Do you believe it?

Page 5 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

Lemon law

Lifer
Nov 6, 2005
20,984
3
0
Regardless if the now dead Bhutto favored it or not, the US and Nato military will soon be putting boots onto Pakistani soil anyway. I may or may not be right in my pessimistic
guess that its going to lead into a bigger military quagmire in the area and that its going to destabilize the Pakistani Government.

As for JOS, I do not see him as special, but as an all too typical willing cog in the wheel of the military machine. Even if he has laudable personal ideals, they will be perverted by his and our more cynical leaders who profit so handsomely by spreading death and instability on a world that needs wiser more compassionate leadership.
 

Noobtastic

Banned
Jul 9, 2005
3,721
0
0
guess that its going to lead into a bigger military quagmire in the area and that its going to destabilize the Pakistani Government.

You really think it's a smart thing to allow a country with NUCLEAR WEAPONS to be left to sort itself out? It will either be consumed by islamic radicalism, like all the other muslim countries, or will be consumed by a military dictator, with an a majority overwhelmingly against.

For safety of the world, I'd be more than supportive to allow western occupation or physical influence. It would be just plain stupid and naive to ignore the issue with "destabilizing the region". You have to be a complete idiot to believe something so monumentally ignorant. The region has been f**ked in every hole since the get-go.

I mean seriously dude.
 

NoStateofMind

Diamond Member
Oct 14, 2005
9,711
6
76
Originally posted by: Noobtastic
guess that its going to lead into a bigger military quagmire in the area and that its going to destabilize the Pakistani Government.

You really think it's a smart thing to allow a country with NUCLEAR WEAPONS to be left to sort itself out? It will either be consumed by islamic radicalism, like all the other muslim countries, or will be consumed by a military dictator, with an a majority overwhelmingly against.

For safety of the world, I'd be more than supportive to allow western occupation or physical influence. It would be just plain stupid and naive to ignore the issue with "destabilizing the region". You have to be a complete idiot to believe something so monumentally ignorant. The region has been f**ked in every hole since the get-go.

I mean seriously dude.


It already is, where have you been?
 

Noobtastic

Banned
Jul 9, 2005
3,721
0
0
Originally posted by: PC Surgeon
Originally posted by: Noobtastic
guess that its going to lead into a bigger military quagmire in the area and that its going to destabilize the Pakistani Government.

You really think it's a smart thing to allow a country with NUCLEAR WEAPONS to be left to sort itself out? It will either be consumed by islamic radicalism, like all the other muslim countries, or will be consumed by a military dictator, with an a majority overwhelmingly against.

For safety of the world, I'd be more than supportive to allow western occupation or physical influence. It would be just plain stupid and naive to ignore the issue with "destabilizing the region". You have to be a complete idiot to believe something so monumentally ignorant. The region has been f**ked in every hole since the get-go.

I mean seriously dude.


It already is, where have you been?

Not yet. He considers himself the alpha-omega, but the country far from under his control.

 

NoStateofMind

Diamond Member
Oct 14, 2005
9,711
6
76
Originally posted by: Noobtastic
Originally posted by: PC Surgeon
Originally posted by: Noobtastic
guess that its going to lead into a bigger military quagmire in the area and that its going to destabilize the Pakistani Government.

You really think it's a smart thing to allow a country with NUCLEAR WEAPONS to be left to sort itself out? It will either be consumed by islamic radicalism, like all the other muslim countries, or will be consumed by a military dictator, with an a majority overwhelmingly against.

For safety of the world, I'd be more than supportive to allow western occupation or physical influence. It would be just plain stupid and naive to ignore the issue with "destabilizing the region". You have to be a complete idiot to believe something so monumentally ignorant. The region has been f**ked in every hole since the get-go.

I mean seriously dude.


It already is, where have you been?

Not yet. He considers himself the alpha-omega, but the country far from under his control.

The majority of people may be against him. But that does not change the fact that it is a military dictatorship.
 

GrGr

Diamond Member
Sep 25, 2003
3,204
1
76
They don't blame al-Qa'ida. They blame Musharraf
Published: 29 December 2007
Robert Fisk

The Independent

Weird, isn't it, how swiftly the narrative is laid down for us. Benazir Bhutto, the courageous leader of the Pakistan People's Party, is assassinated in Rawalpindi ? attached to the very capital of Islamabad wherein ex-General Pervez Musharraf lives ? and we are told by George Bush that her murderers were "extremists" and "terrorists". Well, you can't dispute that.

But the implication of the Bush comment was that Islamists were behind the assassination. It was the Taliban madmen again, the al-Qa'ida spider who struck at this lone and brave woman who had dared to call for democracy in her country.

Of course, given the childish coverage of this appalling tragedy ? and however corrupt Ms Bhutto may have been, let us be under no illusions that this brave lady is indeed a true martyr ? it's not surprising that the "good-versus-evil" donkey can be trotted out to explain the carnage in Rawalpindi.

Who would have imagined, watching the BBC or CNN on Thursday, that her two brothers, Murtaza and Shahnawaz, hijacked a Pakistani airliner in 1981 and flew it to Kabul where Murtaza demanded the release of political prisoners in Pakistan. Here, a military officer on the plane was murdered. There were Americans aboard the flight ? which is probably why the prisoners were indeed released.

Only a few days ago ? in one of the most remarkable (but typically unrecognised) scoops of the year ? Tariq Ali published a brilliant dissection of Pakistan (and Bhutto) corruption in the London Review of Books, focusing on Benazir and headlined: "Daughter of the West". In fact, the article was on my desk to photocopy as its subject was being murdered in Rawalpindi.

Towards the end of this report, Tariq Ali dwelt at length on the subsequent murder of Murtaza Bhutto by police close to his home at a time when Benazir was prime minister ? and at a time when Benazir was enraged at Murtaza for demanding a return to PPP values and for condemning Benazir's appointment of her own husband as minister for industry, a highly lucrative post.

In a passage which may yet be applied to the aftermath of Benazir's murder, the report continues: "The fatal bullet had been fired at close range. The trap had been carefully laid, but, as is the way in Pakistan, the crudeness of the operation ? false entries in police log-books, lost evidence, witnesses arrested and intimidated ? a policeman killed who they feared might talk ? made it obvious that the decision to execute the prime minister's brother had been taken at a very high level."

When Murtaza's 14-year-old daughter, Fatima, rang her aunt Benazir to ask why witnesses were being arrested ? rather than her father's killers ? she says Benazir told her: "Look, you're very young. You don't understand things." Or so Tariq Ali's exposé would have us believe. Over all this, however, looms the shocking power of Pakistan's ISI, the Inter Services Intelligence.

This vast institution ? corrupt, venal and brutal ? works for Musharraf.

But it also worked ? and still works ? for the Taliban. It also works for the Americans. In fact, it works for everybody
. But it is the key which Musharraf can use to open talks with America's enemies when he feels threatened or wants to put pressure on Afghanistan or wants to appease the " extremists" and "terrorists" who so oppress George Bush. And let us remember, by the way, that Daniel Pearl, the Wall Street Journal reporter beheaded by his Islamist captors in Karachi, actually made his fatal appointment with his future murderers from an ISI commander's office. Ahmed Rashid's book Taliban provides riveting proof of the ISI's web of corruption and violence. Read it, and all of the above makes more sense.

But back to the official narrative. George Bush announced on Thursday he was "looking forward" to talking to his old friend Musharraf. Of course, they would talk about Benazir. They certainly would not talk about the fact that Musharraf continues to protect his old acquaintance ? a certain Mr Khan ? who supplied all Pakistan's nuclear secrets to Libya and Iran. No, let's not bring that bit of the "axis of evil" into this.

So, of course, we were asked to concentrate once more on all those " extremists" and "terrorists", not on the logic of questioning which many Pakistanis were feeling their way through in the aftermath of Benazir's assassination.

It doesn't, after all, take much to comprehend that the hated elections looming over Musharraf would probably be postponed indefinitely if his principal political opponent happened to be liquidated before polling day.

So let's run through this logic in the way that Inspector Ian Blair might have done in his policeman's notebook before he became the top cop in London.

Question: Who forced Benazir Bhutto to stay in London and tried to prevent her return to Pakistan? Answer: General Musharraf.

Question: Who ordered the arrest of thousands of Benazir's supporters this month? Answer: General Musharraf.

Question: Who placed Benazir under temporary house arrest this month? Answer: General Musharraf.

Question: Who declared martial law this month? Answer General Musharraf.

Question: who killed Benazir Bhutto?

Er. Yes. Well quite.

You see the problem? Yesterday, our television warriors informed us the PPP members shouting that Musharraf was a "murderer" were complaining he had not provided sufficient security for Benazir. Wrong. They were shouting this because they believe he killed her.


-------------------------------------------------

Doesn't there seem a remarkable similiarty to the murder this article describes, of Bhutto's own brother while she was Prime Minister, and the killing of Bhutto, weird aftermath and all?





 

bamacre

Lifer
Jul 1, 2004
21,029
2
81
"But I come from out there, and everybody out there knows, everybody lies: cops lie, newspapers lie, parent's lyin'. The one thing you can count on - word on the street... yeah, that's solid. "
 

Drift3r

Guest
Jun 3, 2003
3,572
0
0
Originally posted by: PC Surgeon
Ok all over the news they are reporting that Pakistans government is saying Al Qaeda is responsible for killing Bhutto. I don't, for one second, believe this shite!

Musharraf has the motive and should be investigated.

I also hear they did no autopsy.

They cleared the street with firehoses. Essentially removing any attempt at forensics.

It smells of another military dictator trying to retain power and we continue to support them. Hopefully this action changes that.

IMHO I think it was just another ISI and Al Qaeda join operation to get rid of a common enemy. This women's stated campaign goal was to neuter the military and crack down the extremist. You are not going to have many friends in either camp if this is your stated goal. The fact that the military and intelligence agencies of Pakistan each have Al Qaeda sympathizers within their ranks tends to make me lean in this direction.
 

Drift3r

Guest
Jun 3, 2003
3,572
0
0
Originally posted by: Jaskalas
Originally posted by: PC Surgeon
Ok all over the news they are reporting that Pakistans government is saying Al Qaeda is responsible for killing Bhutto. I don't, for one second, believe this shite!

Musharraf has the motive and should be investigated.

I also hear they did no autopsy.

They cleared the street with firehoses. Essentially removing any attempt at forensics.

It smells of another military dictator trying to retain power and we continue to support them. Hopefully this action changes that.

Killing Bhutto gave the crazies further control of that nation. Once they have enough control then Musharraf will be killed. He may not be smart enough to know it, but her death brings him closer to his own.

Whereas the crazies had everything to gain, more chaos = more recruits = opportunity to take over the government and its nuclear weapons.

From the past days of rioting on the streets I believe most people are feed up with the government, the military, the extremists, Musharraf himself and his US overlords.
 

bamacre

Lifer
Jul 1, 2004
21,029
2
81
It is really odd that what AQ does so often helps those in power.

AQ's 9/11 attacks gave Bush reason to go into Afghanistan and Iraq.

AQ's attacks in Iraq did nothing but help solidify Iraqi's as they were a common enemy to the coalition forces and the insurgents.

And now, the presumed AQ murder of Bhutto leaves Musharraf with little to no real opposition.
 

Noobtastic

Banned
Jul 9, 2005
3,721
0
0
The majority of people may be against him. But that does not change the fact that it is a military dictatorship.

Uhh...it isn't a military dictatorship. Musharraf is an alleged-military dictator, but Pakistan is not being governed under a military dictatorship.

Get it...?

 

Lemon law

Lifer
Nov 6, 2005
20,984
3
0
Yes, what the street believes is every bit as valid as a fact.

I cited the example of Harria in Lebanon. Syrian involvement still has never been proved but overnight the Syrian occupation was Kaput.

Take the battleship Maine blowing up in Havana harbor probably due to an accidental boiler explosion. But it still caused a war when the public believed its was caused by Spanish agents.

There are hundreds of such examples from history where mobs move and don't wait for definitive proof. Emotion can be even more valid than facts.

And now US boots will come to the ground in Pakistan. Long odds Musharrif will be seen as a US stooge and good bye any Pakistani stability. Noobtastic is right in saying loose nukes are a huge danger but we differ on which course is more dangerous.

Pakistani moderates were firmly in control before and now they will be deeply divided thanks to a Condi Rice brainfart in forcing a Bhutto return from exile. If anyone thinks anyone in Pakistan will rally around a US sponsored poodle has never learned anything from history. But that appears to be where things are going as military types keep saying trust us, we know what we are doing.

We have heard it all before. Most recently in Vietnam, Iraq, and Afghanistan. And it always usually turns out the very people who said they knew what they were doing didn't know anything about people, history, or competence. And then compound the error by increasing the stakes instead of learning anything about what they did wrong in the process.
 

Lemon law

Lifer
Nov 6, 2005
20,984
3
0
Originally posted by: palehorse74
Originally posted by: Lemon law
And now US boots will come to the ground in Pakistan.
Like I said, you wont see them... they'll be ghosts.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Like I told you before, very soon everyone will know they are there. The taliban can blend in
because they are of the people, Caucasians will stick out like sore thumbs. And sooner or later
some will be caught and then the government complicity will be paraded out to any doubters.

I know I know---you give me your personal assurances it will work.

And given history, your assurances ain't worth anything.

Lets see---Vietnam---a military FUBAR that got worse when expanded.
------------------------Granda---a success because we had 1 troop per sq ft.
-----------------------Gulf war one a success because it was limited to kicking Saddam out of Kuwait with an international coalition.

-----------Afghanistan----a FUBAR you want to expand into Pakistan.
-----------Iraq---------a FUBAR even you say will take decades to solve.
 

NoStateofMind

Diamond Member
Oct 14, 2005
9,711
6
76
I just saw the video on CNN showing Bhutto being shot a couple times and then it seems the guy then blows himself up. I'll see if I can find the Video.
 

Noobtastic

Banned
Jul 9, 2005
3,721
0
0
Originally posted by: Lemon law
Originally posted by: palehorse74
Originally posted by: Lemon law
And now US boots will come to the ground in Pakistan.
Like I said, you wont see them... they'll be ghosts.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Like I told you before, very soon everyone will know they are there. The taliban can blend in
because they are of the people, Caucasians will stick out like sore thumbs. And sooner or later
some will be caught and then the government complicity will be paraded out to any doubters.

I know I know---you give me your personal assurances it will work.

And given history, your assurances ain't worth anything.

Lets see---Vietnam---a military FUBAR that got worse when expanded.
------------------------Granda---a success because we had 1 troop per sq ft.
-----------------------Gulf war one a success because it was limited to kicking Saddam out of Kuwait with an international coalition.

-----------Afghanistan----a FUBAR you want to expand into Pakistan.
-----------Iraq---------a FUBAR even you say will take decades to solve.

When you go to war, regardless of reasons, every resource and available energy should be utilized. 1,000,000 troops would have satisfied Iraq and Afghanistan.

That's what Israel does, and look at their military record.

Nickel and dimming military resources in a time of war will always result in failure.
 

palehorse

Lifer
Dec 21, 2005
11,521
0
76
Originally posted by: Lemon law
Originally posted by: palehorse74
Originally posted by: Lemon law
And now US boots will come to the ground in Pakistan.
Like I said, you wont see them... they'll be ghosts.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Like I told you before, very soon everyone will know they are there. The taliban can blend in
because they are of the people, Caucasians will stick out like sore thumbs. And sooner or later
some will be caught and then the government complicity will be paraded out to any doubters.

I know I know---you give me your personal assurances it will work.

And given history, your assurances ain't worth anything.
For all intents, and purposes, they'll be ghosts... Why? Because there won't be any videos of American men streaming off aircraft in camouflage uniforms, carrying weapons, and wearing "boots." Video of such an event would be required for any large-scale blowback driven by the militants or Pakistani citizens - so it wont happen.

the citizenry will hardly notice them, if at all.

Hint: these will not be the first caucasian military "advisers" in Pakistan...

Last, dont for a minute blame the military for diplomatic (political) and economic failures in previous wars. Do you need another lesson in the three-pronged approach?

Military + diplomatic + economic = success.

Doing only one of those, in a vacuum, leads to failure. So aim your poo at the State Department if you truly want to make the changes necessary for success.
 

GrGr

Diamond Member
Sep 25, 2003
3,204
1
76
Originally posted by: palehorse74
Originally posted by: Lemon law
Originally posted by: palehorse74
Originally posted by: Lemon law
And now US boots will come to the ground in Pakistan.
Like I said, you wont see them... they'll be ghosts.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Like I told you before, very soon everyone will know they are there. The taliban can blend in
because they are of the people, Caucasians will stick out like sore thumbs. And sooner or later
some will be caught and then the government complicity will be paraded out to any doubters.

I know I know---you give me your personal assurances it will work.

And given history, your assurances ain't worth anything.
For all intents, and purposes, they'll be ghosts... Why? Because there won't be any videos of American men streaming off aircraft in camouflage uniforms, carrying weapons, and wearing "boots." Video of such an event would be required for any large-scale blowback driven by the militants or Pakistani citizens - so it wont happen.

the citizenry will hardly notice them, if at all.

Hint: these will not be the first caucasian military "advisers" in Pakistan...

Last, dont for a minute blame the military for diplomatic (political) and economic failures in previous wars. Do you need another lesson in the three-pronged approach?

Military + diplomatic + economic = success.

Doing only one of those, in a vacuum, leads to failure. So aim your poo at the State Department if you truly want to make the changes necessary for success.

Interesting that you keep stressing how important the propaganda aspect is.

But when it comes down to it sending in Rambo is not going to win the war is it. No doubt the SoF guys can inflict whole sale slaughter if they wish, or go after the big names and take them out, but in the end you cannot defeat their culture or fast forward all the various tribes into "modern" civilization against their wishes. The Muslim nations have a very high birth rate (unlike most western nations). Any real victory will not be achieved through imposing puppets and the like on the peoples there. If you do you the Taliban and AQ will only arise in new forms. If anything History teaches us about the futility of Crusades.
 

event8horizon

Senior member
Nov 15, 2007
674
0
0
from what ive read, the taliban recruit from the pushtun tribes.

Pashtuns comprise over 15.42% of Pakistan's population or 25.6 million people.[12] In Afghanistan, they make up an estimated 42% of the population or 13.3 million people. The exact measure of these figures remains uncertain, particularly those for Afghanistan, and are affected by approximately three million Afghan refugees (of which 81.5% or 2.49 million are ethnic Pashtuns) that remain in Pakistan.[13] An unknown number of refugees continue to reside in Iran.[14] A cumulative population assessment suggests a total of around 42 million across the region.

i highly dout that any military personel or advisors will have any effect over there. i predict another vietnam type escalation in that area if they are going to put boots on the ground. if u are leaning towards milirary intervention, then we need a draft. that wont happen because the people are sick of the war. i say go the ron paul way, non-intervention. no more democracy at gunpoint. lead by example. let them sort their own shit out.
 

Hayabusa Rider

Admin Emeritus & Elite Member
Jan 26, 2000
50,879
4,268
126
Originally posted by: GrGr
Originally posted by: palehorse74
Originally posted by: Lemon law
Originally posted by: palehorse74
Originally posted by: Lemon law
And now US boots will come to the ground in Pakistan.
Like I said, you wont see them... they'll be ghosts.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Like I told you before, very soon everyone will know they are there. The taliban can blend in
because they are of the people, Caucasians will stick out like sore thumbs. And sooner or later
some will be caught and then the government complicity will be paraded out to any doubters.

I know I know---you give me your personal assurances it will work.

And given history, your assurances ain't worth anything.
For all intents, and purposes, they'll be ghosts... Why? Because there won't be any videos of American men streaming off aircraft in camouflage uniforms, carrying weapons, and wearing "boots." Video of such an event would be required for any large-scale blowback driven by the militants or Pakistani citizens - so it wont happen.

the citizenry will hardly notice them, if at all.

Hint: these will not be the first caucasian military "advisers" in Pakistan...

Last, dont for a minute blame the military for diplomatic (political) and economic failures in previous wars. Do you need another lesson in the three-pronged approach?

Military + diplomatic + economic = success.

Doing only one of those, in a vacuum, leads to failure. So aim your poo at the State Department if you truly want to make the changes necessary for success.

Interesting that you keep stressing how important the propaganda aspect is.

But when it comes down to it sending in Rambo is not going to win the war is it. No doubt the SoF guys can inflict whole sale slaughter if they wish, or go after the big names and take them out, but in the end you cannot defeat their culture or fast forward all the various tribes into "modern" civilization against their wishes. The Muslim nations have a very high birth rate (unlike most western nations). Any real victory will not be achieved through imposing puppets and the like on the peoples there. If you do you the Taliban and AQ will only arise in new forms. If anything History teaches us about the futility of Crusades.

I'm not sure you aren't arguing at cross purposes here.

Let's break down his equation he uses

First, military. We have that down. What we do not have in this forum (and I daresay in DC) is a clear idea of what the military is for. It breaks things and kills people. What has changed over the years are two things, first the sophistication of the military (good), and expectations beyond it's role (bad).

In it's proper role, the military has used specialists to facilitate it's mission. Today's technology requires experts in electronics, for example. Note that these people are not on the battle front shooting at things, but they have a vital support role that makes the whole operation work. Likewise, there are other specialists who's function is to provide reconnaissance and intelligence from potentially hostile areas in preparation for potential action. Closely allied with these (and often overlapping at some level) are those who provide support to others we consider to have similar goals. Note I didn't use friends. Sometimes they are, however sometimes they're despicable bastards we use, and they use us. Everyone who plays knows the rules, so no can say "OMG I thought we were best buds!"

There are times when we do operate alone in these conditions. These "rambos" are highly trained and disciplined to do a very limited action with a minimal footprint. They are the "ghosts" Palehorse speaks of. They don't topple governments. They assist in a larger scheme of action directed for a given end, but they are not themselves the entire means to that end, merely one small part. The really nasty stuff gets decided elsewhere by different people.

That's what we looking at in Pakistan at the moment. Limited operations by people "not there", but not for some grand escapade. Why? Politics. Right now Musharrif is useful to us in that he stands between a relatively benign government and hardline islamicists who definitely don't care about our interests. Particularly now it would be unwise to undermine him by further inciting unrest by the US overtly moving in his country, yet can you imagine the outcry if something catastrophic did happen and we didn't at least try to get a handle on what we can? It's a tricky dirty game, but someone has to do it.

Now the other parts? Politics, economics?
Foreign affairs is completely beyond the ability of the current administration to comprehend, much less utilize correctly. The military can set up the politicians with the best possible playing field, but if they then can't figure out what game they are supposed to be playing it's for naught. That said, the military does what it can in remarkably well.

Economics is altogether beyond reasonable consideration until Iraq gets a grip on itself.
 

Braznor

Diamond Member
Oct 9, 2005
4,767
435
126
Small CT teams ain't the complete answer. It will simply lead to the 'Karzaification' of Pakistan i.e a unique phenomenon where we control only the urban areas leaving the rural to the Taliban wolves.