Colin Posted November 7, 2007 Posted November 7, 2007 Clearly Pakistan is made up of many different parts, Musharraf just seems to be trying to piss them all off at once. If the Tribal areas declare independance, then NATO will be free to bomb the snot out of them.
Guest JamesG123 Posted November 7, 2007 Posted November 7, 2007 Yes. The military controls the nukes, and as long as it remains cohesive and "rational" there is very little risk of them falling into the wrong hands or of there being a need of "intervention". The only real danger is if there is a dangerous loss of discipline or control over the troops, or a schism in the senior officer corps, leading to a true civil war.
Archie Pellagio Posted November 8, 2007 Posted November 8, 2007 <conspricy theory>Assumption:Its a setup, the people are supposed to overthrow Musharraf and bring a new age of democrasy to Pakistan. Reasons this seems true:1. Outside looking in, it appears that Bhutto is being setup to take over. She is the only one allowed to speak her mind freeily, and oddily enough Musharraf isn't moving against her.2. If the people take over via protests it is likely that the democratic institutions will be much stronger then if Musharraf relents and allows democrasy to passivily assert itself. This type of democrasy if it chooses so will probably be in a much better position to fight the extreemists.3. Even if Musharraf let democrasy take over passivily, it will not solve the perception that the goverment is weak, and inable to fight the militants.4. The military chain of command has already been set to fall to Gen Ashfaq Pervez Kiyani, and avoid any chaos in the defense forces Reasons I am wrong:1. The forces of democrasy are losing</conspricy theory> 1. Bhutto is not set to take over, she is being used as a fig leaf for demcracy by Musharraf and simultaneously trying to weasel her way into a position as a form of prime-minister powersharing with Mushy, mabey hoping that she might be able to shed the collaborators mantle later...She is a lying, theiving corrupt sub-continental politician who is no more interested in democracy than anyone else.The difference is Musharraf is more interested in power and control, she is interested in feathering her nest and fulfilling the dynastic nonsense. 2. I know pakistan has marijuana growing wild everywhere, but seriously... 4. Don't underesitmate the chance of someone having plans for a semi-democratic figleaf with military oversight in a head of state w/ seperate head of government system. But then what happens in the next two years is anyone's guess, the grey aliens might well take over...
Archie Pellagio Posted November 8, 2007 Posted November 8, 2007 (edited) Clearly Pakistan is made up of many different parts, Musharraf just seems to be trying to piss them all off at once. If the Tribal areas declare independance, then NATO will be free to bomb the snot out of them. Why would they declare independence?They have complete autonomy as is, and get cash from those furriners in islamabad.If they became a nation that entails a whole host of responsibilities and the need to govern. They are not united, each Mandated Tribal Area is its own tribal areaThey don't necessarily want to get along. As for US incursions to the tribal area, there is a very nudge-nudge-wink-wink "we respect pakistani sovereignty" there. Edited November 8, 2007 by Luke_Yaxley
Colin Posted November 8, 2007 Posted November 8, 2007 Why would they declare independence?They have complete autonomy as is, and get cash from those furriners in islamabad.If they became a nation that entails a whole host of responsibilities and the need to govern. They are not united, each Mandated Tribal Area is its own tribal areaThey don't necessarily want to get along. As for US incursions to the tribal area, there is a very nudge-nudge-wink-wink "we respect pakistani sovereignty" there. that is what I am saying, however it is possible they will be dumb enough to try it.
Gabe Posted November 8, 2007 Posted November 8, 2007 (edited) As far as I can tell the primary complaint against Musharraf is his preceived US puppet status. What those people calling for return to democracy and rule of law really mean to say is they want Pakistan to stop participating in the war on terror, and that Musharraf has ignored the will of the majority on this matter. Bhutto is one of the few people making the claim that a more democratic Pakistan would be a stronger partner against terror. Color me skeptical. That woman's words are just a little too focus-grouped to be believed. Edited November 8, 2007 by Gabe
Josh Posted November 8, 2007 Posted November 8, 2007 that is what I am saying, however it is possible they will be dumb enough to try it. As far as they are concerned they *are* independent. They don't buy into the modern nation state model and they don't care. To say 'maybe they will declare themselves independent' is kinda like saying 'maybe the Cheroke should have started up an embassy inside the US'. IE, you are ascribing the a western style national identity to an area that is specifically called 'Tribal'.
Ivanhoe Posted November 8, 2007 Posted November 8, 2007 As far as I can tell the primary complaint against Musharraf is his preceived US puppet status. What those people calling for return to democracy and rule of law really mean to say is they want Pakistan to stop participating in the war on terror, and that Musharraf has ignored the will of the majority on this matter. It is kind of amusing how many folks have concluded that Iraq cannot handle democracy, but that Pakistan can.
ex-leogunner Posted November 8, 2007 Posted November 8, 2007 (edited) Just a thought, but off topic a bit. Has anyone thought about what India thinks about this? Is this not the type of situation they are looking for to take Kasmir? Just thinking out loud here. Edited November 8, 2007 by ex-leogunner
Josh Posted November 8, 2007 Posted November 8, 2007 India like the US is keeping a keen eye on the situation and probably has sections of its military at a heightened alert, particular whoever runs the missiles. That said you won't hear a peep out of them because they are afraid that even a statement by them might atagonize the situation and tensions. They will wait and see what happens while being ready for some kind of military action if something inside Pakistan spirals massively out of control, but outside that they will be silent. They've no desire to start a conflict.
Bluelight Posted November 8, 2007 Author Posted November 8, 2007 (edited) It would be ironic if Pakistan went south and 5 differant countries special operations forces got into an incident with each other at the missile sites as they each attempted to take them out. You got the Indians, the Americans, the Isrealies, the French, the Russians, and whoelse all trying to hit the same target for the same reasons. Pakistan must know this, the current situation doesn't seem to make sence in their own self interests. Why risk it? .. none of the factions have anything to gain from the current instability, especially Musharraf. Edited November 8, 2007 by Bluelight
Guest JamesG123 Posted November 8, 2007 Posted November 8, 2007 It is kind of amusing how many folks have concluded that Iraq cannot handle democracy, but that Pakistan can. Pakistan has a history, albeit a rocky one, of democratic institutions. Iraq effectively does not.
JWB Posted November 9, 2007 Posted November 9, 2007 Pakistan has a history, albeit a rocky one, of corrupt democratic institutions. Iraq effectively does not.
Gabe Posted November 9, 2007 Posted November 9, 2007 Corrupt elected leaders come and go, the institution which held Pakistan together was and is the army. America's alliance with Pakistan in the past has always been first and foremost an alliance with the Pakistani Army. The administration should keep that in mind before getting carried away supporting popular causes in Pakistan. The most popular man in Pakistan is Bin Ladin.
jakec Posted November 9, 2007 Posted November 9, 2007 Just a thought, but off topic a bit. Has anyone thought about what India thinks about this? Is this not the type of situation they are looking for to take Kasmir? Just thinking out loud here.I think you'll find that it is India that administers a large part of Kashmir already, and has historically been on the defensive in that region against Pakistan. While Pakistan does administer a small portion of Kashmir, its hard to think of a situation today whereby India would use military force to seek to conquer it. Indian strategy has traditionally been to threaten incursions into other parts of Pakistan, namely Punjab and Sindh, to deter Pakistan from seeking to take the part of Kashmir that India administers.
Bluelight Posted November 9, 2007 Author Posted November 9, 2007 http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/worl...icle2827700.ece General’s troops routed by zealots imposing Sharia on tourist haven Dozens of Pakistani security forces policing a former tourist haven surrendered to militants yesterday, raising the stakes in the country’s political crisis. The police officers and troops, outnumbered and demoralised, laid down their arms before hundreds of pro-Taleban extremists who are imposing Islamic law in an area beloved of Western hikers. ... Three main towns have fallen to the followers of Maulana Fazlullah, a radical Islamic cleric, over the past three days. Residents said that heavily armed militants were patrolling the towns of Madayan, Matta and Kwazakhela, which had been favourite destinations for Pakistani and foreign tourists until recently. ... They added that the Islamic militia, who called themselves Taleban, had hoisted their flag inscribed with verses from the Koran above government buildings and established Islamic courts. Government officials have fled and police stations are now manned by militants. Television and music have been banned and barbers ordered not to shave beards. Through an FM radio station, the militants have urged schoolgirls to wear all-covering burkas. They have warned women that their marriages would be annulled if they did not force their husbands to grow beards.
Jim Martin Posted November 9, 2007 Posted November 9, 2007 Nothing some carpet bombing followed up by a brutal suppression campaign couldn't fix.
Archie Pellagio Posted November 10, 2007 Posted November 10, 2007 that is what I am saying, however it is possible they will be dumb enough to try it. Thats just silly. The idea of modern nation states are exactly what they hate, why would they want to be one?The diminishing and dispersing of authority and knowledge from the traditional elite holders is the primary grievance of these people. Why would they willingly hasten it in their "idyllic" world?
p620346 Posted November 10, 2007 Posted November 10, 2007 Nothing some carpet bombing followed up by a brutal suppression campaign couldn't fix. This would seem to be the perfect site for a NEUTRON BOMB testing area.
Colin Posted November 10, 2007 Posted November 10, 2007 Is it as silly as the Taliban trying to take over the whole of Afghanistan? They know that there influence in the wealthier parts of pakistan is not great, they may decide to get rid of the governement once and for all by declaring themselves as independent and setting up along traditional lines. If they are thinking, they will do so in everything but name, if they are feeling the wind because they have been able to defeat the army units, they might feel bold enough to take on the world.
Archie Pellagio Posted November 10, 2007 Posted November 10, 2007 Is it as silly as the Taliban trying to take over the whole of Afghanistan? They know that there influence in the wealthier parts of pakistan is not great, they may decide to get rid of the governement once and for all by declaring themselves as independent and setting up along traditional lines. If they are thinking, they will do so in everything but name, if they are feeling the wind because they have been able to defeat the army units, they might feel bold enough to take on the world. Mate, its just...not...gonna...happen Let it go...
Colin Posted November 10, 2007 Posted November 10, 2007 Well we see who is right, I understand your logic and agree that it is the best position for them, but that does not mean they won't go do it. These guys have completly different rule book in their heads than the west.
Sardaukar Posted November 10, 2007 Posted November 10, 2007 (edited) This would seem to be the perfect site for a NEUTRON BOMB testing area. I really liked the concept of neutron bomb...very evil Maybe we could use them to take the oil out of the hands of certain nations... I mean..infrastructure will be left relatively unharmed.. Edited November 10, 2007 by Sardaukar
Archie Pellagio Posted November 10, 2007 Posted November 10, 2007 Well we see who is right, I understand your logic and agree that it is the best position for them, but that does not mean they won't go do it. These guys have completly different rule book in their heads than the west. Okay, so when The Taliban take over as the Government of The Islamic Republic of Pakistan, i'll buy you a beer...In fact, i'll post incriminating pictures of me staged with all manner of farm animals.Actually, i'll not only do all that, but i'll even throw in a blowjob for you, as well as show the secret location of iraq's WMD's...
Archie Pellagio Posted November 10, 2007 Posted November 10, 2007 I really liked the concept of neutron bomb...very evil Maybe we could use them to take the oil out of the hands of certain nations... I mean..infrastructure will be left relatively unharmed.. I remember thinking if ever there was a country that begged to be a testing ground for a neutron bomb it was pakistan. Truly beautiful country, shame about the people...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now