The Iraq War, WMDs, Pakistan, etc.

[clambake]

Even if it is all about Oil, what is the problem? Without energy
the United States has nothing. Oil is our lifeblood.

hey ray, does courage fade with age, because this is a real chicken way of admitting you've been wrong all along?

[some_user86]

Boo ya. Pakistan declared a state of emergency. Their rationale is two-fold. 1) Musharraf wants to stay in power, and 2) he's finally trying to eradicate those extremists that have taken hold in the Northwest Frontier Province (who have turned against him and are trying to kill him).

I predict that the strategy will fail because there is support for Taliban and al-Qaeda not only among the populace broadly (probably around 40% or higher) but also amongst Musharraf's own government and military. He is already unpopular among the liberals and has now alienated the conservatives. Basically, he has become the most unpopular guy in the country.

My prediction: Musharraf is either assassinated or forced to flee in a coup by a conservative military general with broad support from extremists. There is a possibility that if this doesn't happen before too long, Pakistan could descend to all out civil war, Afghanistan-style (in the late '90s). But with nukes in the middle. My real hope is that the Disney-version plays out that the extremists are rooted out (from the NWFP and Musharraf's government), Musharraf steps down as army chief to remain as President (since for all his foibles, at least he seems willing to compromise), and someone with a vision can step in and save the political condition of Pakistan. But I'm not that naive.

Oh, I finally got around to reading that bull you wrote, Obstructed_View. WTF are you talking about? That has to be the most disjointed piece of crap I've read in my life. You're connecting dots where there are none to connect. The whole article is a composed of suppositions and guesses which are based on flimsy evidence at best and downright disingenuous lies at worst. Of course Saddam was bad for his people. But he was not a danger to OUR people in 2003. We had a bigger focus and threat in 2003 and we let it slip away. I didn't see any evidence in your post that suggests to the contrary. In fact, I didn't see any evidence of anything at all.

[ChumpDumper]

Hey Chump did we have Saddam in our custody. I
heard that we had him for six months. Is that true?

Yes.

So what is your point? We should have tortured him?

Are you saying torture doesn't work now?

How about just asking the guy.

What information did we get when we debriefed him?

Did we even ask him about WMDs -- or did we already know the answer?

[Chief]

Boo ya. Pakistan declared a state of emergency. Their rationale is two-fold. 1) Musharraf wants to stay in power, and 2) he's finally trying to eradicate those extremists that have taken hold in the Northwest Frontier Province (who have turned against him and are trying to kill him).

I predict that the strategy will fail because there is support for Taliban and al-Qaeda not only among the populace broadly (probably around 40% or higher) but also amongst Musharraf's own government and military. He is already unpopular among the liberals and has now alienated the conservatives. Basically, he has become the most unpopular guy in the country.

My prediction: Musharraf is either assassinated or forced to flee in a coup by a conservative military general with broad support from extremists. There is a possibility that if this doesn't happen before too long, Pakistan could descend to all out civil war, Afghanistan-style (in the late '90s). But with nukes in the middle. My real hope is that the Disney-version plays out that the extremists are rooted out (from the NWFP and Musharraf's government), Musharraf steps down as army chief to remain as President (since for all his foibles, at least he seems willing to compromise), and someone with a vision can step in and save the political condition of Pakistan. But I'm not that naive.

Oh, I finally got around to reading that bull you wrote, Obstructed_View. WTF are you talking about? That has to be the most disjointed piece of crap I've read in my life. You're connecting dots where there are none to connect. The whole article is a composed of suppositions and guesses which are based on flimsy evidence at best and downright disingenuous lies at worst. Of course Saddam was bad for his people. But he was not a danger to OUR people in 2003. We had a bigger focus and threat in 2003 and we let it slip away. I didn't see any evidence in your post that suggests to the contrary. In fact, I didn't see any evidence of anything at all.

nice take , but u hit it right on the head with ur first line

..." Pakistan declared a state of emergency. Their rationale is two-fold. 1) Musharraf wants to stay in power,"

staying in power is the only reason he did this. Don't let him fool all of you outside of Pakistan. The situation in the rural tribal areas of Pakistan has been brewing for years. He has done nothing. All he did was make deals with the Tribal leaders to keep their people in check in return for Aid. He let these tribal areas govern themselves. And now look what has happened, The extremists have found a safehaven, and are trying to take over other small rural towns (see: gilgit and sawant). Now the terrorists are taking action, these brain washed radicals are trying to form a government inside a government. They are kidnapping Soldiers, making others involuntarily abide by their made up laws. The situation has just progressed deeply within a few months. You have the Red Mosque Siege, You have Bhutto assasination attempt , there was a suicide attack in Rawalpindi, few kilometers from where Musharaf was.

This was all about him staying in power, if it was because of radicals ONLY, then why would he suspend all private media, arrest members of the opposition parties, arrest judges, media members, protesters. He thinks he's clever but I'm sure the world will finally realize he's nothing but a False Democracy preaching Dictator.

[boutons_]

Why Not Dissolve Pakistan, Too?
Ali Ette h
Tehran, Iran

Dr. Ali Ette h serves as a director of Highmore Global Corporation, an investment company in emerging markets of Eastern Europe, CIS, and the Middle East. He is the co-author of several books on trade conflict, resolution of international trade disputes, conflicts in letters of credit, trade-related banking transactions, sovereign debt, arbitration and dispute resolutions and publications specific to the oil and gas, communication, aviation and finance sectors. Dr. Ette h is a member of the executive committee and the board of directors of The Development Foundation, an advisor to the United Nations High Commission for Refugees, and an advisor to a number of European companies. Dr. Ette h speaks Persian (Farsi), English, German, French, Spanish, Italian, Arabic and Turkish.

Pakistan is not a country. It is a failed British fantasy about the fabrication of a nation-state. It has other failed and failing peers in the Middle East, all fabricated during the 20th century. It is time to seriously review all of these structures and redraw the borderlines.

Pakistan was a phrase coined for an idealistic confederation of five Muslim provinces within the old British-controlled India (Punjab, Northwest Frontier Province or Afghania, Kashmir, Sindh and Baluchistan). However, these are tribal lands with distinct traditions and have very little in common. These provinces were all knocked together, on presumption of a common religion, and a “dominion” was fabricated within the Commonwealth with self-governance authority akin to independence after World War II. It was all part of the post-war fire sale of territorial control of Britain. The ill-conceived plan even set up a separate territory of East Bengal as East Pakistan, a subcontinent away, with the rough-and-ready argument of common religious beliefs and a majority Muslim population. East Pakistan eventually became independent and renamed itself Bangladesh.

Pakistan’s short 60-year history is full of coups and raw, violent tribal rivalry, peppered by jailing or executing the previous rulers. Most recently, we saw a stark and bold example of such rivalry: a returning Pakistani politician, a former prime minister, was deported from his own country.

There is no commonly accepted language among these tribes and thus the official language of Pakistan is English.

For as long as I remember, Iran’s eastern border with Pakistan has always been a hub of instability, smuggling and violent crime. Pakistan is the main transit route for opium and heroin from Afghanistan, where more than 90% of the world’s opium supply is produced. In turn, that cash flow encourages money laundering, armed banditry, murder, violence and corruption. Therefore, several conflicting layers of official structure naturally form, each operating as lawless gangs or states within a state. Drug-infested territories have a poor record of development. Power and corruption leads to uneven, Byzantine relations between groups and to opaque alliances. Meanwhile, the masses remain in poverty: according to the World Bank, that’s about a third of all Pakistanis.

In this kind of political greenhouse of a country, no new politicians or doctrines surface. I wonder why news about Pakistani politics seems to be a game of musical chairs, with familiar names and faces periodically recycled.

There are other issues to ponder, namely a nuclear arsenal, missiles, a brisk small-arms export business (about $250 million a year) and the schizophrenic dual-tracked “friendship” with the U.S., al-Qaeda and Wahhabi extremists. Pakistan’s aimless Kashmir policies are perfect examples of circular political indecision. U.N. peacekeepers have remained stationed in Kashmir for more than three decades.

Pakistan is a relic set up as a counterweight to India -- and its tendency to tilt towards the Eastern Block. I think it is high time to revisit the old composite structure of five provinces combined into one artificial country. A redrawing of borders might serve useful and to cut through the farce. Let each province mature and declare independence. Some will eventually join their long-time tribal allies, leaving two or three independent lands and a more transparent political agenda.

http://newsweek.washingtonpost.com/p...istan_too.html

================

So Pakistan is a fake, cobbled-together country, just like Iraq.

[Chief]

Why Not Dissolve Pakistan, Too?
Ali Ette h
Tehran, Iran

Dr. Ali Ette h serves as a director of Highmore Global Corporation, an investment company in emerging markets of Eastern Europe, CIS, and the Middle East. He is the co-author of several books on trade conflict, resolution of international trade disputes, conflicts in letters of credit, trade-related banking transactions, sovereign debt, arbitration and dispute resolutions and publications specific to the oil and gas, communication, aviation and finance sectors. Dr. Ette h is a member of the executive committee and the board of directors of The Development Foundation, an advisor to the United Nations High Commission for Refugees, and an advisor to a number of European companies. Dr. Ette h speaks Persian (Farsi), English, German, French, Spanish, Italian, Arabic and Turkish.

Pakistan is not a country. It is a failed British fantasy about the fabrication of a nation-state. It has other failed and failing peers in the Middle East, all fabricated during the 20th century. It is time to seriously review all of these structures and redraw the borderlines.

Pakistan was a phrase coined for an idealistic confederation of five Muslim provinces within the old British-controlled India (Punjab, Northwest Frontier Province or Afghania, Kashmir, Sindh and Baluchistan). However, these are tribal lands with distinct traditions and have very little in common. These provinces were all knocked together, on presumption of a common religion, and a “dominion” was fabricated within the Commonwealth with self-governance authority akin to independence after World War II. It was all part of the post-war fire sale of territorial control of Britain. The ill-conceived plan even set up a separate territory of East Bengal as East Pakistan, a subcontinent away, with the rough-and-ready argument of common religious beliefs and a majority Muslim population. East Pakistan eventually became independent and renamed itself Bangladesh.

Pakistan’s short 60-year history is full of coups and raw, violent tribal rivalry, peppered by jailing or executing the previous rulers. Most recently, we saw a stark and bold example of such rivalry: a returning Pakistani politician, a former prime minister, was deported from his own country.
There is no commonly accepted language among these tribes and thus the official language of Pakistan is English.

For as long as I remember, Iran’s eastern border with Pakistan has always been a hub of instability, smuggling and violent crime. Pakistan is the main transit route for opium and heroin from Afghanistan, where more than 90% of the world’s opium supply is produced. In turn, that cash flow encourages money laundering, armed banditry, murder, violence and corruption. Therefore, several conflicting layers of official structure naturally form, each operating as lawless gangs or states within a state. Drug-infested territories have a poor record of development. Power and corruption leads to uneven, Byzantine relations between groups and to opaque alliances. Meanwhile, the masses remain in poverty: according to the World Bank, that’s about a third of all Pakistanis.

In this kind of political greenhouse of a country, no new politicians or doctrines surface. I wonder why news about Pakistani politics seems to be a game of musical chairs, with familiar names and faces periodically recycled.

There are other issues to ponder, namely a nuclear arsenal, missiles, a brisk small-arms export business (about $250 million a year) and the schizophrenic dual-tracked “friendship” with the U.S., al-Qaeda and Wahhabi extremists. Pakistan’s aimless Kashmir policies are perfect examples of circular political indecision. U.N. peacekeepers have remained stationed in Kashmir for more than three decades.

Pakistan is a relic set up as a counterweight to India -- and its tendency to tilt towards the Eastern Block. I think it is high time to revisit the old composite structure of five provinces combined into one artificial country. A redrawing of borders might serve useful and to cut through the farce. Let each province mature and declare independence. Some will eventually join their long-time tribal allies, leaving two or three independent lands and a more transparent political agenda.

http://newsweek.washingtonpost.com/p...istan_too.html

================

So Pakistan is a fake, cobbled-together country, just like Iraq.

what a joke. Sindh and Punjab are tribal areas ?
where's this guy getting his sources from. Sindh is home to Karachi and Punjab is home to Lahore, none of those are tribal areas. Where the did he get that from.

as far as the deported ex prime minister. umm he made a deal that he signed himself that he would not return to pakistan until 10 years have passed. This is the deal he made, and he made it in 99. and guess what, it's 2007. 10 years have no passed and he tried to return.

Pakistan is 60 years old man, what do u expect. How turbulent have nations been at such a young age ? It's still figuring things out. Why did he make this assumption that common language is english. This guy's a joke, why doesn't he come live here and then see how far up his ass his head is.