Pakistani politics

Just read a blurb in the local paper today indicating that Musharreff [sic?] had most of the political opposition's leadership arrested and placed on 30-day detention...20 days before the next elections. Must help keep campaign expenses down.:wiseguy: :laugh4:

As someone supportive of the USA's success, I am aware that a change in government at this juncture would NOT be likely to favor the USA's policy goals. Bit hard to think of this as the correct behavior for a democratic republic though....sigh.

It would be nice if our political world were morally consistent. Then again, maybe not, as I'm not at all sure that the level of morality that EVERYONE would adhere to would be all that high up the scale.

The Reuters Story

Excerpt:

Quote:

---

"We have detained 14 people as a preventive measure. They have given calls for protests and we have fears that they may create disturbances in the coming days," Islamabad's top administrator, Chaudhry Mohammad Ali, told Reuters.

---

Maybe they're just taking the purported bin Laden call for Jihad pre-election, seriously.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Seamus Fermanagh

Just read a blurb in the local paper today indicating that Musharreff [sic?] had most of the political opposition's leadership arrested and placed on 30-day detention...20 days before the next elections. Must help keep campaign expenses down.:wiseguy: :laugh4:

As someone supportive of the USA's success, I am aware that a change in government at this juncture would NOT be likely to favor the USA's policy goals. Bit hard to think of this as the correct behavior for a democratic republic though....sigh.

It would be nice if our political world were morally consistent. Then again, maybe not, as I'm not at all sure that the level of morality that EVERYONE would adhere to would be all that high up the scale.

---

Not likely to favour the US? Right now, the local population sees US support for their largely hated undemocratic president, who is doing very little to actually improve their life (what, 25% to military and some 5% for education?) and is in quite a bit of trouble when it comes to dealing with extremist Muslims. Whether supporting this dicator is morally reprehensible or not, US support to Musharraf is support for a sinking ship and it'd reflect well on US policymaker's skills if they acted on that.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Seamus Fermanagh

As someone supportive of the USA's success, I am aware that a change in government at this juncture would NOT be likely to favor the USA's policy goals. Bit hard to think of this as the correct behavior for a democratic republic though....sigh.

---

Pakistan? Democratic Republic? Don't you need elections to call yourself a democracy? Musharraf has been a military dictator since he took control in a coup d'etat. That the US supports him simply shows the problem the US has in the middle east(and the rest of the world).

Namely, they need all kinds of favours from assorted tinpot El Commandantes for various purposes.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Geoffrey S

Not likely to favour the US? Right now, the local population sees US support for their largely hated undemocratic president, who is doing very little to actually improve their life (what, 25% to military and some 5% for education?) and is in quite a bit of trouble when it comes to dealing with extremist Muslims. Whether supporting this dicator is morally reprehensible or not, US support to Musharraf is support for a sinking ship and it'd reflect well on US policymaker's skills if they acted on that.

---

Your point boils down to: Try thinking long-term as opposed to what's good only for this moment. A valid point. (and one with which I agree, at least in general).

Politicians in general, and US politicians in particular, are often not inclined toward long-term planning of any kind. Something about a two-year elections cycle.....

Quote:

---

Your point boils down to: Try thinking long-term as opposed to what's good only for this moment.

---

Especilly when you consider the education Goeff talks about , the government has almost entirely given up its role in education . It passed the responsibility on to whoever had the money or intention ..nfortunately itis the rdical nuttersthat ahve both trhe money and intention to teach their own version of "education" .
Now OK the good genaral has made cosmetic attempts to curb the nutters hold on education ,but they are only cosmetic as he relies on the nutters to keep him in power

I believe you are right to be concerned about the current state of affairs in Pakistan, there's been a lot of unsettling events recently, including these latest detentions, unseating the head of the judiciary etc. Certainly the sharks are circling, as for whatever reason, Musharaf's opponents seem to smell weakness or vulnerability at least. It is a glorious irony though that the West can make such a great play out of "democratising the Muslim world", yet were this ever to happen it is all our "friends and allies" in that world who would be the first to go - Musharaf and the Saud family being the most notable. I guess the Hashemite (Jordanian) royals are still fairly pro-western, but they have been incredibly quiet recently, so I don't know where they currently stand (probably very sensibly as out of sight as possible ~D).

Musharaf can only be described as a military dictator, for all he's making noises about quitting his military role to continue in the Presidency. That such a character is the most "western friendly" candidate in a narrow but growing field should worry us. He's barely kept the lid on the extremists, and I know that will be a contentious assertion, given that so many commentators accuse him of secret complicity with them. Much as I dislike dictatorships, I have bigger worries still about some of the other possible outcomes in what is after all a nuclear state. Whatever happens will be interesting, of that you can be sure (and possibly 'interesting' in the sense of the Chinese curse), as Pakistan is a divided society now, with a significant wealthy, westernised, secularised middle/urban class as well as a poor and pious rural majority. But of course, the big problem with democracy is you have to motivate and appeal to the sensibilities of the majority - and finding candidates who have no taint of past corruption/nepotism.

I think Imran Khan would stand a good chance, and possibly Benazir Bhutto - though he is probably a bit too islamist (for my tatse - it would play well to the crowd) and she has the corruption allegations against her. Khan also has the advantage of being well known outside Pakistan and outside politics. But this is just speculation on my part, I think there's also a chance of some unknown sweeping in from the left-field with a radically uncomfortable agenda.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by macsen rufus

He's barely kept the lid on the extremists, and I know that will be a contentious assertion, given that so many commentators accuse him of secret complicity with them.

---

Contentious indeed, but in my opinion more because I think he hasn't kept the lid on the extremists. He's been losing grip on them for a while now, first on the borders near Afghanistan, and nowadays more and more in the cities themselves judging by the importance played by radical madrassas. Only now it's clear he's failing in keeping the lid on extremists is he making sounds about ditching his military position; only because he seems to have realised he can't win that way, that his military position is more of a liabilty. More pretensions of democracic process is the only way he can hope for Western support should things go pear-shaped. I doubt the populace would fall for his promises by now.

A divided country in a large number of ways. And really, one I'm less happy about having nuclear weapons than Iran.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Seamus Fermanagh

As someone supportive of the USA's success, I am aware that a change in government at this juncture would NOT be likely to favor the USA's policy goals. Bit hard to think of this as the correct behavior for a democratic republic though....sigh.

---

If the policy is to export free and fair elections then its a triumph for the Bush administration. We should happily encourage free elections in Pakistan, remove all military grants and domestic aid (remember the quake?) and instruct the new government they have 30 days to turn over bin laden (just like the taliban, if I recall).

Its a policy windfall for Bush, if infact his foriegn policy of free will, and capturing Bin Laden are to be believed, you buying it Seamus? :no:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Odin

...and instruct the new government they have 30 days to turn over bin laden (just like the taliban, if I recall).

---

And this minimally veiled threat would be backed up with what exactly ?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Watchman

And this minimally veiled threat would be backed up with what exactly ?

---

1. Thousands of nuclear weapons

2. A willingness to use them

3. Sustained Air strikes from multiple carrier groups in hormuz (the likely mechanism).

4. Historical precident of willingness to excersise military options from the Bush admin (See: Afghanistan and Iraq)

5. Congressional support based on the notion that Pakistan has now become the headquarters of the taliban and al queda.

Those few come off the top of my head, that and my own personal notions (which are not mainstream) that should a friend harbor an enemy knowingly and willingly, then that friend infact is your worse enemy.

The ridiculous foriegn policy of the Bush admin has put us in such a mamoth hole that I dont see any other solution. Propping up foriegn governments under an exported notion of "freedom" discounts the populations will.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by macsen rufus

I think Imran Khan would stand a good chance, and possibly Benazir Bhutto - though he is probably a bit too islamist (for my tatse - it would play well to the crowd) and she has the corruption allegations against her. Khan also has the advantage of being well known outside Pakistan and outside politics. But this is just speculation on my part, I think there's also a chance of some unknown sweeping in from the left-field with a radically uncomfortable agenda.

---

Are you sure about Imran having a good chance? He's supposed to be fairly popular in the tribal areas where his family background gets him support, but he bombed in the last elections IIRC. It would be interesting if he gets into power though, as he's strongly Anglophile but gets most of his support from religious and tribal wackos. Could we establish friendly relations with an explicitly Islamist state, or are we mutually exclusive?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Odin

1. Thousands of nuclear weapons

2. A willingness to use them

---

#1 exists; #2 doesn't, because even the twits in the Bush adminstrations aren't total lunatics.

Quote:

---

3. Sustained Air strikes from multiple carrier groups in hormuz (the likely mechanism).

---

Against what exactly ? And would this be supposed to make the Pakistanis any more friendly to the US and any less so to anyone out to mess with it - such as Al-Qaeda ?

Quote:

---

4. Historical precident of willingness to excersise military options from the Bush admin (See: Afghanistan and Iraq)

---

Thanks to which it is now an unpopular lame duck with grotesque budget deficit, acute shortage of soldiers, and a total bloody quagmire to remain stuck in for a while.

Quote:

---

5. Congressional support based on the notion that Pakistan has now become the headquarters of the taliban and al queda.

---

And the Pakistani gov't is supposed to do what exactly about it anyway ? They de facto have no control over the border regions which are all but officially autonomous, and by what I understand of it, has only ever had with the sufferance of the mountain tribes.

[QUOTE=Watchman]

Quote:

---

#1 exists; #2 doesn't, because even the twits in the Bush adminstrations aren't total lunatics.

---

Yes they are lunatics, nation building and exporting freedom to populations who dont want it is lunacy. Attacking an enemy with maximum force eliminates long term conflicts.

But again, im a minority voice, a lunatic if you will, I was one of the few who believed Kabul should have been made a nuclear fallout zone.

Quote:

---

Against what exactly ? And would this be supposed to make the Pakistanis any more friendly to the US and any less so to anyone out to mess with it - such as Al-Qaeda ?

---

Targets in Pakistan. I dont care if they are more friendly or not. The goal isnt to make friends, the goal is to kill the enemy before he kills me. Of course of Bin laden and the gang decide to stop, then im all for it, but again, friendship with the host of an enemy hasnt bore any fruit yet. These guys are still out there planning and plotting, so why rely on someone else to eliminate the threat when you have the means yourself?

Quote:

---

Thanks to which it is now an unpopular lame duck with grotesque budget deficit, acute shortage of soldiers, and a total bloody quagmire to remain stuck in for a while.

---

Agreed, the U.S. has not switched to a war time economy or footing. If bush had done that (a draft, additional tax levies) his rebuilding, export idea might have worked. Me? I have no intrest in foriegn deployments, Id close the bases in south korea, germany, iraq afghanistan and redploy those soldiers to the mexican border myself.

However, the U.S. population believes Bin laden and the boys are still a threat, and while bush has little creadability left, it would take one plane flying into the sears tower and were right back to post 9/11 nationalist sentiment.

Quote:

---

And the Pakistani gov't is supposed to do what exactly about it anyway ? They de facto have no control over the border regions which are all but officially autonomous, and by what I understand of it, has only ever had with the sufferance of the mountain tribes.

---

The pakistani government has access to one of the best equipped, expirenced, and professional armies in that part of the world. What they should do about it is go into the tribal area's and kill al queda and the taliban, rather then make treaties with them to allow them autonomy.

Quote:

---

Are you sure about Imran having a good chance?

---

Well, if all the rest are still in exile or jail.... :laugh4:

Quote:

---

gets most of his support from religious and tribal wackos

---

This is indeed what is not to my "tatse" (sic -- can't be bothered editing it now....) and unfortunately what may well grow. Depends how far the "pious" are willing to go in ousting Musharaf - will they go the Bin Laden jihadist route, or the populist electoral best-bet?

As for relations with an islamist state, I think recent history has shown our* choice of friends to be much more "pragmatic" than principled. We don't seem to have any problem rubbing along with misogynistic, despotic Wahabbists, after all....

* 'our' meaning our governments'...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Odin

The ridiculous foriegn policy of the Bush admin has put us in such a mamoth hole that I dont see any other solution. Propping up foriegn governments under an exported notion of "freedom" discounts the populations will.

---

The population's will to nuclear fallout? :inquisitive:

All sounds to me like trying to justify starting a thoroughly unethical war as a legitimate effort to prop up the failing credibility of the US government(s) ability to use maximum force, ie. to kill plenty of people to show you're to be taken seriously.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Geoffrey S

The population's will to nuclear fallout? :inquisitive:

---

The populations will to self determination. Should they choose a government that allows terrorists to train to attack others, then nuclear fallout should be appart of thier consideration.

Quote:

---

All sounds to me like trying to justify starting a thoroughly unethical war as a legitimate effort to prop up the failing credibility of the US government(s) ability to use maximum force, ie. to kill plenty of people to show you're to be taken seriously.

---

thats just it, when I offer my opinions it isnt based on what other people think, its based on simply military solutions. The U.S. was never meant to be a player in world affairs other then trade, we changed that, and now we need to change it back.

Attacking and destroying people who attacked us, with effiecent military capabilities limits our countries exposure to nation building, and export of ideaology. Two things I want nothing to do with.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Odin

The populations will to self determination. Should they choose a government that allows terrorists to train to attack others, then nuclear fallout should be appart of thier consideration.

---

That way we can easily end up with the US running around telling nations: "Oh, we'd like this candidate, but feel free to choose another one, we just might nuke you then..."
Then again, maybe that's exactly what you want, be the biggest kid on the playground and tell the others what to do and what not to do. :shrug:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Husar

That way we can easily end up with the US running around telling nations: "Oh, we'd like this candidate, but feel free to choose another one, we just might nuke you then..."
Then again, maybe that's exactly what you want, be the biggest kid on the playground and tell the others what to do and what not to do. :shrug:

---

You know better then that, you know I am an isolationist. I want nothing to do with foriegn governments and dictating to them how they should or shouldnt conduct thier business.

However in the cases of this thread we are talking about countries who are hosting people who have trained others to attack us, in that case, you bet your ass I advocate sharp, harsh and retaliation, or compliance with the request.

Remember the taliban could have turned over Bin laden, they didnt Husar and who's fault is that? Im no bully, and i believe the US has been on the wrong path internationally since the Spanish american war (see sig).

That said, should i wait and hope that these people dont attack again? Sure we could change policies(which I advocate) and make others happy, but that dosent eliminate the short term does it?

I am convinced that terrorists (the ones hiding in pakistan) are and will attempt to attack again, with bio, nuclear or whatever other extreme mechanism they can get there hands on.

I prefer to kill them before they kill me.

I didn't really think you want that Odin, though I wouldn't trust any politicians with it.

And blaming all Pakistanis for harboring some terrorists sounds like blaming all Amercans for harboring the KKK to me. Maybe Israel should nuke the US because the US is harbouring NeoNazis? I know it's extreme and not entirely comparable, but where do you draw the line? IMO you can't nuke a whole city because a few of the people in there support terrorists.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Husar

And blaming all Pakistanis for harboring some terrorists sounds like blaming all Amercans for harboring the KKK to me.

---

The blame is with the government, the people would have ample opportunity to turn over the terrorists or flee. Your point is fair, but I do believe mine has merit, I do not wish to sit and wait for someone else to remove someone who wants to kill me, considering I have a mechanism to do the job myself.

Quote:

---

Maybe Israel should nuke the US because the US is harbouring NeoNazis?

---

Considering they dont have declared nuclear weapons thats highly unlikely. :inquisitive:

However, if those neo nazi's had a track record of escelating attacks on israel, and a stated goal of destroying israel with the most grotseque means possible (chemical, nuke) I would hope israel would do all it could to eliminate the threat.

Again, this assumes an equal capability. I am able to put forth this solution because the U.S. can remove this threat without the host countries help, we simply choose not to.

Quote:

---

I know it's extreme and not entirely comparable, but where do you draw the line? IMO you can't nuke a whole city because a few of the people in there support terrorists.

---

You draw the line with compliance. Sadly our foriegn policy has been so screwed up for years that its impossible to go back and undo the messess. If the taliban thought we might use nukes do you think they would have given up Bin laden? Do you think the population would have given him up first? Would Iraq have been necessary?

I watched 60 minutes last night they had an interview with ahmadinejad, and when asked about nuclear weapons he said:

"Because in political relations right now, the nuclear bomb is of no use. If it was useful, it would have prevented the downfall of the Soviet Union. If it was useful, it would have resolved the problems the Americans have in Iraq."

Source

He is correct, they are of no use unless 1. you are willing to use them, and 2. the other side believes you are willing to use them.

Geh.

Nothing personal Odin, but I'm glad the wonks in Washington have a better grasp of strategy and political realities than you do.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Watchman

Geh.

Nothing personal Odin, but I'm glad the wonks in Washington have a better grasp of strategy and political realities than you do.

---

I disagree with that. Odin's view of things is quite radical and contrary to the status quo, but that doesn't mean it's not valid. He disagrees with you. That's about it. He seeks a US that will not meddle in foreign affairs and remain neutral unless attacked, I honestly can't see anything that's not fair about that.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HoreTore

I disagree with that. Odin's view of things is quite radical and contrary to the status quo, but that doesn't mean it's not valid. He disagrees with you. That's about it. He seeks a US that will not meddle in foreign affairs and remain neutral unless attacked, I honestly can't see anything that's not fair about that.

---

He also thinks that Kabul should have been turned into a giant parking lot back in 2001.

From his own words.

Fallout 3, here we come!? :clown:

No thanks. I hate my life but not that much.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Odin

If the taliban thought we might use nukes do you think they would have given up Bin laden?

---

Well, to be honest, no. They would have rubbed their hands in glee and said "Yes! 1,000,000 martyrs - surely the entire Islamic world will rise up and overthrow the Satan America if they do such a thing..." I don't expect rational actions from people who hold to an irrational belief system :no: You can be sure they themselves and OBL would have quit the scene of impending carnage all the better to be able to stir up and exploit the inevitable outrage later.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HoreTore

I disagree with that. Odin's view of things is quite radical and contrary to the status quo, but that doesn't mean it's not valid. He disagrees with you. That's about it. He seeks a US that will not meddle in foreign affairs and remain neutral unless attacked, I honestly can't see anything that's not fair about that.

---

Back in the day I argued fiercely enough with the forum's resident hawks to know what a view disagreeing from mine looks like. Odin's, in all honesty, just looks grossly irresponsible and callous, and patently fails to even try taking into account a considerable number of complications.

It is, in other words, basically knee-jerk brute-force populism. It is roughly analoguous to a kid who got picked on at the sandbox going to fetch his daddy's gun to shoot the other kid, "and then they'll be sorry and fear me and won't pick on me again"... if you see what I mean.

I can see a lot that's not fair, and more importantly sensible or grounded in reality, in that line of thinking.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HoreTore

I disagree with that. Odin's view of things is quite radical and contrary to the status quo, but that doesn't mean it's not valid. He disagrees with you. That's about it. He seeks a US that will not meddle in foreign affairs and remain neutral unless attacked, I honestly can't see anything that's not fair about that.

---

I had a dream Satan was having a snowball fight in hell with Dante.

:medievalcheers:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by macsen rufus

Well, to be honest, no. They would have rubbed their hands in glee and said "Yes! 1,000,000 martyrs - surely the entire Islamic world will rise up and overthrow the Satan America if they do such a thing..." I don't expect rational actions from people who hold to an irrational belief system :no: You can be sure they themselves and OBL would have quit the scene of impending carnage all the better to be able to stir up and exploit the inevitable outrage later.

---

then we have a core disagreement, I dont think the taliban wanted to loose power. I concede it would have created plenty of martyrs and radicals but the net result would have been huge street protests there.

There in lies the rub, they didnt believe we would use Nukes, no one believes we will (see quote from ahmadinejad). I have no desire to nuke anyone, or for that matter be at war with any country.

I personally would rather have a trade agreement with the afghans where they sell us all the opium they want. Sadly prior ridiculous foriegn policy decisions brought us to where we are now (its not all the U.S. fault either).

We have countries hosting people who will use nukes, or whatever else they can get thier hands on. Sadly we wont, and thats why in the end we will loose the war on terror because we arent able to muster and match the level of extremism that is being marshalled against us.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Odin

Sadly we wont, and thats why in the end we will loose the war on terror because we arent able to muster and match the level of extremism that is being marshalled against us.

---

If we did, we'd very much deserve to lose. Because we'd be even worse than the other guys, having abandoned established enlightened values for convenience and expediency.

Happen to know Nietzsche's quip about fighting monsters ?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Watchman

Back in the day I argued fiercely enough with the forum's resident hawks to know what a view disagreeing from mine looks like. Odin's, in all honesty, just looks grossly irresponsible and callous, and patently fails to even try taking into account a considerable number of complications.

It is, in other words, basically knee-jerk brute-force populism. It is roughly analoguous to a kid who got picked on at the sandbox going to fetch his daddy's gun to shoot the other kid, "and then they'll be sorry and fear me and won't pick on me again"... if you see what I mean.

I can see a lot that's not fair, and more importantly sensible or grounded in reality, in that line of thinking.

---

What the hell are you talking about? A kid in a sandbox?

Tell you what, you come back into the real world and you might have seen the people leaping to thier deaths in NY in 2001.

You also neglect to mention that we did infact give the taliban a choice, they could have turned over Bin Laden, they chose not to.

My points are based from a point of view of being attacked, and having thousands of people die, and your anaology is a kid in a sandbox?

Who's grounded in reality? If your suggesting its you then by all means prepare your next sermon for the congregation in your mind, its highly entertaining and laughable.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Watchman

If we did, we'd very much deserve to lose. Because we'd be even worse than the other guys, having abandoned established enlightened values for convenience and expediency.

---

Established enlightened values? Hate to break it to you but the U.S. enlightened values are highly militiristic.

You offer plenty of criticism but I have yet to hear a solution out of you given the hypotheticals we are dicussing. I concede my solution is extreme but it negates U.S. involvement in that part of the world.

You dont seem to have a solution, and that detracts from credability. Its easy to pick someone else apart based on your beliefs of what reality should be, its quite another thing entirely to put forth an alternative solution, based on realisitc factors in the present tense, I challenge you to do so.

Quote:

---

Happen to know Nietzsche's quip about fighting monsters ?

---

No, its not part of established enlightened values, did he know Jefferson by chance?

Yep, that's what I'm talking about; garrison-state siege-mentality hysterics. You can't even tell your friends (Musfarrah's regime, despite everything) from your enemies (the religious loons the former has no control over), nevermind now civilians who have nothing to do with the issue. You're also citing the death of a few thousand Americans in 11.9.2001 as an excuse for sentencing tens of thousands of people to death by nuclear fireball and radiation poisoning, for no other reason than that you could rid the world of your enemies and be safe forever... you wish.

Spare me.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Watchman

Yep, that's what I'm talking about; garrison-state siege-mentality hysterics. You can't even tell your friends (Musfarrah's regime, despite everything) from your enemies (the religious loons the former has no control over), nevermind now civilians who have nothing to do with the issue. You're also citing the death of a few thousand Americans in 11.9.2001 as an excuse for sentencing tens of thousands of people to death by nuclear fireball and radiation poisoning, for no other reason than that you could rid the world of your enemies and be safe forever... you wish.

Spare me.

---

thank you for not providing an alternative or your own solution, you didnt disappoint me.

Clearly you think that my only reaction is to nuke, you once again negate the concept of the choice of the taliban to not turn over Bin laden, and the notion that they know we wont use maximum deadly force. That is the point, war isnt necassary when the one attacking thinks you will hit back with a more deadly force.

Perhaps the concept is lost on you, but the point is rather simple, you dont host people who attack others when that person will eliminate you, and the perp. If there were ever a case to reestablish the U.S. willingness to use maximum force, minimal expense, to gain the desired outcome Afghanistan was it.

You also negate the host populations will to relieve themselves of the threat by giving up bin laden themselves. They chose not to do that, infact afghanistan chose to (and pakistan chooses to now) host people that will use a nuclear weapon to destroy the U.S. (should they gain one).

You do not address this fact at all, or provide any alternative solutions, your critique the present circumtance, you critique an alternative circumstance but give nothing but rhetoric on one point of using a nuclear weapon. The dicussion and points raised are contributing factors, whether you like it or not.

Your whole position is based on one small point in a larger context of a discusion, spare me.

Yeah Odin, I guess if your son's school was be held hostage your first reaction would be to call in artillery fire on the school building, eh? Show them kidnappers that you're willing to use deadly force. :2thumbsup:

It's a great concept I tell you.:sweatdrop:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Husar

Yeah Odin, I guess if your son's school was be held hostage your first reaction would be to call in artillery fire on the school building, eh? Show them kidnappers that you're willing to use deadly force. :2thumbsup:

It's a great concept I tell you.:sweatdrop:

---

Typical response, nothing to do with the point and completely off topic. My child, and his school have nothing to do with afghanistan or pakistani politics that host terrorists. thats what we are talking about.

Weak Husar, but my expectations are sufficently low enough to have anticiapted that those who dont have thier own thoughts would need to pull from something completely off the point of the discussion.

:thumbsdown:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Odin

You also negate the host populations will to relieve themselves of the threat by giving up bin laden themselves. They chose not to do that, infact afghanistan chose to (and pakistan chooses to now) host people that will use a nuclear weapon to destroy the U.S. (should they gain one).

---

I'm really not convinced that this is the case, that these countries "choose to host" the terrorists, and definitely do not accept that the general populace could have given up OBL.

I have it in mind that "host" has two senses: the one being hospitality, the other infection by a parasite. That some of the citizens of these countries are terrorists I have no doubt, but likewise some of the citizens (well, subjects but let's not quibble about constitutional trifles here) of my country are terrorists, and I and my neighbours are in no position to "give them up" no matter how many bombs you or anyone would care to threaten us with. Were the general American public in any position to "give up" Timothy McVeigh, to name but one, or did the US government "choose to host" him? It seems unreasonable that a mass death penalty should be applied for failure to achieve the impossible.

I would hold that indiscriminate fireballs are not a way to address perceived slights by other nations, either in Manhattan or Kabul or Islamabad. Navaros was very apposite with his Nietzsche allusion, and I would add a scriptural one - "by their fruits shall ye know them". In terms of innocent victims of either fireball, the self-justifying perpetrators seem equally evil to me.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by macsen rufus

I'm really not convinced that this is the case, that these countries "choose to host" the terrorists, and definitely do not accept that the general populace could have given up OBL.

---

your entitled to your opinion, we disagree. The taliban hosted him, Pakistan is allowing him to operate from thier territory. While not officially endorsing his residence, the implications of his ability to continue to operate speak volumes.

Quote:

---

I have it in mind that "host" has two senses: the one being hospitality, the other infection by a parasite. That some of the citizens of these countries are terrorists I have no doubt, but likewise some of the citizens (well, subjects but let's not quibble about constitutional trifles here) of my country are terrorists, and I and my neighbours are in no position to "give them up" no matter how many bombs you or anyone would care to threaten us with.

---

Again, you chose not to use in your example the fact that the country in question was hosting people who did attack. You can neglect this point all you want, I've made sufficent arguments to explain it in prior posts.

Quote:

---

Were the general American public in any position to "give up" Timothy McVeigh, to name but one, or did the US government "choose to host" him? It seems unreasonable that a mass death penalty should be applied for failure to achieve the impossible.

---

No, they removed him after he attacked. Again, Bin laden became this after his attack. What if he had obtained nuclear material and they got it onto the plane? Id rather be ont the giving end of that equation then the recieving, but by all means if you wish to view the cup as overflowingly full, you have my blessing

Quote:

---

I would hold that indiscriminate fireballs are not a way to address perceived slights by other nations, either in Manhattan or Kabul or Islamabad.

---

A percieved slight, is a far cry from hosting a terrorist who has expressed his desire, and willingness to destroy your country with whatever means possible. Again, if you chose to not address this little piece of the issue, thats your choice.

I've made multiple points explaining my position based on several factors, not simple slights, children in sandboxs, or my child school systems. The counter arguments thus far have focused soely on one issue of many, the use of a nuclear bomb. Because there has been a repeated choice not to address, consider or concede or acknowledge any other point in the discussion speaks volumes to the weakness of the position you hold.

I've made my point in this thread, taken a healthy view of the overall dynamic, and made concessions when need be, i have nothing more to add then what i have already said, and walk away satisfied that the argument for the otherside has very little substance at all.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Odin

Typical response, nothing to do with the point and completely off topic. My child, and his school have nothing to do with afghanistan or pakistani politics that host terrorists. thats what we are talking about.

Weak Husar, but my expectations are sufficently low enough to have anticiapted that those who dont have thier own thoughts would need to pull from something completely off the point of the discussion.

:thumbsdown:

---

How about those thousands of Afghani children you wanted to nuke for the faults of their parents then? I guess they have nothing to do with the discussion either and file under collateral damage.:dizzy2:

And their parents won't mourn since we nuke them as well, how great. :2thumbsup:

And you seem to miss the fact that pupils in a school "held hostage" by other people are actually harbouring criminals, after all they could rise up and throw those criminals out, no? I know it was bad to say it's your child, I just thought you might get the idea that someone in the world loves those thousands of people you'd like to nuke as much as you love your son, but maybe it's just evil of me to assume that those evil barbarians in the middle east might have something like emotions. :juggle2:

I does appear as if Odin is advocating policies that will make millions of extra future terrorists .

And "consequences" appear to be a field lost to him. As is "reasonable use of force".

Nevermind now why nobody's used nukes for aggression since '45.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Watchman

Nevermind now why nobody's used nukes for aggression since '45.

---

Well, d'oh. It's the electric lobby I tell you. A few nukes around the world and everything glows in the dark; they'd lose their income, who'd use any kind of lighting source then, eh? :idea2: