 | Bush Embraces Terrorist Regime in War on Terror |
Dissidents, opposition party leaders, authors, judges, lawyers, schoolteachers and human rights activists have been rounded up and taken away by security forces in vans in Pakistan. These forces are known to use torture on their detainees. The Pakistani constitution has been suspended. The Supreme Court has been disbanded. Domestic news media have been shut down. Parliamentary elections once scheduled for January are off the calendar.
George W. Bush hasn’t made so much as a single phone call of protest to Pakistan. The Bush administration has signaled that it will continue to send weapons to the Pakistani military and continue to support the undemocratic rule of General Pervez Musharraf.
Says Pakistani Minister of Information Tariq Azim Khan of the Bush administration’s continuing support, “They would rather have a stable Pakistan — albeit with some restrictive norms — than have more democracy prone to fall in the hands of extremists.” I’d say the situation is pretty extreme right now.
Highly militarized, antidemocratic and torturing dictators propped up by the United States in the name of fighting terror. If you think hard, you should be able to name more than a handful of these in recent American history. Can you name them? And how did those situations turn out?
(Sources: New York Times November 5 2007; Human Rights Watch November 17 2007)
Contact Us
You know, for once I think Jim is absolutely right. We should stop supporting Pakistan. In fact, we should oppose Pakistan’s dictatorship which is oppressing some of its people. After all, what’s the worst that could happen? Sure, muslim extremists may take over, but at least it’s what the people of Pakistan want. It’s not like Pakistan’s nuclear weapons can reach the United States yet. And the chances of Pakistan, even if taken over by radical muslims, giving a nuclear weapon to Bin Ladin or some other terrorist group are EXTREMELY small, since they would be afraid of US Nuclear Retaliation if it was traced back to them. It’s not like they would believe that if they got wiped out by the US that they would go to heaven with 40 virgins or anything.
You’re right, forget Pakistan, supporting them in NO WAY is in the best interest of the United States or its people. By helping the Pakistani people, we are helping ourselves.
Comment by Joseph — 11/5/2007 @ 4:09 pm
P.S:
“Highly militarized, antidemocratic and torturing dictators propped up by the United States in the name of fighting terror. If you think hard, you should be able to name more than a handful of these in recent American history. Can you name them? And how did those situations turn out?”
-Khazikstan-still supporting War on Terror
-Libya-disarmed its nuclear weapons
-Iraq-started attacking its neighbors
-Iran-was overthrown by radical muslims, currently antagonistic toward the US
-Sadui Arabia-still supporting…sort of…the war on terror
Comment by Joseph — 11/5/2007 @ 4:15 pm
Joseph, here you are, offering a cut-and-paste comment. Do you cut and paste the same stuff elsewhere around the web? Let’s do a search. Comment spammer?
I’ve already answered your points on another article where you cut and pasted this.
1. Supporting Pakistan and supporting Musharraf are not equivalent.
2. The Pakistani lawyers Musharraf had beat up and tear gassed are not muslim extremists
3. Pervez Musharraf supported the Taliban in Afghanistan, and through them, Osama Bin Laden
4. There are other alternatives to Pervez Musharraf than muslim extremists
5. Joseph doesn’t seem to support democracy, either in Pakistan or here in the United States.
Comment by J. Clifford — 11/5/2007 @ 4:22 pm
Yeah, well, when the same comment applies perfectly well twice, to two seperate articles, I have no problem meeting an article spam with a comment spam.
Of course supporting Pakistan and Musharraf are not equivalent. We are opposing Pakistan by supporting Musharraf. The only way to support Pakistan is by opposing him. We get rid of him, let the popular will take over (which is tending to be extermist), and then let them run their own country. Why are we propping up a government that is against a substantial portion of its population? We should be against him, and in favor of all of the people, even those we may disagree with. Just because the US people and Pakistani people have different interests, we should definitely be supporting the freedom of the Pakistani people to follow their beliefs, instead of supporting a dictator! I am CLEARLY supporting the democratic will of the Pakistani people by wanting THEM to run their country instead of Musharraf.
Comment by Joseph — 11/5/2007 @ 5:04 pm
Condoleeza made a fairly strong statement against Musharraf today. Press freedom shut down, Musharraf still in uniform (head of army), etc. Looks like it’s going to be political pressure.
Comment by Illinois — 11/5/2007 @ 5:25 pm
yes, it will be a political show of mild pressure from US officials, which PM will feel fine ignoring. Everyone knows Bush would threaten them with annihilation if he really meant it.
Comment by hendrixbot — 11/5/2007 @ 8:34 pm
yes, it will be a political show of mild pressure from US officials, which Gen. PM will feel fine ignoring. Everyone knows Bush would threaten them with annihilation if he really meant it.
Will we even get a UN resolution for the US to veto?
(Is it just me or has the UN been phased out of the news?)
Comment by hendrixbot — 11/5/2007 @ 8:40 pm