Pakistan - Musharraf declares martial law

So, what do y'all think? A big US ally turns out to be a mini-Saddam. What will you do?

Bilbo Baggins wrote:So, what do y'all think? A big US ally turns out to be a mini-Saddam. What will you do?

muslims killing muslims.

A victimless crime.

So a dictatorship is ok as long as no Christians are being killed?

Bilbo Baggins wrote:So a dictatorship is ok as long as no Christians are being killed?

No. I'm a supporter of hindus, sikhs, budhists and other pagans.
Hell, I even almost like Baptists.

But moon god cultists can immolate each other all they want.

But moon god cultists can immolate each other all they want.

Quite the enlightened attitude.

Bilbo Baggins wrote:So, what do y'all think? A big US ally turns out to be a mini-Saddam. What will you do?

Even discounting your extreme liber*l spin, this is not a good situation. Pervez Musharraf is doing everything in his power to hold his nation together in the face of true evil. For him to make a move like this, he must have been afraid that his nation was about to fall to the Islamo-Fascists. The situation must be pretty damn desperate for him to do this.


A note to the moderators. I am not shy about calling m00nbats, m00nbats. I do not need an algorithm to automatically switch the word liber*l to m00nbat in my posts. When I say liber*l I mean liber*l, when I say m00nbat, I mean m00nbat. If I choose to call someone a m00nbat it is because I intended to do so, I resent the hell out of your algorithm changing m00nbat to confused individual. Your little algorithm to change the wording of peoples posts is dishonest and flat out wrong.

For my mind, he's doing this because he doesn't want to give up all the power he's had for so long. I agree, there are groups in society that he was losing control of, but they were only acting like this because he was abusing his power and trampling on their democratic rights. Not that I'm a fan of states run entirely on religious grounds, but Musharraf himself isn't a nice bloke.

Why do you have to say liber*l or m00nbat? I don't understand all of this stuff, though I'm still relatively new to this whole thing

Bilbo Baggins wrote:For my mind, he's doing this because he doesn't want to give up all the power he's had for so long.

He's all that is standing between the Islamo-Fascists in his country and his nation's nuclear weapons, so for the time being it would be very bad for the entire world if he lost control of Pakistan.

Bilbo Baggins wrote:I agree, there are groups in society that he was losing control of, but they were only acting like this because he was abusing his power and trampling on their democratic rights.

This is far more than a matter of the Pakistani people being denied democratic rights because it is impossible to have democracy where Islamic fanatics are running rampant.

Bilbo Baggins wrote:Not that I'm a fan of states run entirely on religious grounds, but Musharraf himself isn't a nice bloke.

He is far from being a "good guy", but right now he is the right "bad guy" to take out the Islamo-Fascists in his country. "Good guys" can't get away with putting bullets in Mullahs' ears, Musharraf can. That makes him the best friend that we have in the region at this time.

Bilbo Baggins wrote:Why do you have to say liber*l or m00nbat? I don't understand all of this stuff, though I'm still relatively new to this whole thing

Properly spell out the words liber*l and m00nbat in a reply window and hit preview and you will see what I'm yelling at the moderator about.

[quote="Bilbo Baggins"]

But moon god cultists can immolate each other all they want.

Quite the enlightened attitude.[/quote

You got that right.

The only good moon god cultist is a dead one.

How do you know Islamic extremists would take over the country if Musharraf didn't clamp down? You're exaggerating the power these groups have, there is a well-organised democratic opposition headed by Bhutto.

He is far from being a "good guy", but right now he is the right "bad guy" to take out the Islamo-Fascists in his country. "Good guys" can't get away with putting bullets in Mullahs' ears, Musharraf can. That makes him the best friend that we have in the region at this time.

So as long as a dictator is doing your dirty work you don't care that the country has no democracy? This reminds me of another dictator.....hmmmm what was his name....started with an S and ended with addam. So when Musharraf does something you don't like are you going to invade Pakistan as well?

Bilbo Baggins wrote:How do you know Islamic extremists would take over the country if Musharraf didn't clamp down?

Because Musharraf is no fool. He would not take such extreme measures just to protect his presidency. The man has highly lucrative book deals and lecturing tours already set up for after he leaves office. He's not going to risk a very luxurious retirement to hold onto power in Pakistan.

Bilbo Baggins wrote:You're exaggerating the power these groups have,

Where do you think the Taliban originally started?

Bilbo Baggins wrote:there is a well-organised democratic opposition headed by Bhutto.

And she can have the place directly after the last Islamo-Fascist is buried.

Clubtender wrote:He is far from being a "good guy", but right now he is the right "bad guy" to take out the Islamo-Fascists in his country. "Good guys" can't get away with putting bullets in Mullahs' ears, Musharraf can. That makes him the best friend that we have in the region at this time.

Bilbo Baggins wrote:So as long as a dictator is doing your dirty work you don't care that the country has no democracy?

He is doing the world a public service. Sometimes you have to deal with the "bad" to take out the truly evil. If Pakistan were to fall to mob rule or worse yet, Taliban rule, the US and India would be forced to immediately invade to attempt to secure Pakistan's nuclear stockpile.

I understand your reasoning, but I think you're wrong to think a democratically elected government couldn't deal with these elements. If the extremists got into parliament and still committed atrocities, then the goverment would be allowed to combat this. Pakistan doesn't need a strong-arm dictator, it needs democratic representation.

Bilbo Baggins wrote:I understand your reasoning, but I think you're wrong to think a democratically elected government couldn't deal with these elements. If the extremists got into parliament and still committed atrocities, then the goverment would be allowed to combat this. Pakistan doesn't need a strong-arm dictator, it needs democratic representation.

When a democratic government can drag clerics into the street and shoot them in the head in front of their flocks, it will work in Pakistan.

When a democratic government can drag clerics into the street and shoot them in the head in front of their flocks, it will work in Pakistan.

What about arresting him and trying him in a court of law? So if there was a militant cleric in the US, do you think it is appropriate that the local cops pull him out of his mosque and shoot him in the street?

Bilbo Baggins wrote:

When a democratic government can drag clerics into the street and shoot them in the head in front of their flocks, it will work in Pakistan.

What about arresting him and trying him in a court of law? So if there was a militant cleric in the US, do you think it is appropriate that the local cops pull him out of his mosque and shoot him in the street?

Pakistan is not the United States.

Dictatorships when its convenient huh? What happened to the US being the leader in spreading democracy and promoting the freedoms of all? Guess that US never really existing

Bilbo Baggins wrote:Dictatorships when its convenient huh? What happened to the US being the leader in spreading democracy and promoting the freedoms of all? Guess that US never really existing

Protect and defend democracy where and when it is possible, but keep nukes out of the hands of Jihadis by any means necessary. Real life is not a college debate.

Sometimes, to protect your own people, you have to get involved in some rather dark shit.

Well we have a fundamental difference of opinions. I believe that when people have democratic rights, violence and extremist attitudes will be lessened, and I think that can be done in any country as long as their is a basic infastructure that prevents widespread abuse of the system, which I believe Pakistan has (though I've never been there so what do I know?).

You know the real solution to this problem? Nuclear disarmament

Bilbo Baggins wrote:Well we have a fundamental difference of opinions. I believe that when people have democratic rights, violence and extremist attitudes will be lessened, and I think that can be done in any country as long as their is a basic infastructure that prevents widespread abuse of the system, which I believe Pakistan has (though I've never been there so what do I know?).

It would be fantastic if what you believed was true, but sadly it is not. Look at the Palestinians. They had a shot at electing a democratic government and they voted a terrorist organization into office. Are you willing to bet your life and the lives of everyone who you love that Pakistan would not do the same thing?

Protecting your own has priority over everyone and everything else.

Bilbo Baggins wrote:You know the real solution to this problem? Nuclear disarmament

That genie can never be put back in the bottle.

That genie can never be put back in the bottle.

Indeed.

I only spent about 8 years of my life between Pakistan and Afghanistan so I do understand the way the place works to some degree.

Pervez Musharraf came to power in 1999, less than a year after Pakistan went nuclear. He has spent his entire Presidency keeping Islamofascist from obtaining control of Pakistan's nuclear arsenal.

The day that Musharraf is gone our sworn enemies, the same ones who had no qualms flying loaded airliners into packed business towers, have nuclear arms.

That day is coming and the only question is will it be sooner or later.

ok firstly i think it's unwise to place the nuclear issue on the same table as the democracy issue - pakistan's nuclear capacity was a direct reply to india's the two have never been good friends and the little arms race that has been going on for forever between them (the whole kashmir thing) is, i feel, unrelated to issues like democracy, police brutality, etc. for me the nuclear issue is strictly related to pakistan's foreign policy and does not directly affect any of it's domestic issues.

as for the whole dictatorship - democracy debate, i feel that while democracy could be a good thing for pakistan in the future, and that efforts should definitely be made to work towards it, it's totally unrealistic for it to spring up overnight in a country that's just now working past that whole stoning women to death for getting raped thing... mentalities cannot be changed overnight, and even if you have a regime change, the majority of the people will continue living by the old mindset - if you install a dictatorship in america the people won't buy it, they'll revolt and overthrow the gov't, and possibly a better, and historic example - when democracy was granted to russia in 91' they couldn't handle it, and the country went through ten years of pure anarchy, finally returning to a neo-dictatorial state recently

it's not a discussion of what's good or bad, it's simply a question of changing people - it can't be done overnight and in pakistan the road democracy will take many many many years

ok firstly i think it's unwise to place the nuclear issue on the same table as the democracy issue

I agree.

when democracy was granted to russia in 91' they couldn't handle it, and the country went through ten years of pure anarchy, finally returning to a neo-dictatorial state recently

Terrible economic policies by the new 'democratic' goverment caused this. You can't just go from State Capitalism (because thats what it really was, there was no communists in the Soviet Union) to a full free market, but it was imposed on Russia and their economy collapsed. Unemployment and poverty soared, and oligarchs gained more and more power until a dictatorship (or something a lot like it) was inevitable.

it can't be done overnight and in pakistan the road democracy will take many many many years

Maybe, but I think its about a hundred steps backwards when the President imposes martial law and suppress free speech because he doesn't want to lose his job. Elections might come eventually, but he's setting things up so that when they do theres only one possible outcome. This latest move has nothing to do with Islamic extremists.

If it's unwise to place the nuclear issue on the same table as the democracy issue then why don't we just remove Iraq or maybe even economics from the 2008 election. Hell, we can just run a beauty contest and ignore any and all inconvenient issues we want.

The nuclear issue is a huge issue, probably the biggest issue facing Pakistan's future at this moment. We should ignore it completely.

Buzzy wrote:If it's unwise to place the nuclear issue on the same table as the democracy issue then why don't we just remove Iraq or maybe even economics from the 2008 election. Hell, we can just run a beauty contest and ignore any and all inconvenient issues we want.

The nuclear issue is a huge issue, probably the biggest issue facing Pakistan's future at this moment. We should ignore it completely.

you see ! what are you highlighting in your response...? the nukes and america - or in this case even more specifically the us election - this underlines my point - nukes are a big part of pakistan's FOREIGN policy, it's not a factor in the bullshit that's going on domestically in the country