Enrique on November 8, 2007 at 9:53 AM

More or less correct.

Yes you can but it’s called a dictatorship aka, North Korea, Cuba, and several others.

Please explain your objection instead of just waging your own little intifada against this post.

Bryan on November 7, 2007 at 11:59 PM

I think Nonfactor’s point is that you are now taking the position that democracy doesn’t work, at least not for Muslims. Frankly, I think that’s a legitimate and defensible position, but I imagine a lot of folks that comment here don’t want to come right out and say “Democracy doesn’t work.”

But c’mon, isn’t it pretty obvious by this point democracy doesn’t work? I mean, totalitarianism doesn’t work either, but I think we tend to put the rose-colored glasses on when we talk about democracy. The truth is, the obvious downfall of democracy is that it allows the majority to impose its will on the minority, and I think this post is really highlighting that particular shortcoming.

Of course that would be an absurd way to look at it.

Especially with Turkey day coming up soon.

If ever there was a country that deserved to be considered an exception to the rules…, it’s Pakistan. They may be a wannabe Turkey…, but couldn’t we use a few more Turkeys…?

The problem with your true intentions, of course, is that this implies you are an Al Qaeda supporter, and I’m just curious why you won’t admit it.

How long have you been a member of Al Qaeda, Nonfactor?

BTW, if you don’t like people putting words in your mouth you should refrain from doing the same.

Nonfactor on November 8, 2007 at 1:15 AM

Nonfactor, my objection is your saying, “Hold off democracy until you know they’re going to vote the right way,” when it’s obvious by your post that you mean “Why won’t you support democracy even if Bin Laden wins and takes over Pakistan’s nuclear arsenal,” I’m curious why you aren’t willing to admit it.

Bryan on November 7, 2007 at 11:59 PM

My objection is your saying “No, just stabilize things a while first” when it’s obvious by your post that you mean “Hold off democracy until you know they’re going to vote the right way,” I’m curious why you aren’t willing to admit it.

Pakistan has none of the groundwork for such a gamble.

Secure the nukes secretly, destroy the jihadis in country at top speed, and then try to breing in “monitors” and NGO;s to spread the foundational concepts of a stable Constitutional Bill of Rights.

Or it will be a Nil of Rights.

And end up bringing the fanatics to nuclear status.

“One man one vote, one time.”

Better a stable stongman than an unstable one.

Nonfactor on November 7, 2007 at 11:20 PM

Stop putting words in my mouth, ya tiresome crank. Your conspiratorial approach would have that I’m waiting on a neocon junta to take over. It’s not about getting people that we agree with. It’s about preventing unmitigated disaster. I just happen to think, based on recent history, that it’s probably a good idea to let things develop a bit before rushing off to an election that’s likely to empower terrorists. Is that really so unreasonable? Please explain your objection instead of just waging your own little intifada against this post.

I think the slogan “Democracy only for those we agree with,” sounds nice too.

Nonfactor on November 7, 2007 at 11:20 PM

How ’bout “Democracy for those who aren’t trying to kill us”? Would that be OK with you?

Bryan on November 7, 2007 at 8:43 PM

So you admit you want to “hold off democracy until you know they’re going to vote the right way,” not “just stabilize things,” if that’s the case just say so the at first.

I think the slogan “Democracy only for those we agree with,” sounds nice too.

Musharraf has a lot of friends, not so moderate Islamists among them, do we want him to get cornered and forced into a 50-50 alliance with them or us or?

People, including Bush, need to realize what is actually possible to build on the foundations of an islamic culture/society. Ataturk understood islam much better than any Westerners ever will and he understood where self-rule by the people in islamic societies must be limited. That’s just how it is.

It would be a bloodbath pre and post election and a catastrophe post election.

Clean up the swamp a bit before the elections.
Might that be an acceptable position for Bush?

redshirt on November 7, 2007 at 5:52 PM

I agree in principle, but the problem is that if Musharraf does anything that actually hinders the jihad, his regime and his control over his military will come to a crashing end. A crash would be more dangerous than elections.

Militarily I think we have two options in regard to Pakistan.

1 – Musharraf gathers all of the intelligence we need regarding the locations of all of his nukes, nuclear facilities and jihad targets. He hands it over to us and waits while we draw up plans. When we’re ready, we evacuate Musharraf and strike immediately. We would have to deal with India to make sure they don’t take advantage of the situation, but we would have to be very clever about it because no doubt Pakistan has spies and sympathizers in India.

2 – We develop an impenetrable missile defense and install it in the vicinity of Pakistan. This would free our hand and allow us to target Islamist targets within Pakistan with or without Musharraf’s help. Our first order of business would be to locate and secure Pakistan’s nukes and related facilities.

I sure hope we have plans for taking out those weapons if the islamonuts take over P-stan.

Tony737 on November 7, 2007 at 5:50 PM

Our lives depend on it.

That’s why I hope the rumor out of Russia that we’ve increased spending on missile defense is true a dozen times over. While an affective missile defense will, at best, only prevent rogue nuclear states from staying our hand in the WOT through a MAD policy and that it won’t prevent terrorists from sneaking nukes into the USA; it will allow us to take action within rogue nuke states to prevent terrorists from getting their hands on nukes in the first place.

But unless the capabilities of our missile defense are increasing faster than Pakistan’s nuclear capabilities, we will only be loosing ground while the threat of nuclear terrorism continues to grow..

By stabilize you mean ‘wait until the populace changes their opinions/votes for the right person.’

Oh hell yes, this is not woosies on parade this is the big fish eat the little fish.
A Pakistan Democracy at all cost to soon, will be at the cost of all, we’ve tried to achieve.

We may not have had a choice which cards we’ve been dealt but we do have a good play or a bad play to make and that play has to be what benefits US in the WOT not an ideologues soft and fuzzy George Washington visits Jihadistan fantasy.

I hope Bush was just blustering political platitudes today and behind the scenes he’s scrambling to send the Al-Queda in Waziristan straight to El Ack Allah because isolating Pervez Musharraf politically and even worse financially is incredibly stupid and short sighted.

Musharraf is at a disadvantage and at our disposal we damn well should take the opportunity to go after bad guys, big time.