Bhutto's widower says West supported military not Pakistani people

[doeton]

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."

 

[nomdeplume]

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?

 

[Charles_Main]

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

 

[doeton]

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.

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.

Our government is charged with protecting us, not spreading democracy around the world.

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


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?

 

[Charles_Main]

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?


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?

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

 

[doeton]

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.

ok, but killing sadam gives us the problem we have over there now. no?

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.

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.

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

this true liberal tends to agree with you there.

 

[Charles_Main]

I made a typo, It should read we must now win in Iraq, not we must not win in Iraq

 

[Charles_Main]

this true liberal tends to agree with you there.

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

 

[doeton]

yeah, i think you can edit that...i assumed that's what you meant anyways...

 

[waltky]

Musharraf indicted for role in Bhutto's assassination...

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.

The decision by a court in Rawalpindi marks the first time Musharraf, or any former army chief in Pakistan, has been charged with a crime. Musharraf, who took power in a 1999 coup and stepped down from office in disgrace nearly a decade later, now faces a litany of legal problems that have in many ways broken taboos on the inviolability of the once-sacrosanct military in Pakistani society. He is currently under house arrest in connection with one of the cases against him. The retired general has been charged with murder, conspiracy to commit murder and facilitation for murder, said prosecutor Chaudry Muhammed Azhar. He did not specify what exactly Musharraf was accused of doing but prosecutors have previously accused him of failing to provide enough protection to Bhutto.

The former army commando appeared in person during the brief morning hearing, and pleaded not guilty, said Afshan Adil, a member of Musharraf's legal team. "These are all fabricated cases. There is nothing solid in all these case," she said. Bhutto was killed in 2007 during a gun and bomb attack at a rally in the city of Rawalpindi, the sister city to the Pakistani capital, Islamabad. Prosecutors have said that Musharraf, who was president at the time, failed to properly protect her. Bhutto is the daughter of former Prime Minister Zulfikar Ali Bhutto, who was himself executed in 1977 after being deposed in a coup. His daughter is widely respected in Pakistan for her political commitment - she was jailed multiple times - and her condemnation of militancy and support for Pakistan's poor.

She returned to Pakistan under a deal with Musharraf allowing her to take part in upcoming elections, and his supporters point to the deal as proof that he had no objections to her return. Her assassination set off a wave of protests across the country and helped propel her Pakistan People's Party to office and her husband, Asif Ali Zardari, to the presidency. The judge set August 27 as the next court date to present evidence. Musharraf returned to Pakistan in March after nearly four years outside the country and vowed to take part in the country's May elections. But he has little popular support in Pakistan and ever since his return has faced a litany of legal problems related to his rule.

Musharraf has repeatedly vowed that he returned to lead his supporters in the election and that he would clear his name of all charges. But many questioned why Musharraf decided to come back considering the legal problems he'd be facing and his almost non-existent popularity. His return and legal troubles have put the military and newly elected Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif in a delicate position. Pakistan has undergone three coups since the country's inception in 1947, and the military is considered the most powerful institution. The military's top leadership is not believed to have supported Musharraf's return from exile but they also would likely not want to see one of their own put behind bars or treated unfairly.

MORE