to a touching story today about a reporter who spent some time with Bhutto and warned her of the dangers of returing to Pakistan, yet she put the succcess of democracy before her family and before her life. She petitioned Musharraf for police escorts, protection, cooperation w/ the US govt FBI to investigate prior assassination attempts. All of these were denied to her by Musharraf's govt.

Now I don't know the ins and outs of Paki politics as well as you do. Perhaps, practically speaking, Musharraf's actions may have been good for the country in the short term. I do know that Bhutto was a very charismatic leader who touted "democracy" in pakistan. Do you say that a gov't similar to the taliban would have taken power [if not for Musharraf's martial law] because they would have been elected by the people of pakistan or do you say it because they would have seized power militarily?

Regarding her alleged corruption, I heard on NPR that these were all allegations that were only ever proven in a Musharraf influenced court and probably dictatorial propaganda.
 
The United States military is already stretched to its limits. There is no way the US can get involved (militarily, I think we should have some sort of diplomatic effort (which will probably happen)) in Pakistan and have it turn out successful. If the extremists are able to take over, I am worried about what will happen in India.
 
http://www.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/asiapcf/12/28/pakistan.friday/index.html

It said Al Qaeda claimed responsibility. I guess this implies that she would have been an enemy do them as oppossed to Musharraf. Doesn't this sort of cut against the view that Musharraf (who Al Qaeda didn't assassinate) is better for Pakistan. Perhaps it's just that Musharraf enjoys the protection that he did not afford Bhutto?

I hate Musharraf's seeming complicity in all of this, he sort of let her get assassinated, if only by denying her protections and not cooperating with the FBI in investigating her October assassination attempt.

Backing up a bit and broadening the analysis to a more global sociopolitical analysis, Democracy thrives on competition and an authoritarian leader allowing his opposition to get killed doesnt seem good for the grand scheme of things. We've gotten involved in other places for seemingly less before...here it just seems that the country could use a little nudge to help democracy thrive; after all, we have troops close enough in neighbor Afghanistan already. Transfering forces from Iraq to Pakistan/Afghanistan is also an option.

Here I go talking about military troop allocations and this is what is so tough about fighting terroism, they have no "head" you can just chop off and kill the whole monster. Its fucking disgusting.
 
[quote name='pittpizza']Well this is how democracy works, people elect someone and if it doesnt work out, they elect someone different according to the laws of the constitution[/QUOTE]


What I think crim is trying to say is that if the Mullah's were voted in they would not allow elections and be no better when it comes to rule of law.
 
I'm pleasantly surprised (re: amazed) to see a thread full of people who actually understand a messy, complicated situation for what it is. Here's something I don't say often around this place: good show, everybody.
 
The problem people are having is getting past the notion of 'all democracy is good'. Besides, everyone knew it was only a matter of time before Bhutto was killed off.

Musharraf, regardless of being a dictator, has held off Pakistan from becoming a anti-western islamofacist nation, which a lot of people don't seem to comprehend.

Had Musharraf stepped down, it would have been some Mullah who would have been legally elected and that would have allowed Pakistan to become free reign for people like Osama Bin Laden instead of only the tribal areas. Pakistani politics are beyond insane and corrupt and the fact the country is so religion based doesn't help either.

Would a democratically denoted islamofacist nation be better for the USA or a dictator who is somewhat willing to work with the States?

It's not about what's right.

It's about what's best.
 
Woo-hoo!!! the Talking Points for Monday just arrived!!!

PEOPLE!!!!

We're at WAR with Islamic Jihadist Fundamentalism Extremism Extremists!!!!

Democracy must prevail!!!!!

I have already spoken with our troops.... and believe me! They WANT to invade Afghani... errrr Pakistan... and spread DEMOCRACY!!!

After all, I HAD CHRISTMAS DINNER WITH THE TROOPS!!!! Did you???

America has spoken! Democracy has spoken!

The poll numbers show it! POLL NUMBERS SHOW IT!
 
[quote name='pittpizza']Well this is how democracy works, people elect someone and if it doesnt work out, they elect someone different according to the laws of the constitution. The const is the law of hte land and when Musharraf violates this it hurts democracy. [/quote]

This is begging to be Godwin'ed ;)
 
[quote name='kevlar51']This is begging to be Godwin'ed ;)[/quote]

It wasn't before your post but now it is.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
bread's done
Back
Top