Musharraf Returns to Pakistan

[Nebor]

Link

It'll be good to have him back. The article says he has a lot of opposition, but hopefully the beloved patriot Army and US covert & overt influence can see him return to power and get that country back in line.

 

[janas19]

Link

It'll be good to have him back. The article says he has a lot of opposition, but hopefully the beloved patriot Army and US covert & overt influence can see him return to power and get that country back in line.

Sure he'll get things in line? Sounds like he's going to have trouble even getting his ass out of the airport.

 

[Jhhnn]

Link

It'll be good to have him back. The article says he has a lot of opposition, but hopefully the beloved patriot Army and US covert & overt influence can see him return to power and get that country back in line.

Well, yeh, of course you feel that way. The US, & particularly our military, prefer to deal with strongman govts who'll get in line & stay that way. History is full of 'em.

Democracies are sooo messy- sometimes they even imagine that they can put their own perceived welfare ahead of Uncle Sugar's...

 

[janas19]

Well, yeh, of course you feel that way. The US, & particularly our military, prefer to deal with strongman govts who'll get in line & stay that way. History is full of 'em.

Democracies are sooo messy- sometimes they even imagine that they can put their own perceived welfare ahead of Uncle Sugar's...

Yeah, this is true.

However, with the reports you hear coming out of Iraq, sometimes I honestly wonder if a strongman isn't needed.

 

[Jhhnn]

Yeah, this is true.

However, with the reports you hear coming out of Iraq, sometimes I honestly wonder if a strongman isn't needed.

Somebody like... Saddam Hussein? We thought he was great when he was warring with the Iranians, tut-tutted his brutality. It was only when he turned on his financiers, the Kuwaitis, that we decided he was a monster. The Al Sabah's have a lot of money, & a lot of clout with their friends...

Toeing the line is the most important part, obviously, and in that he failed.

Late in his career, Gaddafi tried to mend his ways & his fences, but, well, there was already too much water under the bridge, and there had been a regime change in Washington, too... Granting the Bush Admin a propaganda coup wasn't enough for redemption...

 

[Lemon law]

I think many Pakistanis want a strong leader who can stand up to both Nato and the Taliban, but I don't think Musharraf will get a second chance to be that leader.

 

[SandEagle]

I think many Pakistanis want a strong leader who can stand up to both Nato and the Taliban, but I don't think Musharraf will get a second chance to be that leader.

wait, i thought Biden said that Taliban wasn't the enemy? Isn't Karzai approving a Taliban headquarters in Qatar too? Or is this a scheme to get Taliban spread to Qatar and that area of the ME so that we can invade there too?

 

[Craig234]

Somebody like... Saddam Hussein? We thought he was great when he was warring with the Iranians, tut-tutted his brutality. It was only when he turned on his financiers, the Kuwaitis, that we decided he was a monster. The Al Sabah's have a lot of money, & a lot of clout with their friends...

Toeing the line is the most important part, obviously, and in that he failed.

Late in his career, Gaddafi tried to mend his ways & his fences, but, well, there was already too much water under the bridge, and there had been a regime change in Washington, too... Granting the Bush Admin a propaganda coup wasn't enough for redemption...

To be fair, it seems Obama had no problem with Qadafi, until the Arab Spring arrived.

Faced with doing nothing while Qadafi slaughtered people, Obama took action.

(And faced with Syria slaughtering people with a different set of challenges to doing something, we've done very little but condemn it.)

 

[Craig234]

Foreign policy often seems to resemble prison politics.

There will be a faction 'serving the US', a faction serving other interests - you can pick which faction that is going to serve some power, screw the public interest.

You can refuse to serve such a faction and 'just be for the people', but it's like in Prison choosing not to join your race's gange and go it alone - you will pay heavily.

Those people who don't join a gang get nailed. People ask why we don't get just 'good leaders' for these countries.

That doesn't seem to be an option for the most part.

 

[cybrsage]

To be fair, it seems Obama had no problem with Qadafi, until the Arab Spring arrived.

Faced with doing nothing while Qadafi slaughtered people, Obama took action.

(And faced with Syria slaughtering people with a different set of challenges to doing something, we've done very little but condemn it.)

Syria does not have any oil to speak of...Obama only kills Arabs when they have lots of oil.

 

[Lemon law]

To be fair, it seems Obama had no problem with Qadafi, until the Arab Spring arrived.

Faced with doing nothing while Qadafi slaughtered people, Obama took action.

(And faced with Syria slaughtering people with a different set of challenges to doing something, we've done very little but condemn it.)

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Unlike cybridiot, I have a different take here, as Obama watched Libya descend into civil war.
Maybe point granted, Gaddafi was doing exactly what Assad in Syria is now doing. But unlike Egypt and Tunisia, Gaddafi lost the leadership of large parts of his own army who turned on Gaddafi and it was soon apparent that Libya was facing a long and bloody civil war. Maybe Mubarak in Egypt would have done the same, but when all his own army refused to butcher their own people. We saw Mubarak fall instead.

But still Libya had far more oil than Syria, and when the bulk of the Libyan oil went to Italian and French markets, it was not a US problem, even if Italy and France would be hurting as long as the Libyan civil war remained a stalemate. But the world changed when the Arab League decided and almost unanimously voted that Gaddafi had to go, Then and only then was it in US interests to join in as a Junior partner in a coalition to shorten the Libyan civil war. And today, very few miss a brute like Gaddafi as it become USA win win win situation for Libya, the EU, and the Arab world.

Sadly the win win win moment has not yet arrived in Syria. The Arab league is getting closer and closer to voting to say Assad has to go. But the EU has no economic interests in Syria or does the US, and while Turkey may be willing to help the US get rid of Assad, it exposes all kinds of other tensions in the mid-east. So I think its wise for Obama to wait, and maybe hope the Syrian military will remove an ahole like Assad.

When and if the Arab League and the UN comes down hard on Assad, then and only then should the USA look at Syrian other options in MHO.

 

[cybrsage]

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Unlike cybrsage, I have a different take here, as Obama watched Libya descend into civil war.
Maybe point granted, Gaddafi was doing exactly what Assad in Syria is now doing...

Yep, you are correct up to this point. You should have stopped there, when you were still correct.

The civil war stopped the flow of oil. Obama could not allow that, so he started killing Arabs. I have no problem with this, as the oil must flow. He just should not have lied to us about his reasons...since those exact same reasons are valid in Syria.

EDIT:

http://www.redstate.com/moe_lane/20...on-misses-unilateralist-cowboy-george-w-bush/

 

[Braznor]

Musharraf's assassination que in 4,3,2,1......

He cannot peep outside for a minute without snipers hunting on him.