I was gonna post something about Pakistan, but I think Atrios did it already. Frustratingly, he even added in the quip's i'd make, so you should just read his comments:
Like every other sentient being on the planet I'm rather confused by our policies towards Pakistan. We're generally led to believe that Bin Laden is hanging out there along with some of his pals. It's a dictatorship with an unclear line of succession if that dictator ever accidentally gets in the way of an assassin's bullet. They have an active nuclear program. Their top nuclear scientist was handing out nuclear technology like candy on Halloween. The country promptly pardoned him for this and we didn't say a thing. Oh, and for the Malkins [and Ann Coulters] of the world THEY'RE ALL BIG SCARY MUSLIMS.
And, just for fun, they have a new plutonium plant. And the Bush administration hid this fact from Congress.
6 comments:
So you are saying what exactly? I'm pretty pro-Pakistan, just because my sister has lived there most of her adult life. The "dictator" of the place is a reasonable person who has been, incredibly, able to keep a lid on things in the midst of a very troubling time. Prior to his military arrival, the leadership of the country was pretty corrupt and grim. Ruling an Islamic country is tricky. I kind of think that Musharraf is like the best funambulist I've ever seen, and that without the constant use of terror tactics as a high-wire balancing pole.
My comment was less of an indictment of Pakistan and more of a comment on the Bush Administration's actions. when we hold one nation's status quo intolerable and another as an ally, it greatly undermines our credibility around the world. this is not a new problem in the US, but we now strain this issue to the point of losing our own strength in world diplomacy matters.
I know what you mean. It is incredibly frustrating. I am glad the political fate of the world is not on my shoulders. Though, as you implied, one would think we could find better leadership than we have.
Daniel Schorr recently talked about the necessity for Israel to flex it's muscle with Hezbollah in order to communicate it's strength because the Arab world only understand's strength. I wonder whether it is strength or reason that underlies diplomacy?
I've been thinking about this a lot lately and I don't agree with Mr. Schorr at all. First, Hezbollah didn't exist until Israel occupied southern lebanon. in this case, one of the strongest forms of military might (occupation)caused Hezbollah to come into existence.
Another thing is that the sort of war that Israel is waging just doesn't work in mondern times with insergent groups blended, with support, into the fabric of the area. It didn't work for Afganistan and it didn't work in Vietnam. our success in afganistan has been greatly due to our trading of power to various other (less)shitty warlords. NOT trying to get rid of 'warlords' in a general sense.
I've heard that Israel may want a 'buffer zone' which makes me roll my eyes. isn't that what gaza and the golan heights were supposed to be? that's worked out SO well. besides that, you will certainly see a leabonese public galvanized with hezbollah if israel keeps this up. they've not made a substantial dent in Hezbollah compared to the damage they've done to Lebonese civilians. it wouldn't take much for some of these folks to start believing the Israeli actions were purposeful. I'm sorry, but if you drop a leaflet telling me that you will soon bomb my neighborhood, well that doesn't mean its ok with me that you're bombing my house.
I have another question about all this but i'm saving it for my next post.
Ok, I'll add your blog to my roll and wait patiently for your comments in your next post.
hey thanks! i'm gonna try to get to the damn thing soon! just had to get the Lieberman/Lamont thing out there.
Post a Comment