Βι¶ΉΤΌΕΔ

Wars and ConflictsΜύ permalink

Pakistan and the war on terror

• Message 1.Μύ

  Posted by Grand Falcon Railroad (U3267675) on Saturday, 4th March 2006

  Is the "war on terror" fully interchangable with the "crusade for deomocracy"? As in the mid-east both things are getting a tad confused.
  
  How can we salute Gen. Pervez Musharaff for helping in the "WoT" and then not critcise him for his lack of democratic standards?
  
  Would this mean in Iran went nuclear and N. Korea felt threatend and Kim Jong-Il said "OK lets nuke Tehran" and saved George and/or Tony the trouble we'd thank him for it?
  
  Surely we can't thank Pakistan for anything yet until it's proved they've done everything in their power to hunt down Osama and Co. and then dearmed the nukes and then handed back to a civilian democratic government.
  
  India's govt. might be not the best and yes they still sabre rattle with the nukes but at least you can say the people wanted it and you reap what you sow (in most cases).
  
  As an aside but on a similar theme since when have the UN investigated an assassination of leader but we are doing so in Lebanon?

  Link to this forum: Pakistan and the war on terror

  Report message1

• Message 2

  , in reply to message 1.

  Posted by Mohammadali (U1749930) on Saturday, 4th March 2006

  Hi NEWCFALCON,
  
  
  If you drop the best chef of Paris in a South Waziristan village, and ask him prepare a gourmet meal from the available ingredients, do you think his performance will be as good as in Paris?
  
  
  Same thing is with Democracy. Musharraf and his team is not be the best developer of Democracy, but that is what is currently available to Pakistan. They are additionally handicapped by the available ingredients of Democracy in Pakistan.
  
  Lack of education, Feudal lords in the guise of democrats, embryonic democratic culture, etc.are not conducive to the western dream of instant democracy recipe.
  
  The best the West can do is to implement the UN resolutions on Palestine, and not patronize religion in their own country. Because the Mullah exploits the plight of Palestinians and tries to copy the evangelicals, Zionists, etc to achieve influence. It is becoming a major hurdle in developing a secular democracy.30yrs. ago, Mullahs got 2% seats, now they have 30%.If don’t recognize the phenomenon, it will get worse. Thanks.
  

  Link to this forum: Pakistan and the war on terror

  Report message2

• Message 3

  , in reply to message 2.

  Posted by PaulRyckier (U1753522) on Saturday, 4th March 2006

  Re: Message 2.
  
  Mohammadali,
  
  thank you very much for your thought-provoking reply.
  
  Warm regards and welcome to the boards.

  Link to this forum: Pakistan and the war on terror

  Report message3

• Message 4

  , in reply to message 2.

  Posted by Grand Falcon Railroad (U3267675) on Saturday, 4th March 2006

  Hi there,
  
  I respect your view son that one but what I meant was if Gen. M and his cronies are hiding behind a veil of respectability that we are giving them then that is bad for democracy.
  
  While I hoep we do impliment the UN resolutions on Palestine but to do that it means we have to get Israeli cooperation and without any UN mission is doomed to fail. Not a nice thing but it's fact.
  
  I hope that Pakistan can get an active democracy as I hope all other places do but I think that the West shouldn't salute the "acheivements" of the Pakistan establishment when the don't really amount to anything.
  
  After all the SAS could have run riot in the Pakistan mountains getting Al-Qaida and what would the Pakistan military done?

  Link to this forum: Pakistan and the war on terror

  Report message4

• Message 5

  , in reply to message 4.

  Posted by Mohammadali (U1749930) on Saturday, 4th March 2006

  Hi NEWCFALCON,
  
  Western impotency to achieve compliance on UN reslutions by Israel is proving very costly for the rest of the humanity.Thanks.
  
  While I hoep we do impliment the UN resolutions on Palestine but to do that it means we have to get Israeli cooperation and without any UN mission is doomed to fail. Not a nice thing but it's fact.
  
  Μύ

  Link to this forum: Pakistan and the war on terror

  Report message5

• Message 6

  , in reply to message 5.

  Posted by Grand Falcon Railroad (U3267675) on Saturday, 4th March 2006

  UN rules mean nought if the country on the other side of the resoulution doesn't want to allow the UN to do it's work - look at Lebanon and all I need say is Iraq and the fact that Saddam Hussein didn't really allow the UN to do it's work there either.
  
  But what I think the mid-east could do is ally themselves together in some kind of Mid-East Union of Nations.
  
  But do you think that will ever happen?
  
  As long as mid-east nations can't get along together and as long as they find fault with everything the west do (in general terms) then there will always be a problem.
  
  I personally don't have any problems with mid-east nations by the way (and the original thread was about Pakistan not the mid-east in it's entirety).
  
  I know Israel is a problem no doubt but sometimes you need to be creative in dealing with those problems - not shooting yourself in the foot all the time I think is a good start.

  Link to this forum: Pakistan and the war on terror

  Report message6

• Message 7

  , in reply to message 6.

  Posted by Mohammadali (U1749930) on Saturday, 4th March 2006

  Hi NEWCFALCON,
  
  
  >>I personally don't have any problems with mid-east nations by the way (and the original thread was about Pakistan not the mid-east in it's entirety).<<
  
  
  This has become a very interdependent world.Why do you think World went to look in Afghanistan,for the instigators of 9/11.
  
  And the suspects are locked by USA in Guatanamo,Cuba.Thanks.

  Link to this forum: Pakistan and the war on terror

  Report message7

• Message 8

  , in reply to message 7.

  Posted by Grand Falcon Railroad (U3267675) on Saturday, 4th March 2006

  Hi there - I just lost a good post somewhere and I don't know where so I para-phrase....
  
  The west should sort out Israel but claiming interdependance doesn't seem reasonable when Sunni's and Shia's are killing each other in Iraq.
  
  I think the best thing the Iraqi's should do is stop killing everyone and give the west no excuse to stay and then the West would hopefully move to rid the world of a real threat e.g. North Korea

  Link to this forum: Pakistan and the war on terror

  Report message8

• Message 9

  , in reply to message 8.

  Posted by Backtothedarkplace (U2955180) on Saturday, 4th March 2006

  Its one way of finding out if the war is really over the oil.
  
  

  Link to this forum: Pakistan and the war on terror

  Report message9

• Message 10

  , in reply to message 8.

  Posted by PaulRyckier (U1753522) on Saturday, 4th March 2006

  Re: Message 8.
  
  Falcon,
  
  isn't Iran a real threat?
  
  Kind regards.

  Link to this forum: Pakistan and the war on terror

  Report message10

• Message 11

  , in reply to message 9.

  Posted by Grand Falcon Railroad (U3267675) on Saturday, 4th March 2006

  re: my own msg 8 - I didn't mean it to sound that cude but I lost my long post but with no excuse to stay i.e the pending civil war then surely the West would leave - then maybe the West would realise that Israel are a threat to the region.

  Link to this forum: Pakistan and the war on terror

  Report message11

• Message 12

  , in reply to message 10.

  Posted by Grand Falcon Railroad (U3267675) on Saturday, 4th March 2006

  Hi there - I know Iran is a threat but I would hope that the Mid-East nations knowing what Iran could do might sort that out itself...hopefully.
  
  N. Korea could with a couple of missiles or free-fall nukes cause mayhem the world over social and economic. But I do know that more than likely the "great satan" will be called upon more than likely to invade Iran at some point.

  Link to this forum: Pakistan and the war on terror

  Report message12

• Message 13

  , in reply to message 12.

  Posted by Backtothedarkplace (U2955180) on Saturday, 4th March 2006

  Hi, at the risk of sounding callous I wouldnt really worry about a couple of Nukes. You can kill a lot of people. Your not going to destroy the world. Scocietys are incredibly robust. Economic systems are almost as strong.
  
  Plus if you look at the stick the Americans get for dropping them on the Japs the odds are that if North Korea does use them, or "arranges"for them to be used, then the last thing that goes through Kim il jongs mind is highly likley to be a 1000lb bomb.
  
  Iran? Ill be honeset I dont think that they are a threat at all. Yet.
  
  They are probably looking towards obtaining Nuclear weapons. Given the fact they have an army on their door steps from countries that have a long record of meddling in their affairs I cant say as I blame them. Attempting to de stabilise Iraq. Well the longer we're tied up their then the less likely we are to invade.
  
  I am not sure that at present we could invade. Were going to have to finish either Afganistan or Iraq first, the only quick way of doing that would probably be extremely bloody, and probably unacceptable to the world community.
  

  Link to this forum: Pakistan and the war on terror

  Report message13

• Message 14

  , in reply to message 13.

  Posted by Grand Falcon Railroad (U3267675) on Saturday, 4th March 2006

  The thing would be say if N Korea had 4 or 5 weapons and used one on Japan one on China and one on maybe his own people and then said we have been attacked by the USofA or some random terrorist organisation.
  
  Many people for whatever reason might want to believe him (even though that is a tad stupid).
  
  

  Link to this forum: Pakistan and the war on terror

  Report message14

• Message 15

  , in reply to message 14.

  Posted by Backtothedarkplace (U2955180) on Saturday, 4th March 2006

  There is always going to be someone who will belive anything. Its how I made a living selling insurance.
  
  The problem and advantage with North Korea is they dont seem to have any idea how the real world works. They have there set semi communist ideas and formula. It makes them to an extent predictable.
  
  

  Link to this forum: Pakistan and the war on terror

  Report message15

• Message 16

  , in reply to message 15.

  Posted by ritesh (U1886080) on Wednesday, 8th March 2006

  Presently, The goal to achieve Democracy in Pakistan is in retrogression as the people upon whom that 'll be implemented are antagonistic towards it. Mr P. Mushraff and his government(!) barelly has hold over all of Pakistan esp. in consideration with N-W , Western Pakistan were the local lords rule, its a different matter to manifest its commitment to war against terror the army infringes on the local lords hegemony(!) to catch a few rougues, yet , once the army uncoils back, its the lords who rule who swore feathy to Osama bin laden, a demi-god in hearts of the plebian[ those in areas : Western Pakistan , bordering afganistan].
  Osama bin laden caught, actuate into Pakistan in turmoil!
  There cannot be a replacement to Mr. P Mushraff [At Present]for the fact of the matter is , that he might not be able to bring democracy in pakistan,yet may provide some sort of stability before the anger of the majority boils to such an extend to destabilize the country. Its a choice between him and some xtremist fanatic who may gain control of pakistan, the latter may blackmail the world[Pakistan has nuclear weapons, remember!] to satiate his desires, Its a choice between lesser of 2 evils, Since, the majority will always vote for the 'osama loving xtremist' than some mushraff!

  Link to this forum: Pakistan and the war on terror

  Report message16

Back to top