Bhutto's widower says West supported military not Pakistani people

Discussion in 'Politics' started by doeton, Jul 1, 2008.

  1. doeton
    Offline

    doeton Senior Member

    Joined:
    Mar 27, 2008
    Messages:
    1,213
    Thanks Received:
    65
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Ratings:
    +65
    Bhutto's widower says West supported military not Pakistani people

    basically your typical scathy report of imperialist (and just plain dumb) American foreign policy.

    sure will be nice when President Obama puts a damper this losing foreign policy stategy.

    "Islamabad - The widower of slain ex-premier Benazir Bhutto on Tuesday blasted on the West, saying it had always invested in Pakistan's military and arms but not in its people, with the result of a rise of Islamic militancy and terrorism...when the war against Soviet Union was won, 'Pakistan and the country we liberated were abandoned to the forces of extremism and fanaticism.'

    US and other western countries supported Islamic Jihad resistance against Soviet Union in 1980s.

    The Kremlin retreated in late 1980s but the seminaries kept on producing holy warriors, which were the main forces behind Taliban movement in Afghanistan in mid 1990s and lately in Pakistan.

    Zardari said that Pakistan was now the Petrie dish of international terrorism that was a product of failed international politics and not its own creation.

    PPP formed the new, coalition government together with the allies, who jointly defeated the political backers of President Pervez Musharraf, a key US ally in the fight against terrorism.

    The new government revised Musharraf's 'hard-handed' policies against pro-Taliban militants active in restive tribal areas and parts of neighbouring North-West Frontier Province (NWFP), and offered them peace talks.

    The move raised concerns in Washington and other NATO countries who said the peace agreements Taliban elements would only give them opportunity to regroup and launch with attacks with more forces from tribal belt on international forces in Afghanistan as well as Pakistani security forces.

    But the government led by Zardari's party says that a comprehensive strategy is required to quell terrorism. It includes socio-economic development as well as limited and targeted use of force."
     
  2. nomdeplume
    Offline

    nomdeplume Member

    Joined:
    Jun 18, 2008
    Messages:
    378
    Thanks Received:
    13
    Trophy Points:
    16
    Ratings:
    +13
    Awesome. So Odumba is going to get us into Iraq part two? This time with country that has a real arsenal of nukes? How many years? "100 years" perhaps?
     
  3. Charles_Main
    Offline

    Charles_Main AR15 Owner

    Joined:
    Jun 23, 2008
    Messages:
    16,692
    Thanks Received:
    2,238
    Trophy Points:
    88
    Location:
    Michigan, USA
    Ratings:
    +2,251
    Yeah gotta love those liberals.

    They been telling us since before the war, that we can not win in Iraq. A nation of 25 million people with out Nukes, But now they want to invade a nation of 175 million people who has nukes.

    Sorry I just can not follow that logic.

    As Far as the west supporting the military. Yes we did, not because we are evil, but for stability. The sad fact is in the case of Pakistan we can not afford to support democracy as that could very well mean a Islamic Theocracy with Nukes. We supported Mushariff because the alternatives were to unknown and frankly dangerous.

    In a perfect world we would always support the Democratic forces, unfortunately this is not a perfect world, despite what liberals want you to think.

    Our government is charged with protecting us, not spreading democracy around the world. In the case of Pakistan our policies have been to keep the nukes out of the hands of Radicals, and nothing more.

    Charles
     
  4. doeton
    Offline

    doeton Senior Member

    Joined:
    Mar 27, 2008
    Messages:
    1,213
    Thanks Received:
    65
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Ratings:
    +65
    um, actually what i said about iraq was, what will we do after we win? disposing of sadam was easy...it's the these last five six years and the next 20 (or John Mccain's 100) that i'm worried about.

    dude and your answer about pakistan only makes my point "The sad fact is in the case of Pakistan we can not afford to support democracy as that could very well mean a Islamic Theocracy with Nukes."

    earth to Mr. Charles. we had sadam in our pocket. he was secularist. sadam only invaded kuwait after we gave him the sucker nod. and even after the gulf 1 he was contained.

    now we have an iraq that may go to iran. hello! you are correct "we can not afford to support democracy as that could very well mean a Islamic Theocracy"

    we were better off with sadam.

    uh...and why did we invade iraq again?
    :clap2:

    Seriously though, i agree our government is charged with protecting us. and bush's pathetic inability to catch OBL should make everyone sick. And it's why i'm in favor of actually going after OBL and the countries that harbor him. gotta love these 'conservatives' who support invading a country that had nothing to do OBL and 911.

    and get this are against wasting our resources spreading democracy.

    wtf are we in iraq for then?
     
  5. Charles_Main
    Offline

    Charles_Main AR15 Owner

    Joined:
    Jun 23, 2008
    Messages:
    16,692
    Thanks Received:
    2,238
    Trophy Points:
    88
    Location:
    Michigan, USA
    Ratings:
    +2,251
    Why do you assume I was for invading Iraq? I wanted to kill Saddam thats all, IMO we could have achieved the same results we have today with 1 bullet. maybe 3 if we killed his kids too. Now that said, I am of the mind, that what is done is done, and we must not WIN in Iraq. Defeat is not an option.

    As for Pakistan I say again, it would be a HUGE mistake to attack them. Not only do they have 7 times the population of Iraq, but they have mountains, and Nukes.

    Even though I was not really for Invading Iraq, I do see how we had more reason to invade Iraq then we do Pakistan. Not because of 9/11 but because of Saddams constant violations of the Cease fire and the UN resolutions. That said I still would not have invaded had I been in charge.

    As a REAL conservative, Which BUSH is not, do you want to know what I would have done after 9/11? I would have attack the real enemy. Who is the real enemy? well thats hard to say, but clearly a good start would have been to break of relations with Saudi Arabia, and Consider attack them. The true home of our True enemies.

    Charles

    Charles
     
    Last edited: Jul 2, 2008
  6. doeton
    Offline

    doeton Senior Member

    Joined:
    Mar 27, 2008
    Messages:
    1,213
    Thanks Received:
    65
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Ratings:
    +65
    ok, but killing sadam gives us the problem we have over there now. no?

    I don't advocate attacking them...i don't the article does that either. you think bhutto's widower is calling on us to attack his own country?

    I thought the article simply emphasises the folly of much of our foriegn policy.


    this true liberal tends to agree with you there.
     
  7. Charles_Main
    Offline

    Charles_Main AR15 Owner

    Joined:
    Jun 23, 2008
    Messages:
    16,692
    Thanks Received:
    2,238
    Trophy Points:
    88
    Location:
    Michigan, USA
    Ratings:
    +2,251
    I made a typo, It should read we must now win in Iraq, not we must not win in Iraq :)
     
  8. Charles_Main
    Offline

    Charles_Main AR15 Owner

    Joined:
    Jun 23, 2008
    Messages:
    16,692
    Thanks Received:
    2,238
    Trophy Points:
    88
    Location:
    Michigan, USA
    Ratings:
    +2,251
    Well unlike some morons, I am only Conservative on Some issues, I am Liberal on others, I personally think anyone who thinks they are all Liberal or all conservative is a retarded lemming.

    For instance I favor ending the war on drugs, not because I use them, but because it makes no sense to spend billions fighting it.

    I am not against gay marriage, yet another liberal stance of mine, Not because I am gay, but because I am not a homophobe and dont care if they get married.

    I am all for alternative fuels, infact I think if we wised up and used Industrial hemp we could solve a lot of our problems.

    Really what I am conservative on is the Constitution, and my belief that federal gov should be limited as mush as possible.

    So call me an independent if you must :)
     
  9. doeton
    Offline

    doeton Senior Member

    Joined:
    Mar 27, 2008
    Messages:
    1,213
    Thanks Received:
    65
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Ratings:
    +65
    yeah, i think you can edit that...i assumed that's what you meant anyways...
     
  10. waltky
    Offline

    waltky Wise ol' monkey Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Feb 6, 2011
    Messages:
    24,389
    Thanks Received:
    2,232
    Trophy Points:
    275
    Location:
    Okolona, KY
    Ratings:
    +5,346
    Musharraf indicted for role in Bhutto's assassination...
    :eusa_shifty:
    Pakistan's Musharraf charged in Bhutto killing
    Aug 20,`13 -- A Pakistani court on Tuesday indicted former president and army chief Pervez Musharraf on murder charges in connection with the 2007 assassination of iconic Pakistani Prime Minister Benazir Bhutto, deepening the fall of a once-powerful figure who returned to the country this year to make a political comeback.
     

Share This Page