All hell about to break loose in Pakistan.

[VP Sarah Palin]

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/15/wo...em&oref=slogin

His departure from office seems likely to unleash new instability in the country as the two main parties in the civilian government jockey for his share of power. It would also remove from the political stage the man who has served as the Bush administration’s main ally here for the last eight years.

[jlokes]

This is a sad day for American troops in Afghanistan. Now granted i am against the war in Iraq and for the war in Afghanistan.

I think this is a detriment for our boys on the ground in Afghanistan. I just hope the Pakistani people realize that the US troops are there for a legitimate reason and grant them leeway into the Pakistani border after Al-Quida.

If we the USA (a beacon of freedom) cannot negotiate a agreement, i hope we pull all troops out of Iraq and try to secure the border between Pakistan and Afghanistan.

If the united States involves themselves in these elections in Pakistan, we will lose all credibility.

If the people in Pakistan want someone to lead that the USA is not happy with, well guess what folks, **** off, the people have spoken.

The Empire needs to heed the people's voice at sometime and deal with it.

I call myself a republican

Democracy is not for others to bow to your rule and follow your rules . It is letting the people rule themselves based on their own cultures and experience. How can we as Americans deny others their rights and culture.

[Last Post]

Armageddon is here.

Israel will nuke Iran.

The US and Russia finally go to war over Georgia, nukes fly.

New Pakistan leader causes confusion and turmoil, they launch a nuke on India, and vice versa.

North Korea, pissed they can't win a gold at the olympics, launches a nuke on south korea. The US retaliates.

[MichState04]

I hope that Pakistan remains stable for the sake of our troops...

You better hope that Pakistan remains stable for the sake of the Obama campaign. Whenever s*** gets stirred up overseas, the Republican usually gets a bounce. The Americans trust Dems more on domestic issues and the GOP on foreign affairs.

My guess is that all hell doesn't break lose in Pakistan thankfully.

[Vlad_the_Impaler]

You all do realize why he's being push out, don't you? Because he's viewed as a puppet of George Dubya Bush. Of course, the Pakistani Prime Minister has always been a puppet of America, no matter who the Prime Minister was, but the fact that Musharraf has befriended Dubya, the Great Crusader, makes this just a little bit different in the eyes of Pakistanis.

This illustrates how popular it is to be viewed as a friend of the US right now.

[kaiserpete]

Originally Posted by Vlad_the_Impaler

You all do realize why he's being push out, don't you? Because he's viewed as a puppet of George Dubya Bush. Of course, the Pakistani Prime Minister has always been a puppet of America, no matter who the Prime Minister was, but the fact that Musharraf has befriended Dubya, the Great Crusader, makes this just a little bit different in the eyes of Pakistanis.

This illustrates how popular it is to be viewed as a friend of the US right now.

Being viewed as a puppet of the US plays a role. But far lesser of a role than the fact that he (1) sacked federal judges without reason (2) imposed martial law and (3) subverted the Pakistani constitution in order to get re-elected.

Regarding your obsession that W has supposedly destroyed our standing in the world...Merkel in Germany, Sarkozy in France, Harper in Canada and Berlusconi in Italy all were elected after running campaigns in which all four openly embraced the United States. The candidates they defeated all ran America-bashing campaigns. That says a little, don't you think? I realize that is en vogue on the Left to claim that because of W the US is now some sort of pariah internationally. The reality is somewhat different, though...

[Last Post]

Originally Posted by Vlad_the_Impaler

You all do realize why he's being push out, don't you? Because he's viewed as a puppet of George Dubya Bush. Of course, the Pakistani Prime Minister has always been a puppet of America, no matter who the Prime Minister was, but the fact that Musharraf has befriended Dubya, the Great Crusader, makes this just a little bit different in the eyes of Pakistanis.

This illustrates how popular it is to be viewed as a friend of the US right now.

Yeah, it has nothing to do with them wanting democracy. I guess you missed this:

Pakistan's Bhutto assassinated - Pakistan - MSNBC.com

The death of President Pervez Musharraf's most powerful opponent threw the nation into chaos just 12 days before elections and threatened its already unsteady role as a key fighter against Islamic terror.

I agree Bush is a doosh, but the whole world doesn't concentrate on the US.

[TheDoctorIsIn]

Originally Posted by MichState04

I hope that Pakistan remains stable for the sake of our troops...

You better hope that Pakistan remains stable for the sake of the Obama campaign. Whenever s*** gets stirred up overseas, the Republican usually gets a bounce. The Americans trust Dems more on domestic issues and the GOP on foreign affairs*.

My guess is that all hell doesn't break lose in Pakistan thankfully.

You forgot the disclaimer.

*Pre Iraq War Part II

[Vlad_the_Impaler]

Originally Posted by Last Post

Yeah, it has nothing to do with them wanting democracy.

We as Americans really need to get out of this mentality that the rest of the world wants our brand of democracy, like we have this democracy thing all figured out. Some of those nations/civilization have existed for thousands of years with whatever forms of government they have - dictators, monarch, tribal elected leaders and all. You think they give a **** about what a 300 year old country thinks of their system of government?

By the way, you're wrong about the Pakistanis' desire for democracy. Musharraf took power in a military coup, and was very popular...until the Iraq war. Once he buddied up to Dubya, the public turned against him, and THAT is when they became angry with his antics to stay in power (arresting judges, suspending elections, etc.) If he had distanced himself from Dubya, the Pakistanis were perfectly happy with a military dictator in command.

Don't forget, Pakistan is the nation giving shelter to Al Queda right now. This couldn't happen without the public's support. So when Musharraf talks about fighting Al Qaeda, how do you think his public will respond to that? (All that stuff you hear/read about the NW Province being difficult to reach, etc...it's all BS! The Pakistanis could capture and hand over Bin Laden today, if they wanted to.)

[Heaph]

Originally Posted by Last Post

Armageddon is here.

Israel will nuke Iran.

The US and Russia finally go to war over Georgia, nukes fly.

New Pakistan leader causes confusion and turmoil, they launch a nuke on India, and vice versa.

North Korea, pissed they can't win a gold at the olympics, launches a nuke on south korea. The US retaliates.

Sometimes reality is more bizzare than the absurd.

[SpartanStu]

Originally Posted by Last Post

Armageddon is here.

Israel will nuke Iran.

The US and Russia finally go to war over Georgia, nukes fly.

New Pakistan leader causes confusion and turmoil, they launch a nuke on India, and vice versa.

North Korea, pissed they can't win a gold at the olympics, launches a nuke on south korea. The US retaliates.

Winter sports will be all the rage globally for the years 2010-2020

[Last Post]

Originally Posted by Vlad_the_Impaler

We as Americans really need to get out of this mentality that the rest of the world wants our brand of democracy, like we have this democracy thing all figured out. Some of those nations/civilization have existed for thousands of years with whatever forms of government they have - dictators, monarch, tribal elected leaders and all. You think they give a **** about what a 300 year old country thinks of their system of government?

By the way, you're wrong about the Pakistanis' desire for democracy. Musharraf took power in a military coup, and was very popular...until the Iraq war. Once he buddied up to Dubya, the public turned against him, and THAT is when they became angry with his antics to stay in power (arresting judges, suspending elections, etc.) If he had distanced himself from Dubya, the Pakistanis were perfectly happy with a military dictator in command.

Don't forget, Pakistan is the nation giving shelter to Al Queda right now. This couldn't happen without the public's support. So when Musharraf talks about fighting Al Qaeda, how do you think his public will respond to that? (All that stuff you hear/read about the NW Province being difficult to reach, etc...it's all BS! The Pakistanis could capture and hand over Bin Laden today, if they wanted to.)

When Musharaff took over he promised to have free elections after a certain period of time. We're not forcing anything on them in terms of democracy or whatever.

Musharaff has surpassed his welcome, they want him gone. It really is regardless of Bush. The Pakis want to choose who governs them. It's really that simple.

[kaiserpete]

Originally Posted by Vlad_the_Impaler

We as Americans really need to get out of this mentality that the rest of the world wants our brand of democracy, like we have this democracy thing all figured out. Some of those nations/civilization have existed for thousands of years with whatever forms of government they have - dictators, monarch, tribal elected leaders and all. You think they give a **** about what a 300 year old country thinks of their system of government?

What a fatalistic and self-defeatist argument.

Fact: Nations that embrace representative democracy and open markets are more stable and prosperous than any other form of government. They are less likely to harbor territorial ambitions against their neighbors.

Why in God's name would you want to deny billions of people the chance for freedom, increased prosperity and peace? I'm not saying that we have to impose democracy at the barrel of a gun in every situation. But there are times where that may be necessary. When failed-states and/or autocracies breed and/or harbor people that find it justifiable to commandeer civilian aircraft and use them as the means to wreak mass chaos and carnage, the civilized world has to stand up and take action. Remove the cancer. And install a modern government to ensure that the cancer doesn't reappear.

[Vlad_the_Impaler]

Originally Posted by kaiserpete

I'm not saying that we have to impose democracy at the barrel of a gun in every situation. But there are times where that may be necessary.

Do you not see how stupid this notion is??? Democracy at the barrel of a gun??? How long do you think such a democracy is going to last???

When failed-states and/or autocracies breed and/or harbor people that find it justifiable to commandeer civilian aircraft and use them as the means to wreak mass chaos and carnage, the civilized world has to stand up and take action. Remove the cancer. And install a modern government to ensure that the cancer doesn't reappear.

Ah the old 9/11 card!! For the 1,000,001st time, IRAQ DIDN'T PLAN OR CARRY OUT THE 9/11 ATTACKS. SADDAM WAS UNDER THE WATCHFUL EYES OF THE US, THE UN, AND WASN'T EVEN ALLOWED TO TRAVEL MORE THAN 100 MILES OUTSIDE BAGHDAD. WHY THE F ARE YOU STILL HAVING TROUBLE WITH THIS FACT?!?!?!

If the US wanted to install a "modern government" in response to the 9/11 attackes, WHY DIDN'T DUBYA DO SO IN PAKISTAN OR SAUDI ARABIA?!?!?! Instead, the Dubya's hand-puppet (a supposed "modern leader" and friend of the US) is about to be thrown out on his ass in Pakistan.

[Vlad_the_Impaler]

Originally Posted by Last Post

The Pakis want to choose who governs them. It's really that simple.

Its really too simple. They just blew up the one lady who could've been a "modern" leader. The rest are all Islamic radicals.

Pakistan is about to fall into the hands of Islamic fundamentalists, which it has been in its short history. Yes, we should all be scared about this prospect.

[MichState04]

Originally Posted by Vlad_the_Impaler

Do you not see how stupid this notion is??? Democracy at the barrel of a gun??? How long do you think such a democracy is going to last???



Ah the old 9/11 card!! For the 1,000,001st time, IRAQ DIDN'T PLAN OR CARRY OUT THE 9/11 ATTACKS. SADDAM WAS UNDER THE WATCHFUL EYES OF THE US, THE UN, AND WASN'T EVEN ALLOWED TO TRAVEL MORE THAN 100 MILES OUTSIDE BAGHDAD. WHY THE F ARE YOU STILL HAVING TROUBLE WITH THIS FACT?!?!?!

If the US wanted to install a "modern government" in response to the 9/11 attackes, WHY DIDN'T DUBYA DO SO IN PAKISTAN OR SAUDI ARABIA?!?!?! Instead, the Dubya's hand-puppet (a supposed "modern leader" and friend of the US) is about to be thrown out on his ass in Pakistan.

To your first point, didn't we fight for Democracy at the barrel of a gun? I am pretty sure there was plenty of blood shed in the American Revolution. Then again in the Civil War. 60 million are free now because of GWB. Don't fool yourself, some of those 60 million would rather go back to the Saddam and Taliban days because they benefited from their brutal rule, but a majority are better off now and will have the opportunity to create a better life for themselves and their families. I really hope that we can look back at Iraq in 10 years and be proud of what we did...that is when Bush's legacy will be known.

Why did Bill Clinton lay out the case for war back in 1998 and sign the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998 which specifically stated that the policy of the United States was regime change in Iraq? The United States...not George Bush...determined that Iraq under the rule of Saddam Hussein was a threat to the U.S., the Middle East, and the world.

After seeing 9/11 and then going back and reading this, it would be irresponsible not to disarm Saddam unless Clinton was full of crap. I know Bill Clinton wishes he had acted on Al-Qaeda issues differently, how could he not?

Bill Clinton stated:

Iraq admitted, among other things, an offensive biological warfare capability, notably, 5,000 gallons of botulinum, which causes botulism; 2,000 gallons of anthrax; 25 biological-filled Scud warheads; and 157 aerial bombs. And I might say UNSCOM inspectors believe that Iraq has actually greatly understated its production.... Over the past few months, as [the weapons inspectors] have come closer and closer to rooting out Iraq's remaining nuclear capacity, Saddam has undertaken yet another gambit to thwart their ambitions by imposing debilitating conditions on the inspectors and declaring key sites which have still not been inspected off limits.... It is obvious that there is an attempt here, based on the whole history of this operation since 1991, to protect whatever remains of his capacity to produce weapons of mass destruction, the missiles to deliver them, and the feed stocks necessary to produce them. The UNSCOM inspectors believe that Iraq still has stockpiles of chemical and biological munitions, a small force of Scud-type missiles, and the capacity to restart quickly its production program and build many, many more weapons.... Now, let's imagine the future. What if he fails to comply and we fail to act, or we take some ambiguous third route, which gives him yet more opportunities to develop this program of weapons of mass destruction and continue to press for the release of the sanctions and continue to ignore the solemn commitments that he made? Well, he will conclude that the international community has lost its will. He will then conclude that he can go right on and do more to rebuild an arsenal of devastating destruction. And some day, some way, I guarantee you he'll use the arsenal.... President Clinton ~ 1998

[kaiserpete]

Originally Posted by Vlad_the_Impaler

Do you not see how stupid this notion is??? Democracy at the barrel of a gun??? How long do you think such a democracy is going to last???

Why don't you ask the nations around the world that embraced democracy at the barrel of our gun? Japan? Korea? tPhillipines? etc.

Originally Posted by Vlad_the_Impaler

Ah the old 9/11 card!! For the 1,000,001st time, IRAQ DIDN'T PLAN OR CARRY OUT THE 9/11 ATTACKS. SADDAM WAS UNDER THE WATCHFUL EYES OF THE US, THE UN, AND WASN'T EVEN ALLOWED TO TRAVEL MORE THAN 100 MILES OUTSIDE BAGHDAD. WHY THE F ARE YOU STILL HAVING TROUBLE WITH THIS FACT?!?!?!

The watchful eyes of the UN? Are you kidding me? Are you aware of the Oil-for-Food scandal?

It didn't take a genius to read the tea leaves: international support for continuing the sanctions on Iraq was fading fast. Saddam, while not involved in 9/11 and not directly linked to AQ, certainly swam in the same pool as the the jihadist crowd. He was a megalomaniac who sat on top of a decent chunk of the known oil reserves. He had used WMD on two previous occasions. The intelligence agencies of just about every advanced nation believed he still had WMD...balh blah blah. I can continue with the litany of reasons why it was justified for regime change. But I suppose you are already aware of them.

Originally Posted by Vlad_the_Impaler

If the US wanted to install a "modern government" in response to the 9/11 attackes, WHY DIDN'T DUBYA DO SO IN PAKISTAN OR SAUDI ARABIA?!?!?! Instead, the Dubya's hand-puppet (a supposed "modern leader" and friend of the US) is about to be thrown out on his ass in Pakistan.

I would have zero problem with the US taking out the Saudis. In fact, most of the problems the West currently faces in regards to Islamic civilization would be removed once the Wahhabist, petro-funded threat was neutralized. Problem is, there really aren't a whole lot of "moderates" in SA that could be found to stand in our "installed" government...

[MichState04]

Originally Posted by kaiserpete

I would have zero problem with the US taking out the Saudis. In fact, most of the problems the West currently faces in regards to Islamic civilization would be removed once the Wahhabist, petro-funded threat was neutralized. Problem is, there really aren't a whole lot of "moderates" in SA that could be found to stand in our "installed" government...

Problem with taking out Pakistan: NUKES
Problem with taking out Saudi Arabia: OIL

Never going to happen nor do I believe it should unless they pose an imminent threat to the US.

[Vlad_the_Impaler]

Originally Posted by MichState04

Why did Bill Clinton lay out the case for war back in 1998 and sign the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998 which specifically stated that the policy of the United States was regime change in Iraq? The United States...not George Bush...determined that Iraq under the rule of Saddam Hussein was a threat to the U.S., the Middle East, and the world.

Bill Clinton was also wrong. At least he didn't start a war over this though. Thank God for that! But since we're bringing up old documents, can we also talk about the MORE RECENT intelligence reports which stated that Iraq likely DOES NOT have WMD??? You know, the ones Dubya pushed under the rug?

As far as your reference to the Revolution and Civil War, those were both within our borders and were about our own country and our way of life. I'm not sure how you can draw a parallel between that and stepping into a civil dispute between two Muslim factions in a distant part of the world.

Of course, lets not forget that THE ORIGINAL CASE FOR INVADING IRAQ WAS WMDs. ONLY WHEN WE DIDN'T FIND WMDs DID WE CHANGE THE MISSION TO "FREEING" THE SHEIITS FROM THE SUNNIS.

Our position has evolved many times on why it was justified to invade Iraq. I guess you're going with the "freedom" thing, huh? Have you exchanged any greetings with your newly freed Sheiit brothers over there, like Mukhtada al Sadar?

See, all we've really done in Iraq is taken power away from a less radical faction and given it to a more radical, anti-West fa