Breaking news on all the news networks!
Benazir Bhutto dies
Ex-Pakistan Prime Minister Benazir Bhutto has died, according to media reports. Bhutto's husband said she was shot at a rally where a suicide bomber detonated, killing several of her supporters.
Bhutto killed in Pakistan
What will happen next and how will the people of Pakistan react?
Watching now. Looks like they finally got her. Sad news. No idea how the people are going to react, but I'll predict somewhere between a significant portion and all is about to break loose.
First link I could find: http://www.time.com/time/world/artic...698466,00.html
Now I hear it was an actual assassination and she didn't die from the suicide attack. She was hit by bullet fire. Al Queda?
With Musharraf's "popularity" with the public, I'd bet that rumors start to spread that he had a hand in it.
It doesn't matter. She was a corrupt leader when she was in power. Perhaps another, perhaps stronger candidate can come to the forefront now. Nawaz Sharif is an idiot too. Actually, I predict that this will create sympathy for her party, and her husband will come to power.
Politics sucks, and Pakistan has not known true democracy since about 1950 (for those deficient in history, Pakistan was created in 1947).
Well, it may not matter for Pakistan, but US stategery is ruined. They were banking on her losing in the general election to legitimize rule by Musharraf. Now GWB & Co. will need to find a new way to spin our friendship and reliance on a military dictator.
Time to invade Pakistan as liberators?
"a corrupt leader when she was in power."
In that part of the planet, and even in USA, nearly all leaders are corrupt, enriching themselves and the plutocracy, subverting "democratic" will, etc, etc. You got a problem with that? If so, you're expectations are kindergarten naive.
To the extent that she was corrupt? Compared to her, Nawaz Sharif is George Washington.
Musharraf was in a lose-lose situation in terms of the election. The two big choices were either Bhutto or Nawaz Sharif. For those who don't recall, Nawaz Sharif was the man that Musharraf ousted to come to power in the first place. Bhutto was by far the more palatable option for Musharraf, even after the -up he created with the suspension of the judiciary. Now, it will be either Bhutto's husband (who will likely blame the attack on Musharraf) or Sharif.
It would be hillarious to watch a Musharraf-Sharif tandem years after Sharif tried to exile Musharraf only to have himself ousted by Musharraf's friends in the military.
I still think of Pakistan as a failed state. Given their recent problems in maintaining the NWFP and continued antagonism with Afghanistan's Karzai, it would be interesting to see if the country dissolves into civil war and ultimately disintegrates into separate states (Balochistan, a separate land for Pashtos, etc). Maybe not. It might just mean that Musharraf can again justify imposition of emergency powers (not like that was the worst thing in the world for US policy).
In terms of friendships with dictators, since when has US ever been able to justify friendships with them? I think we should just drop the pretenses. We like some dictators, but not others, and only when it fits our needs. Who cares but the ideologues?
My money is on Musharraf suspending elections again indefinitely in the wake of this tragedy. Thanks for the back history on Sharif, I didn't know too much about him.
And regarding US friendships with dictators... I know about that. Its hard work. Its tough.
PS: Ideologues are in the WH
Rudy is on the attack:
If that country tilts to radical Islam......look out.
Ideology didn't stop the ideologues from making nicies with Saddam during Iran-Iraq war in the 80s when they were in power (remember Rumsfeld's infamous handshake with Saddam?). It didn't stop them from going to China in the '70s (Nixon). It didn't stop them from installing dictators in South American governments in the 80s. Why should ideology stop these so-called ideologues now? Perhaps because they were never truly ideologues, but instead pandered to the cons uency on a banner of democracy when they really stood for something else. I guess it also makes it hard to sell their brand of ideology when someone can so easily call them out for their hypocrisy.
It would be so much easier to just admit that they are doing what they think is appropriate for US policy (even if it means waltzing with a dictator).
^ N.B.: "Thinking what is appropriate" != "what is appropriate".
^^ N.B.: For those who don't know, "!=" is used in programming to denote "does not equal."
Last edited by some_user86; 12-27-2007 at 11:32 AM.
Well said.
I agree, however, skillful foreign policy and honesty are in short supply in this administration. I'd rather them level with me, but the truth isn't palatable after claiming the Iraq invasion was all about freedom after WMD went AWOL.
If Musharraf is the best bet against fighting terrorism then I think the US should continue to work with him regardless of how they have to justify it. The unending hypocrisy is certainly amusing.
I can only hope that terrorists were behind this and that it can proven to the satisfaction of the Pakistani people. Maybe then there will be some popular support behind another crackdown in in the border area with Afghanistan.
A pretty tall order, considering Musharref's crediblilty tank is running on fumes lately.
How can they possibly have an election? It's too soon for her party to sub another candidate.
Well if it was terrorists, maybe we will finally rethink the aid been given to Pakistan to "fight terrorism and capture OBL".
"aid been given to Pakistan"
Reports of the past few days say that dubya's military has thrown many $Bs at Pakistan since 9/11 and most of it totally wasted, esp in results in restraining Pakistan-baed Taleban and AQ.
In January, US special forces will be moving into Pakistan FATAs for "training" of Paki forces, perhaps more effective that US military trainers in Viet Nam in the early 60s.
Last edited by boutons_; 12-27-2007 at 02:19 PM.
so as soon as the news hit all businesses immediately shut down because over here if you have ur business running in times of tragedy it is likely to be burnt down or looted.
traffic was heavy, at some points traffic was not able to move onword because further up ahead people were being gunned down and cars and buses were set ablaze.
Karachi is headquarters of the PPP party so I expect heavy riotings over the next few day's. Hopefully i'll be out of here soon and to dubai in a few hours, thank god flights were delayed as we were not able to take normal airport route due to the firings and blazes
I don't know how corrupt Bhutto was, especially compared to the other leaders Pakistan has had...but she was the one in charge when Pakistan really began it's decline, and when the Taliban began to take control of Afghanistan...
So she was a poor leader, it's more like she was aristocracy than anything else. Her family is equivalent to the Bushes or the Kennedys...Pakistani royalty....mystifyingly popular, only members of her family get assassinated or executed more frequently.
I don't think her assassination is a good thing though...and I'm pretty sure Musharraf had something to do with it based on the way other members of her family were killed.
I could probably just look this up, but were she and her father the only members of the family ever in charge of Pakistan?
It will be very interesting to see how Bush's visit to Pakistan will go.
I think so...but she also had a brother that was assassinated.
Still, that's equivalent to the Bushes and more than the Kennedys...
Her father was executed by the Pakistani Government....
"she was the one in charge when Pakistan really began it's decline, and when the Taliban began to take control of Afghanistan...'
great "ideolgical" logic. co-incidence means causality. noted
The Taleban arose and were strengthened by the USA supporting them and their pre-cursors against the Russians. DIRECT ING CAUSALITY.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
