'Pakistan 2007 v. Iran 1979'

'Pakistan 2007 v. Iran 1979' (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Off the Grid

Message

Mercnbeth -> 'Pakistan 2007 v. Iran 1979' (11/5/2007 10:38:11 AM)
The silence about the comparison between these two situations is deafening. The problem may be that although the overall situation is comparable, the stakes are much higher. Unlike Iran, where the potential of a Muslim regime, we didn't know of the PC distinction modifying adjective 'Radical' at the time, was not thought through, at least by the President at the time; we are aware of their existence and their stated goals. Now we have the same possibility potentially in Pakistan. Musharraf, like the Shah, is backed by the West's money. The UK and US, being the primary points of payment. Granted Musharraf, is not claiming "royalty" but wants similar permanence to his authority, and doesn't want to risk losing it to hanging chads or the wrong shade of a purple finger. He plans on suspending elections for as long as one year. quote: Musharraf reiterated to foreign ambassadors Monday that he was committed to complete the transition to democracy, though, under a state of emergency, elections scheduled for January could be pushed back by up to a year, according to the government. Critics say Musharraf imposed emergency rule in a last-ditch attempt to cling to power. Musharraf, like the Shah, seems to have only the military on his side. The political opposition seeking a smooth political transition of power led by Benazir Bhutto, has many of his faction under arrest, including many of Pakistan's lawyers. Well maybe that isn't so bad?! Can you imagine this occurring in the US, with Presidential Candidate John Edwards leading the chant for the other ambulance chasers? quote: In the biggest gathering Monday, about 2,000 lawyers congregated at the High Court in the eastern city of Lahore. As lawyers tried to exit onto a main road, hundreds of police stormed inside, swinging batons and firing tear gas. Lawyers, shouting "Go Musharraf Go!" responded by throwing stones and beating police with tree branches. Police bundled about 250 lawyers into waiting vans, an Associated Press reporter saw. At least two were bleeding from the head. Of course looming and waiting in the wings for the power vacuum is the most pragmatic and efficient 'political group' the Islamic militant contingent. They see an opportunity. Very similar to Iran in 1979. There were other political factions seeking support from the West, but our President at the time, being the "religious" person that he was and is, decided that the Iran was better served with a religious leader, Ayatollah Khomeini. Here's the difference. In the 28 years since the Islamic Revolution in Iran they have been actively trying to obtain nuclear weapons, Pakistan is an acknowledged nuclear power. Anyone like to comment on how, or if, the situation should be addressed? Do we stand aside and let the local people decide, or is this a case because of the nuclear factor that the West and perhaps India and China too, would feel a nuclear armed Islamic regime too threatening?

meatcleaver -> RE: 'Pakistan 2007 v. Iran 1979' (11/5/2007 10:48:45 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Mercnbeth Very similar to Iran in 1979. There were other political factions seeking support from the West, but our President at the time, being the "religious" person that he was and is, decided that the Iran was better served with a religious leader, Ayatollah Khomeini. Here's the difference. In the 28 years since the Islamic Revolution in Iran they have been actively trying to obtain nuclear weapons, Pakistan is an acknowledged nuclear power. Anyone like to comment on how, or if, the situation should be addressed? Do we stand aside and let the local people decide, or is this a case because of the nuclear factor that the West and perhaps India and China too, would feel a nuclear armed Islamic regime too threatening? There is no similarity between the US's and the west position in general on Pakistan and the US's position on Iran. In Iran the US and UK got rid of a democratically elected government and then spent the nest thirty years supporting the Shah in getting rid of all moderate opposition leaving the religion as the only totem around which the opposition could gather. In Pakistan, the US (and the west) while needing Musharaf's help because of Afghanistan, is also supportive of the opposition. Britain has been home for Benazir Bhutto for the last eight years and she is very friendly towards the west. What the west should be doing and has, is urging General Musharaf to democratize Pakistan. It's a tricky balancing act but its one the west has to live with. 2007 Pakistan is not 1979 Iran.

SimplyMichael -> RE: 'Pakistan 2007 v. Iran 1979' (11/5/2007 1:22:26 PM)
There isn't anything the US can do, same as Iran, in the sense of intervention. In the case of Iran it was the sheer size of the country and in the case of Pakistan, it is the presence of nuclear weapons. We send in troops to "deal" with the weapons, all we will do is push them away from the West, away from the moderates and into the arms of our enemy, the religious nutjobs. If the population of a country rises up, there really isn't anything you can do militarily except exterminate them. While it worked for the Romans it isn't anything I want to be party to. Provide them with a future and we win, oppress them and we lose, pretty simple really.

Real0ne -> RE: 'Pakistan 2007 v. Iran 1979' (11/5/2007 8:45:24 PM)
well i think that most islamic countries realize that alls ya gots ta do is have nukes and the us will become yer buddy.

UtopianRanger -> RE: 'Pakistan 2007 v. Iran 1979' (11/5/2007 10:02:22 PM)
quote: Anyone like to comment on how, or if, the situation should be addressed? Do we stand aside and let the local people decide, or is this a case because of the nuclear factor that the West and perhaps India and China too, would feel a nuclear armed Islamic regime too threatening? What I actually envision happening: Musharraf and Bhutto will eventually either be killed or sent back into exile. Pakistan will fall back under the control of an anti-US/British competing military faction/dictatorship friendly with Russia. The seeds of a full blown anti-US revolution are well into the germination process. What I’d like to see happen: Both US Puppets, Musharraf and Bhutto - terminated. They're both crooks. I’d like to see the country—and the whole region for that matter---completely fall away from US /British influence. Now….when I say fall away from US/British influence…..that doesn’t mean fall back under the control of religious extremists. What I’d like to see happen is for Pakistan to completely align itself, ideologically, with Russia, in the pursuance of a complete, undeterred nationalistic agenda that preserves its status as a nation-state. The US /British influence—and the petrol-dollar-denominated-free-market—needs to be strategically dissipated in order for the concept of sovereign nation-states to survive. I want to see opposition—here at home-- in a form similar to what was recently seen from state department employees--- protesting their future deployment to Iraq--- should any false provocation occur that further escalates a wider war in the Middle East. I want to see our country forced –through any means necessary—out of the Middle East. - R

FirmhandKY -> RE: 'Pakistan 2007 v. Iran 1979' (11/6/2007 6:21:02 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: UtopianRanger quote: Anyone like to comment on how, or if, the situation should be addressed? Do we stand aside and let the local people decide, or is this a case because of the nuclear factor that the West and perhaps India and China too, would feel a nuclear armed Islamic regime too threatening? What I actually envision happening: Musharraf and Bhutto will eventually either be killed or sent back into exile. Pakistan will fall back under the control of an anti-US/British competing military faction/dictatorship friendly with Russia. The seeds of a full blown anti-US revolution are well into the germination process. What I’d like to see happen: Both US Puppets, Musharraf and Bhutto - terminated. They're both crooks. I’d like to see the country—and the whole region for that matter---completely fall away from US /British influence. Now….when I say fall away from US/British influence…..that doesn’t mean fall back under the control of religious extremists. What I’d like to see happen is for Pakistan to completely align itself, ideologically, with Russia, in the pursuance of a complete, undeterred nationalistic agenda that preserves its status as a nation-state. The US /British influence—and the petrol-dollar-denominated-free-market—needs to be strategically dissipated in order for the concept of sovereign nation-states to survive. I want to see opposition—here at home-- in a form similar to what was recently seen from state department employees--- protesting their future deployment to Iraq--- should any false provocation occur that further escalates a wider war in the Middle East. I want to see our country forced –through any means necessary—out of the Middle East. Interesting propositions and statements of position, UT. Some questions, if I may? 1. You don't then, have any moral problems with assassination of political opponents to forward your political agenda? 2. You wish to see the US's influence in Pakistan replaced with Russian influence. Why? 3. Why do you wish the entire region to "fall away" from US influence? 4. By "any means necessary", do you include terrorist attacks on US civilians both at home and abroad? 5. Your sentence "The US /British influence—and the petrol-dollar-denominated-free-market—needs to be strategically dissipated in order for the concept of sovereign nation-states to survive." is intriguing. a. What exactly, do you mean by "the petrol-dollar-denominated-free-market"? b. Why is this bad? c. " ... in order for the concept of sovereign nation-states to survive" .... You then support the concept of retaining the sovereignty of nation states as the bedrock of international relationships? Firm

Page: [1]

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.03125