paulsur on November 5, 2007 at 10:09 PM

Reguardless of faulty intelligence Saddam needed to be ousted. He was violating a lot of the rules put upon him after the first gulf war and he was also guilty of murdering his own people. He brought it upon himself. In reality we should have never stopped when we did with the first war. Besides Even if we had not invaded Iraq, Afaganistan is the problem here. Just what would you do to secure another countries nukes? I somehow don’t think that asking nicely will work.

he deserves no more credibility.

Short of that, I think we start working with India, it’s going to be bad and bloody and the chances are that before it’s over some mushroom clouds are going to appear over one area or the other. But it just might come to that before we get control of this thing and insure that Osama or his ilk don’t get their hands on nukes.

Lets not forget that the Jew’s may get involved in this as well.

1. Why is the US “deeply disturbed” by all this if Musharraf is trying to do what is in the US’s best interest: keeping Pakistan’s nukes out of the hands of Islamic radicals.
2. Is “democracy” more important than Islamic radicals acquiring nuclear weapons?
3. Musharraf is brave.
4. Over half of Pakistan has been radicalized
5. Musharraf may be the next “Marie Antoinette”

I think, although the US is coming out publicly against what Musharraf is doing, they believe that Musharraf IS DONE.

I think they believe that Musharraf got himself into this position in the first place by trying to appease the Taliban in the north and letting them run free in their “no go zone”. A lot of what is happening right now is nobodies fault but Musharraf himself. I think the US has written him off as a lost cause, not willing to allow the US to help in his efforts, not letting us go in and destroy the area where we believe Osama Bin Laden is living.

I think the US government believes they can somehow go in and secure those nukes before they are ultimately taken over by Islamic extremists. It will be a military action of some kind; a special forces kind of operation no doubt.

Let this be a lesson to the rest of the world….DON”T NEGOTIATE WITH ISLAMIC RADICALS. You cannot co-exist with them. They will ultimately KILL you in the end.

There is so much at stake right now with Pakistan, I don’t know what is more important to the US. Securing the Pakistani Nukes or stopping Iran from building them. Take your pick.

As far as Musharraf goes, We are writing him off, folks. A casualty of War…A casualty of the War on Terror

Are people still linking “democracy” and “Islam” in the same thought? Take a closer look at Pakistan and point out its golden era of actual democracy.

Pakistan is the land of the pure as in Islam is first in all things. Therefore I wonder how many viable weapons they have properly maintained on any given day?

Musharraf’s actions may chap our backsides and at the same time the alternative at least in the short term could be a lot worse.

Musharraf no doubt is no doubt acting in his own interest but the current scenario in Pakistan could open a window in which the US could be issued a Jihadi hunting license in exchange for saving Musharraf’s a$$.

So bailing on Musharraf right now, no matter how distasteful supporting him is, is shooting ourselves in the collective foot.

This could all get real messy, real fast.

Entelechy on November 5, 2007 at 5:30 PM

Ditto!

It would be nice though to, behind the scenes, try to get Musharraf and Bhutto together somehow.

Indeed. Let’s hope some good minds are working on that. I don’t have much faith in either Musharraf or Bhutto, but together…maybe.

When a US ally declares a state of emergency at least in part to deal with a real existential threat (and a judicial threat to his own power, to be sure), we all go ballistic and the Democrats seem to be out in front and the State Department gears up to bring a hammer down on him. But when a US enemy like Hugo Chavez who has allied himself with other US enemies like Iran gets his rubber-stamp legislature to grant him dictatorial powers, and he has been ramping up the anti-US rhetoric for years, just about the only place you’ll find much discussion of that is on the right. We may be sending the dangerous message that we’re tougher on our allies than on our enemies. That strikes me as unwise.

Significant point and difference, extremely well made.

the first thing that comes to mind is the fall of the Shah of Iran. There is a huge danger in the US applying any pressure on Musharraf at this point.

BINGO! BINGO! BINGO!

It would be nice though to, behind the scenes, try to get Musharraf and Bhutto together somehow.

…pressure on him coming from the Democrats and State Department…

Sorry. Is there a difference? State has been running a shadow government Bush’s whole term, undermining his actions at every opportunity. They even nudged Colin Powell over to the dark side.

Osama bin Laden is far and away more popular in parts of Pakistan than anyone else.

References please? I seem to recall a recent survey that said 70% of Pakistanis were against increased Islamic influence in the state, or something like that.

drunyan8315 on November 5, 2007 at 4:53 PM

He said in PARTS of Pakistan like warizistan. There Osama is Very popular unlike the southern part of Pakistan

References please?

You can use Google as well as I can, but here ya go. Things are worse in Baluchistan and Waziristan.

Not a great solution and we cant force democracy on Pakistan right now. Musharif has to control the south he has lost control in the north. Civil war is now a greater threat in pakistan than in Iraq. Even worse because of the nukes.

We need Musharif to keep control of the nukes and take out the Taliban and Islamic nuts that threaten him up north. Once they are gone we can switch back to pushing him on Democracy as he will owe us a favor

References please? I seem to recall a recent survey that said 70% of Pakistanis were against increased Islamic influence in the state, or something like that.