A nuke power has a coup going on and we're doing nothing. Is that about it?

[Stinky The Clown]

Some have said that Pervez' little temper tantrum over the weekend is a second coup - Pervez overturning his own government.

The courts and media are locked down. They're rounding up the opposition and lockin' 'em up.

Meanwhile, there's very little mention of this in our worthless media. Oh sure, they can point to the stories they've done and say 'we're covering it', but considering the potential consequences of a breakdown of the Pakistani government, we're not hearing nearly enough.

And where's the Rice woman? All I've heard from her worthless mouth is the usual cluck clucking and tsk tsking. Here's a hint, Condi: **E*N*G*A*G*E**

Am I mistaken, or ought this not be a hair-on-fire moment?

[Love Bug]

1. Yep, that's about it

But ... but... Georgie protested! Isn't that enough?

How much oil does Pakistan have, anyway?

[madokie]

2. oh but brittany is wearing pink undies today or some other shit

Yes this should be a hair on fire moment

[tuckessee]

3. What do you suggest we do?

The standard American reaction of invading or bombing them won't work.

[...of J.Temperance]

5. Why?

As I've commented for a long time....Pakistan should have been invaded in 2002....everyone with a brain KNEW that this shit was going to happen eventually.

Pakistan and NOT Iraq should have been invaded....Pakistan, along with Saudi Arabia are the two biggest state sponsors of Radical Islamic terrorism....both nations harbor, fund AND train the nutjobs that WANT to kill people like you and I given the chance.

Yet what happens, Pakistan gets treated with kid gloves....why?


On Edit: Dammit spelling error

[BadgerLaw2010]

13. Invading a country with around 100 tactical nukes is not a good idea.

Nevermind them having one of the world's largest militaries and a huge population.

[...of J.Temperance]

14. Your alternative would be what then? n/t

.

[BadgerLaw2010]

21. Who says there is one? That still does not make invasion viable or a good idea.

The real world does not necessarily present solutions to a given problem.

Here, you would have to invade a very heavily armed country with many times the population of Iraq that is armed with a lot of deliverable nuclear weapons, with no logistics base to do so because of where Pakistan happens to be located.

The US doesn't have the capability to "invade" Pakistan. The only nation that does is India, and that would mean India would have to endure a nuclear war that would probably kill over 50 million. India does not much care for having Pakistani missiles with nuclear warheads lobbed into its cities, or the fallout from India nuking Pakistan drifting back over India.

Nuclear weapons are great aggression deterrants.

[...of J.Temperance]

23. So here's a scenario

Albeit a nightmare scenario, but a very realistic scenario.

What happens IF the Radical Islamic nutters that Pakistan has been harboring, do a Counter Coup d'etat and turf Musharraf out....then Pakistan is in FULL control of the Al-Qaeda nutters.

What happens then exactly, HOW is that to be dealt with?

[BadgerLaw2010]

28. India would probably attempt a nuclear first strike on the Pak nukes and invade.

It wouldn't go well, but they don't really have any other options if Pakistan gets a hostile/insane regime. They have to live with these guys, whereas any nuclear threat Pakistan poses to the US is considerably more remote and requires smuggling the nuke.

[...of J.Temperance]

30. Would this nightmare situation have gotten THIS far, if a more

Competant and intelligent as in being able to think outside the box occupant would have been in the WH?

The warning flags about Pakistan went up YEARS ago afterall.



"whereas any nuclear threat Pakistan poses to the US is considerably more remote"



Also, you say that Pakistan poses a remote threat to the US....Iraq DIDN'T pose any threat to the US either, but that didn't stop W invading them, now did it?


On Edit: Added comment

[harun]

20. We are not Pakistan's babysitter, the people will sort it out (n/t)

[...of J.Temperance]

27. So why weren't the Iraqi people allowed to sort Saddam Hussein's crowd out?

IF the Iraqi people were so bothered by Saddam Hussein, then they could have been encouraged to overthrow him and sort their countries situation out.

The difference between Iraq and Pakistan is what exactly?

Oh hold on, I already know the difference don't I....yep.

[Stinky The Clown]

17. Uh .... if ya read the OP ..... there's a hint .......

Condi: **E*N*G*A*G*E**

[...of J.Temperance]

24. Condi's probably gone out shopping for shoes again or something

Doesn't look like ANYONE's home.

[...of J.Temperance]

4. Has Pakistan switched to using the Euro instead of the Dollar like Iraq did?

No, so therefore, ya know what's happening in Pakistan isn't of that GREAT importance to the W crowd.

[H2O Man]

6. One of the

things that I find frustrating is that there are people in the US with the ability to help in situations such as this, but they are denied an opportunity -- or even a voice -- because of the insane policies of the Bush-Cheney admistration.

[CoffeeCat]

7. I'm no Middle East expert...

...but Musharaff took over the Pakistan government. He installed
himself and pushed out an elected leader, Benazir Bhutto--a woman who
won a free and fair election TWICE!

She won the elections, then corrupt Pakistani leaders accused her of
baseless corruption charges. She is extremely progressive and one of
her primary issues is women's rights in Pakistan.

The people love her.

What I can't understand---is why we would allow this? The Pakistanis
elected a leader. Musharaff installed himself.

One can't help but noticing that Pakistan DOES have WMD and they
have a leader (who staged a coup to take over the government) who
is now suspending the Constitution and declaring Martial Law. So,
why are we going after Iran, and why no mention of Pakistan? I don't
want us to go after Pakistan, but this administration is so blatantly
inconsistent. Their inconsistencies reveal their lies.

They could give a damn about tyranny and democracy. It's all about
who has the resources.

[...of J.Temperance]

9. Musharraf didn't push out Benazir Bhutto

He had the coup and pushed out the elected Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif, the coup was in 1999.

Bhutto hasn't been in Pakistan since 1998, she fled Pakistan in 1998, she returned recently, she was removed from office in 1996 by Pakistani President Leghari because of corruption charges....the equally corrupt Sharif replaced her, then Musharraf overthrew the Sharif government.


1999 Pakistani Coup d'etat:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1999_Pakistani_coup_d%27%C3%A9tat

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nawaz_Sharif#Military_Coup


"With the public and press openly speculating about the possibility of a military takeover, Nawaz became increasingly insecure. On October 12, 1999, he removed Musharraf as army chief. Musharraf, who was out of the country, boarded a commercial airliner to return to Pakistan. Sharif ordered the Karachi airport to prevent the landing of the airliner, which then circled the skies over Karachi. The army ousted Sharif's administration and took over the airport. The plane landed with only a few minutes of fuel to spare, and Musharraf assumed control of the government. The Supreme Court validated the coup on the grounds that the Thirteenth and Fourteenth Amendments destroyed all constitutional remedies for removing Nawaz Sharif from office.

Nawaz was thrown in prison and tried by Pakistan's Anti-Terrorism Courts, which sentenced him to several life sentences for corruption, hijacking, tax evasion, embezzlement, and terrorism in 2000. The military government agreed to commute his sentence from life in prison to exile in Saudi Arabia. His family moved with him. His wife and senior members of his party formed an anti-military coalition along with the Pakistan People's Party, previously the major opposition to Sharif's Muslim League. Nawaz and the PPP have only offered token resistance to President Musharraf's government. Efforts are mainly restricted to criticism through the media and trying to disrupt Parliament."


On Edit: Fixed link

[madinmaryland]

8. But there are more pressing issues, like Henry Hyde getting the

Medal of Freedom.

:wtf:

[...of J.Temperance]

10. Dammit, don't you know

That Henry Hyde is MORE important than Pakistan going batshit crazy....doesn't matter that they have a fully functional nuclear programs with weapons....Henry Hyde IS more important than this Pakistan silliness....get your priorities right and put things into perspective!

:sarcasm:

[madinmaryland]

33. Oh, and Nancy Grace is having twins!

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=105x7106029

:rofl:

[...of J.Temperance]

34. Oh

Now THAT'S even MORE important than Henry Hyde :rofl:

To complete things....there's just GOT to be some blonde Co-ed thats gone missing someplace....oh and what about some more shark attacks someplace as well....

You know the REAL IMPORTANT stuff! :sarcasm:

[Cerridwen]

11. A nuke power who enriches American business and military interests, you say...

Why on earth, would the good old US of A want to interfere in that? It might damage our ability to obtain profit.

We will continue our "military support" - read that as obtain profit for military industrialists and associated businesses - as noted in this article linked yesterday by kpete in this thread in which I responded:

Finally, there it is for all the world to see...I hope some in the US finally see it.

The US government cares not one whit what a country does to its people so long as US business and military interests are enriched.

The next time someone warns you of the evils of communism or socialism coming to the US or attempts to defend US actions in the name of "democracy" and freeing a people from a dictator, remind them of this US sponsored stance.

The US will continue to provide military support (remember how to read that) for as long as Musharraf continues to play ball, i.e., do profitable business with, the US business and military interests which happen to dovetail nicely with this current (mis)administration's (and former administrations, but that's another post for another time) goals of profit and world domination as outlined in the PNAC agenda.

Anyone here still think the US motivated by "spreading democracy" to the "poor unfortunates" of the world? Anyone here starting to wonder if that has ever been our true agenda?

edit: missed a word

[...of J.Temperance]

22. The Pakistan situation PROVES that W doesn't give JACKSHIT about "fighting" terrorism

He bombs the shit out of Iraq, a previously Secular nation that had ZERO to do with terrorism....but he gives reach arounds to Pakistan a nation that is the second biggest state sponsor of Radical Islamic terrorism....the other biggest state sponsor of Radical Islamic terrorism, of course being W's other friends Saudi Arabia.

[Cerridwen]

26. Precisely. The questions now, will his "supporters" and the fence sitters see

that? Will they care? Will it matter if they do?

The idea that the US is protecting the world *for* democracy needs to be exposed as the lie it is. We have a long history of making allies out of countries whose governments can't find democracy in their respective dictionaries yet many in the US believe the lies. Will this expose the lie for anyone?

I continue to hope.

[...of J.Temperance]

29. The W supporters are deaf and blind....they'll never see or hear it

Whatever the moron says, his supporters will believe as Gospel Truth, as per usual.

[Cerridwen]

31. Sadly, too true. But there may be one or two on the fringe who might get a

glimmer.

As you can see, I'm sometimes a hopeful, optimistic cynic. :D

[...of J.Temperance]

32. Well

I'm a pessimist, and a pessimist is never disappointed :P

Seriously though, this is how INSANE things have become and how TOTALLY out of touch with reality both W and the MSM are....day after day pretty much for more than a YEAR, they've been babbling on and on about Iran and gagging to do some Shock and Awe to Iran....yet they've DELIBERATELY ignored and have in fact, in W's case pampered Pakistan.

This is how FAR Through The Looking Glass shit has gone thanks to W and his cronies and his MSM mouthpieces.


On Edit: Dammit spelling error

[Eurobabe]

12. Don't worry, Unka Dick's got it covered...

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

15. The people are fighting back.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20071105/ap_on_re_as/pakistan_331;_ylt=AiTcPkgrwReiOPTh5zHJihcE1vAI

[...of J.Temperance]

25. This is going to get REALLY UGLY and fast....it'll be 100 times WORSE than Burma and

What happened recently there.

:(

[EFerrari]

16. We're arming dissidents and sending them into Iran.

That should help.

Bush is too busy handing out medals to notice. We should have a Medal of Horror given to him.

[NC_Nurse]

18. We never invade nuclear powers, suddenly diplomacy is much more viable.

That's why all the countries that don't want the U.S. busting down their door are trying to get nukes.

[charlie]

19. Well, there were reports

in the early heady days of Stompin' the Axis of Evil that Bushco has a standby contingent of military elite ready to swoop in and "secure the nukes", whatever the fuck that means, if Pakistan goes off the rails. I guess we'll find out soon enough if it was some Bush apparatchik's Tom Clancy fantasy or Bushco will actually get its confrontation with Iran in Islamabad.

[Beelzebud]

35. If the real Al-Quaed gets nukes, they will be from Pakistan.

And will have been acquired on Bush's watch.

Another catastrophic failure of leadership at every level.

Is impeachment STILL off the table?

[Donald Ian Rankin]

36. Yes, because they're a nuke power...

NT

[Chrisy5558]

37. We are living in dangerous times

We are living in very dangerous times. What is going on in the Middle East and Pakistan is scary. Yet our news media seems to not mention that if the Taliban is able to take over the government of Pakistan that they will have nukes.

The thought of Bin Ladin having nukes at his disposal is not a pleasant thought and scares me. Bid Ladin is still out there and I haven't forgotten 9/11 and all those people who were murdered; who just happen to be in the world trade center or flying on an airplane.

Bush instead of focusing on Bin Ladin had to go to war in Iraq. I fear there will be another deadly attack on this country because Bush and his cronies have done very little to make this country more safe. Here Pakistan is in a state of emergeny where they know Bin Ladin is hiding somewhere inside that country. Why didn't Bush and his cronies go after Bid Ladin who was behind 9/11? NO, they had to go invade Iraq who had no connection to the attacks that killed so many people.

Bush and his cronies scare me because of their policies have made the next attack on this country by Bin Ladin most likely a nuclear one.

We Democrats need to make sure that someone like Chris Dodd who is smart, has experience gets elected to office. I really like Chris Dodd. I fear that like in so many past elections the best person will not get the nomination and we will be forced to choose between the less of two evils. It will continue to be the same ole same ole.

Clinton didn't go after Bin Ladin on his watch either. We need new blood and not the same ole same ole of the same two families who switch back and forth every 4 to 8 years. I don't think Hilary has the kind of experience we need in such dangerous times as these. We need someone like Chris Dodd or even Joe Biden.

I don't know about the rest of you but I am praying for the future of this country and that the next attack on this country won't be nuclear.

Chrisy

[spanone]

38. this morning on NPR she was qouted as telling the general to 'take off his uniform'

he had that uniform on when you sold him arms, condi...

<snip>Countries like India, Pakistan and Indonesia that were once barred from buying American weapons have had those bans lifted, and some have placed big orders.

http://www.commondreams.org/headlines06/1111-02.htm

[havocmom]

39. Not much happened when it happened here a few years back

The inmates ARE running the asylum and the asylum is planet earth, it would seem.

[uppityperson]

40. Have to hunt in papers to find news of Mexico's flooding too

Can you say arrogant isolationism? I can.