They are also against everything Bush does for homeland security. So Musharraf is forced out, the islamists take over, and they get the nukes - give one to Al Qaeda. Ooooo, won't that be great? Then, when one goes up in new york city, guess who they'll blame - Bush!

__________________
Blade: "more educated and literate people than Justabubba"

Justabubba: "that would include everyone"

http://politicalforum.com/showthread.php?t=27847

I'm not an appeaser. I want to see Pakistan become a democracy again, even if it means an Islamist is elected into power.

Spreading democracy contributes to our own security. I am unwilling to cooperate with non-democracies in containing the terrorist threat. I dont trust them. They are part of the problem.

There is no guarantee that Musharraf's exit will result in an Islamist takeover. Quite the opposite. Benazir Bhutto is very popular and hardly friendly to the hardline Islamists.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pakista...election,_2007

__________________
My Political Blog (Updated Oct 3rd) - Which Flame Warrior are you?

A sign of the Apocolypse:
I'm agreeing with Sadistic on this one.
I think Musharaf did a good job of fixing up the country after its last collapse, but his paranoia nad ego is becoming a liability. Fears of radical takeover in Musharaf's absence are misinformed. The people are mostly moderate and the leading politicians take an anti-terror, anti-radical stance (Bhutto is basically a center-left Musharaf without military dictator aspirations).
Terrorists and radicals actually gain more power through Musharaf standing his ground and destabilizing the region through illegitimacy.

__________________
"Man lives in the sunlit world of that which he believes to be reality. But unseen by most is an underworld, a place that is just as real... but not as brightly lit... A DARK SIDE!"
-opening from Tales From the Darkside

Islamists, including al qaeda, are well armed and in the country. They took over afghanistan, didn't they? They have every reason to take over pakistan, and the nukes are the real kicker. Benazir Bhutto might win in an election - what makes anyone think the islamists will allow an election? In iraq, after a record turnout in their election, did the islamists say " well OK let's bag it and go home?"

__________________
Blade: "more educated and literate people than Justabubba"

Justabubba: "that would include everyone"

http://politicalforum.com/showthread.php?t=27847

If they are that strong, Musharaf won't stop them either.
Actually they gain more strength with an illegitimate government. They can capitalize on the disaffection of the population and do a lot more damage.
The military does not go away with Musharaf.
That's actually part of Musharaf's big flaw. He has taken on the idea that he is some indispensible charismatic leader rather than a bureaucratic one.
This is typical of military dictators when they've outlived their usefulness.
Tragic thing with Musharaf is that if he just backed down, he would still be able to play a crucial part in his country without trouble.
Most of his detractors did not believe in his removal until the recent crackdown. They merely waned him to give up one of his two positions and share power.

__________________
"Man lives in the sunlit world of that which he believes to be reality. But unseen by most is an underworld, a place that is just as real... but not as brightly lit... A DARK SIDE!"
-opening from Tales From the Darkside

I dont think the situations are analogous, but even if they were, my response would be the same.

We dont deny people democracy simply because they might elect people we dont like.


I am more comfortable with nukes in the hands of an Islamic democracy than I am with nukes in the hands of ANY dictator or oligarchy. Period.

There is no such thing as a friendly dictator IMO.

I believe Musharrif is probably sincere about wanting democracy for his people. Now it is time for him to demonstrate his sincerity. This is when we find out where his REAL loyalties are.


Bad example. Did the Islamists win in Iraq? If they had, the Iraqi government would have already ceased cooperating with us (and they sure as hell would not be asking us to stay).

__________________
My Political Blog (Updated Oct 3rd) - Which Flame Warrior are you?

And as I implied, thinking "no Musharraf" = democracy is naive.

Once again, the issue isn't Musharraf vs an islamic democracy (and let's note there is no such thing) the issue is probably Musharray vs. an islamist state.

The soviet union in WWII? Maybe we shouldn't have made an alliance with stalin? Oops - bad move - woulda lost WWII. Darn.

No, now isn't the time. The time is after all the islamists are driven out of his country.

You have it backwards - they're asking us to stay because we have the islamists, notably al qaeda, on the run. If the US abandons iraq, they'll walk in the next day and take over - about the same if we help depose Musharraf.

__________________
Blade: "more educated and literate people than Justabubba"

Justabubba: "that would include everyone"

http://politicalforum.com/showthread.php?t=27847

Pretending that a Musharraf dictatorship is a democracy is more naive.


Of course there is. Iraq is an Islamic Demcoracy.


...was not a friendly dictator/oligarchy. They were a tool. We never saw them as friends.

Which became obvious right after the war.


Correct.


Hardly. The Soviets needed US. Not the other way around.

It would have been harder without them, but I hardly think we would have lost.

Either way, we never considered the Soviets to be friends. Only tools. The same is true of our non-democracy "friends" today.

IMO, we should not even be employing them as tools. We should not be supporting them at all. Whether our short term goals are parallel or not.


So what? We'd probably offer help to Pakistan as well. Either way, denying the masses democracy is not an acceptable solution.

__________________
My Political Blog (Updated Oct 3rd) - Which Flame Warrior are you?