But yeah that's some crazy stuff. I wonder how it will affect the opposition. It could frighten them into submission, but it could just as well harden their resolve.
I don't know. Who exactly is the face of the opposition now? What are the odds they have the national and international experience to be as effective as she was?
And if there isn't a clear successor, how hard will it be to forge one under martial law?
I don't know. Who exactly is the face of the opposition now? What are the odds they have the national and international experience to be as effective as she was?
And if there isn't a clear successor, how hard will it be to forge one under martial law?
Somehow, I think it's going to be something like 'charismatic guy leading the mob'.
Gosling on
I have a new soccer blog The Minnow Tank. Reading it psychically kicks Sepp Blatter in the bean bag.
0
deowolfis allowed to do that.Traffic.Registered Userregular
Well pre coup there were two main leaders - Bhutto and Nawaz Sharif - the latter being the leader deposed by Musharaff. So there still will be an opposition leader with standing. Besides, Bhutto had pretty dirty hands iirc, her husband was a bad egg and there were persistant rumours of serious corruption and then a conviction I believe. Still, there will be a void - I wonder if she has any sons/daughters to inherit her mantle (remember that is what she did, her father was a former PM)
If I was Musharaf I would have arranged for this to happen in a way that implicated Sharif, since his party has ties to Islamists. Knock both of my opponents out.
If I was Musharaf I would have arranged for this to happen in a way that implicated Sharif, since his party has ties to Islamists. Knock both of my opponents out.
I wish I was the kind of person that could actually do something like that. As it is, I'm not even the kind of person that could say something like this.
This is horrible news. For all the allegations of corruption, Bhutto was a good leader and an actual friend of democracy... Since her return from exile she was putting a lot of pressure on Musharraf to relax martial law. I have a hard time believing that Musharraf wasn't involved with this... they were in talks to basically re-instate her as Prime Minister in 2008, stripping Musharraf of a lot of his power and probably ending martial law. Could it have been a ruse to get her back into the country for an assassination?
Make no mistake, they weren't exaggerating when they said that she was martyred. If there's any hope for Pakistan, this will mean revolution. Traditionally Pakistan is prone to civil strife, but this time it's democracy on the line. I'm sure that we won't really help them... Musharraf is still important to the Bush Administration's "containment" policies, and all the talk of spreading democracy has always been insincere rhetoric, but here's hoping that they take out their own trash. Hell, if Al-Qaeda has their training bases in Pakistan like a lot of people think, perhaps they'll do us a big favor as well.
Hillary Clinton knew Bhutto personally. If she becomes president, her stance towards Pakistan will be... interesting.
I think the list of potential suspects could be a mile long - domestic Islamists/Taliban Islamists/political opponents/Musharaff/rogue state security elements/established business elites/people who hate her husband etc
If I was Musharaf I would have arranged for this to happen in a way that implicated Sharif, since his party has ties to Islamists. Knock both of my opponents out.
I wish I was the kind of person that could actually do something like that. As it is, I'm not even the kind of person that could say something like this.
Yeah well. I'm just saying. If I was a ruthless dictator. Hypothetically.
Make no mistake, they weren't exaggerating when they said that she was martyred. If there's any hope for Pakistan, this will mean revolution. Traditionally Pakistan is prone to civil strife, but this time it's democracy on the line. I'm sure that we won't really help them... Musharraf is still important to the Bush Administration's "containment" policies, and all the talk of spreading democracy has always been insincere rhetoric, but here's hoping that they take out their own trash. Hell, if Al-Qaeda has their training bases in Pakistan like a lot of people think, perhaps they'll do us a big favor as well.
Hillary Clinton knew Bhutto personally. If she becomes president, her stance towards Pakistan will be... interesting.
I don't know nearly enough about the current state of Pakistan (which is disturbing to say about a nuclear power) but wouldn't revolution be about the worst case as far as the rest of the world is concerned? My understanding is large sections of the country are already a fucked up and nigh on ungovernable nightmare and besides that I can't say having the slightest shred of doubt about who currently controls a nuclear arsenal is a horribly bad thing.
Make no mistake, they weren't exaggerating when they said that she was martyred. If there's any hope for Pakistan, this will mean revolution. Traditionally Pakistan is prone to civil strife, but this time it's democracy on the line. I'm sure that we won't really help them... Musharraf is still important to the Bush Administration's "containment" policies, and all the talk of spreading democracy has always been insincere rhetoric, but here's hoping that they take out their own trash. Hell, if Al-Qaeda has their training bases in Pakistan like a lot of people think, perhaps they'll do us a big favor as well.
Hillary Clinton knew Bhutto personally. If she becomes president, her stance towards Pakistan will be... interesting.
I don't know nearly enough about the current state of Pakistan (which is disturbing to say about a nuclear power) but wouldn't revolution be about the worst case as far as the rest of the world is concerned? My understanding is large sections of the country are already a fucked up and nigh on ungovernable nightmare and besides that I can't say having the slightest shred of doubt about who currently controls a nuclear arsenal is a horribly bad thing.
This is to say nothing of what India will do about the whole mess. A burgeoning superpower would certainly want to deal with a nuclear state in political freefall sitting on their doorstep.
Harrier on
I don't wanna kill anybody. I don't like bullies. I don't care where they're from.
That Yahoo article says at least 20 others died. The CNN article posted in the politics thread said 136 died in the bombing. With all due respect, fuck Bhutto. 136 is a lot of fucking people.
I bet Jamie Lynn Spears still gets more air-time than this.
GOJIRA! on
"We are cursed," said Iyad Sarraj, a Gaza psychiatrist and a human rights activist. "Our leaders are either Israeli collaborators, asses, or mentally unstable."
That Yahoo article says at least 20 others died. The CNN article posted in the politics thread said 136 died in the bombing. With all due respect, fuck Bhutto. 136 is a lot of fucking people.
BBC is saying 15. I don't particularly trust CNN. Regardless, it's still terrible.
I don't know nearly enough about the current state of Pakistan (which is disturbing to say about a nuclear power) but wouldn't revolution be about the worst case as far as the rest of the world is concerned? My understanding is large sections of the country are already a fucked up and nigh on ungovernable nightmare and besides that I can't say having the slightest shred of doubt about who currently controls a nuclear arsenal is a horribly bad thing.
I imagine the first thing that the UN would do in case of civil war is secure the nuclear arsenal, through force if necessary. That's in the best interests of the entire world.
I'm not saying it would be easy or safe, but at this point, with Musharraf declaring martial law, very possibly being complicit with global terrorism, and perhaps even responsible for at least one (and probably more, given the long list of deaths in Pakistani politics) other leader's assassination, revolution might be the only responsible choice. The U.S. rebelled for less.
The question is, is there anyone strong enough to take over that isn't completely corrupt themselves?
Yeah well. I'm just saying. If I was a ruthless dictator. Hypothetically.
It's interesting how dictators can be well liked by their own people. I live in an area that has many Pakistanis and they actually like Musharaf. I'm guessing the prior leader was such a shitty one that they're afraid that things could worsen if he left.
That Yahoo article says at least 20 others died. The CNN article posted in the politics thread said 136 died in the bombing. With all due respect, fuck Bhutto. 136 is a lot of fucking people.
The 136 number was an earlier bombing in October which Bhutto survived.
The way I understand Pakistan to have worked traditionally is that large parts of the nation were ruled in the traditional British Indian model - by this I mean that local elites (whether traditional leaders or promoted by the government) basically ran things as they wanted - delivering votes or taxes when required - without much interference from central government. The central government would have civil servants assigned to each region but they would in many cases exert a very light supervisory touch.
Whereas the central government would exert direct control over the major cities or important agriculture/commercial/industrial or infrastructure points and of course things like the military. So the central government's actual control over places like Wariztan/North Western Province were always more in the potential rather than actual sense. Which means if they ever had to exert direct authority trouble might well result
I don't know nearly enough about the current state of Pakistan (which is disturbing to say about a nuclear power) but wouldn't revolution be about the worst case as far as the rest of the world is concerned? My understanding is large sections of the country are already a fucked up and nigh on ungovernable nightmare and besides that I can't say having the slightest shred of doubt about who currently controls a nuclear arsenal is a horribly bad thing.
I imagine the first thing that the UN would do in case of civil war is secure the nuclear arsenal, through force if necessary. That's in the best interests of the entire world.
I'm not saying it would be easy or safe, but at this point, with Musharraf declaring martial law, very possibly being complicit with global terrorism, and perhaps even responsible for at least one (and probably more, given the long list of deaths in Pakistani politics) other leader's assassination, revolution might be the only responsible choice. The U.S. rebelled for less.
The question is, is there anyone strong enough to take over that isn't completely corrupt themselves?
See, when people say things like that I get somewhat freaked out. Does anyone actually think a sitting dictator, when faced with anything even remotely resembling an organized revolution, is going to do anything other than go batshit insane if some third party comes in and tries to take away a significant military resource?
I mean, fuck. I don't want to even imagine how badly that would play out.
Yeah well. I'm just saying. If I was a ruthless dictator. Hypothetically.
It's interesting how dictators can be well liked by their own people. I live in an area that has many Pakistanis and they actually like Musharaf. I'm guessing the prior leader was such a shitty one that they're afraid that things could worsen if he left.
I'm not sure how indicative immigrants can be of their home countries to be honest - they've left, and in your case (i assume you are from the UK) they've made a clear choice to make the UK home for good, not like say the Pakistanis who serve as guest labour in the Gulf States and who usually go home. I also think often they are detached from the best interests of the people and can often exacerbate the situation. Like in the case of the IRA/LTTE - much of the funding of both organisations came (or still does in the latter case) from expats or the descendants of expats who kept to a hardline view, in part because they didn't have to live with the consequences.
I don't know nearly enough about the current state of Pakistan (which is disturbing to say about a nuclear power) but wouldn't revolution be about the worst case as far as the rest of the world is concerned? My understanding is large sections of the country are already a fucked up and nigh on ungovernable nightmare and besides that I can't say having the slightest shred of doubt about who currently controls a nuclear arsenal is a horribly bad thing.
I imagine the first thing that the UN would do in case of civil war is secure the nuclear arsenal, through force if necessary. That's in the best interests of the entire world.
I'm not saying it would be easy or safe, but at this point, with Musharraf declaring martial law, very possibly being complicit with global terrorism, and perhaps even responsible for at least one (and probably more, given the long list of deaths in Pakistani politics) other leader's assassination, revolution might be the only responsible choice. The U.S. rebelled for less.
The question is, is there anyone strong enough to take over that isn't completely corrupt themselves?
See, when people say things like that I get somewhat freaked out. Does anyone actually think a sitting dictator, when faced with anything even remotely resembling an organized revolution, is going to do anything other than go batshit insane if some third party comes in and tries to take away a significant military resource?
I mean, fuck. I don't want to even imagine how badly that would play out.
The only thing that I know for certain that would happen would be that the collection of anti UN paranoids that every country seems to have, if you look hard enough, would all simultaneously slap their foreheads and shout "I told you so!".
Yeah well. I'm just saying. If I was a ruthless dictator. Hypothetically.
It's interesting how dictators can be well liked by their own people. I live in an area that has many Pakistanis and they actually like Musharaf. I'm guessing the prior leader was such a shitty one that they're afraid that things could worsen if he left.
Yeah.
Well, it's not like Pakistan was a wealthy democratic paradise before Musharaf.
Yeah well. I'm just saying. If I was a ruthless dictator. Hypothetically.
It's interesting how dictators can be well liked by their own people. I live in an area that has many Pakistanis and they actually like Musharaf. I'm guessing the prior leader was such a shitty one that they're afraid that things could worsen if he left.
The cult of personality. Not the song, but the psychological effect of powerful public leadership and private authoritarianism. Promise new jobs, infrastructure, peace, etc.. then silence dissidents with your Stazi or Gestapo or KGB (and whatever it is in Saudi Arabia). As long as it isn't your parent/brother/friend/spouse, chances are you'll keep right on cheering.
Ex-patriates are much the same I imagine. They recieve the benefit of rhetoric without the downsides of marshal law, rampant unemployment or crumbling infrastructure. Very few "radical" dictators pass on their legacy to anything but another bloody revolution wholly unassociated with them, and yet, the new dictatorship does the exact same things in the name of stability and unity.
In other words, peepel is dum.
GOJIRA! on
"We are cursed," said Iyad Sarraj, a Gaza psychiatrist and a human rights activist. "Our leaders are either Israeli collaborators, asses, or mentally unstable."
Yeah well. I'm just saying. If I was a ruthless dictator. Hypothetically.
It's interesting how dictators can be well liked by their own people. I live in an area that has many Pakistanis and they actually like Musharaf. I'm guessing the prior leader was such a shitty one that they're afraid that things could worsen if he left.
I'm not sure how indicative immigrants can be of their home countries to be honest - they've left, and in your case (i assume you are from the UK) they've made a clear choice to make the UK home for good, not like say the Pakistanis who serve as guest labour in the Gulf States and who usually go home. I also think often they are detached from the best interests of the people and can often exacerbate the situation. Like in the case of the IRA/LTTE - much of the funding of both organisations came (or still does in the latter case) from expats or the descendants of expats who kept to a hardline view, in part because they didn't have to live with the consequences.
LOL, no. I work in Northern Virginia, we have a whole lot of everything here. Anyways, I knew a few Indians who have stuck up for Musharaf as well. How can I argue with them as they're from that region?
I imagine the first thing that the UN would do in case of civil war is secure the nuclear arsenal, through force if necessary. That's in the best interests of the entire world.
See, when people say things like that I get somewhat freaked out. Does anyone actually think a sitting dictator, when faced with anything even remotely resembling an organized revolution, is going to do anything other than go batshit insane if some third party comes in and tries to take away a significant military resource?
I mean, fuck. I don't want to even imagine how badly that would play out.
If he doesn't want to get his fucking country glassed, he will consent to let the UN control the arsenal for the duration of the insurgency. As mentioned by Harrier, India won't be taking any chances. Musharraf is a dictator, but he's not crazy. In fact, it would be a good choice for him, because then he wouldn't have to protect the arsenals or worry about the nukes getting into the hands of the rebels.
The only reason I can think of that Musharraf would fight to keep access to the nukes instead of simply working out a temporary deal with the UN (or maybe Russia, but I wouldn't trust Putin with my wallet, much less nukes) is if he planned on using them... in that case, we're better off knowing in advance.
I imagine the first thing that the UN would do in case of civil war is secure the nuclear arsenal, through force if necessary. That's in the best interests of the entire world.
See, when people say things like that I get somewhat freaked out. Does anyone actually think a sitting dictator, when faced with anything even remotely resembling an organized revolution, is going to do anything other than go batshit insane if some third party comes in and tries to take away a significant military resource?
I mean, fuck. I don't want to even imagine how badly that would play out.
If he doesn't want to get his fucking country glassed, he will consent to let the UN control the arsenal for the duration of the insurgency. As mentioned by Harrier, India won't be taking any chances. Musharraf is a dictator, but he's not crazy. In fact, it would be a good choice for him, because then he wouldn't have to protect the arsenals or worry about the nukes getting into the hands of the rebels.
The only reason I can think of that Musharraf would fight to keep access to the nukes instead of simply working out a temporary deal with the UN (or maybe Russia, but I wouldn't trust Putin with my wallet, much less nukes) is if he planned on using them... in that case, we're better off knowing in advance.
I can see some many ways that line of thinking can go horribly wrong. While India won't be happy, the one sure fire way to guarantee a worst case scenario for them is to get involved in a nuclear exchange with a dictator that suddenly has nothing left to lose. edit: Hell, India even looking funny at him might be enough to have him set up a dead man switch style scenario, where he distributes his nuclear resources to ensure they can't all be taken out pre-emptively. And THAT is the nightmare scenario, where nukes are out of sight and unaccounted for in a chaotic setting.
As to why he wouldn't, besides the pride/sovereignty factor, I can't see any dictator ruling through military force/martial law taking anything off the table just because someone else is nervous. It would legitimize any revolution he was facing and remove a potent psychological weapon he would have against both the rebels and any other nations pressuring him (especially India as mentioned above).
I can see some many ways that line of thinking can go horribly wrong. While India won't be happy, the one sure fire way to guarantee a worst case scenario for them is to get involved in a nuclear exchange with a dictator that suddenly has nothing left to lose. edit: Hell, India even looking funny at him might be enough to have him set up a dead man switch style scenario, where he distributes his nuclear resources to ensure they can't all be taken out pre-emptively. And THAT is the nightmare scenario, where nukes are out of sight and unaccounted for in a chaotic setting.
As to why he wouldn't, besides the pride/sovereignty factor, I can't see any dictator ruling through military force/martial law taking anything off the table just because someone else is nervous. It would legitimize any revolution he was facing and remove a potent psychological weapon he would have against both the rebels and any other nations pressuring him (especially India as mentioned above).
Don't get me wrong, it's a fucked up situation, and I can see your point, but Musharraf has been in the position of assuring the U.S. that he's got everything under control for years now, and I think he's a fairly canny player in international politics. It would be a smart move to work something out so that he can not only survive the crisis but maintain international credibility: other governments are prone to support the current regime, even if it is a dictatorship, because they like to believe in the rule of law. Just give them a reason to trust you, and they'll put up with a lot.
I don't attribute to him James Bond villain-level of insidious planning quite yet.
"With all due respect, fuck Bhutto"
There is no respect in that statement
I understand what you are trying to say, but why say it so ugly? Why not say--how sad--my heart goes out for the others senselessly killed as well?
Bhutto was an amazing person... I thought this is what would happen, but I hoped it wouldn't.
I'm sorry, but what force is the UN going to exert to wrest control of the arsenal from Pakistan's military? Best you'll get is regulators and IAEA people stationed over the shoulder of everyone at the silos and storage facilities with standing orders to never shoot anyone. And that's assuming the US consents.
Posts
But yeah that's some crazy stuff. I wonder how it will affect the opposition. It could frighten them into submission, but it could just as well harden their resolve.
NNID: Hakkekage
You're darn tootin' she's been martyred. Whatever that suicide bomber was trying to accomplish through offing Bhutto, methinks it's about to backfire.
And if there isn't a clear successor, how hard will it be to forge one under martial law?
I wonder what will happen next.
No. Emminem is their King.
Actually, we might all be better off if this were true. I mean, not Kim Mathers, but the rest of the world.
I wish I was the kind of person that could actually do something like that. As it is, I'm not even the kind of person that could say something like this.
And by exciting I mean fucked up.
Make no mistake, they weren't exaggerating when they said that she was martyred. If there's any hope for Pakistan, this will mean revolution. Traditionally Pakistan is prone to civil strife, but this time it's democracy on the line. I'm sure that we won't really help them... Musharraf is still important to the Bush Administration's "containment" policies, and all the talk of spreading democracy has always been insincere rhetoric, but here's hoping that they take out their own trash. Hell, if Al-Qaeda has their training bases in Pakistan like a lot of people think, perhaps they'll do us a big favor as well.
Hillary Clinton knew Bhutto personally. If she becomes president, her stance towards Pakistan will be... interesting.
Yeah well. I'm just saying. If I was a ruthless dictator. Hypothetically.
<<
>>
I don't know nearly enough about the current state of Pakistan (which is disturbing to say about a nuclear power) but wouldn't revolution be about the worst case as far as the rest of the world is concerned? My understanding is large sections of the country are already a fucked up and nigh on ungovernable nightmare and besides that I can't say having the slightest shred of doubt about who currently controls a nuclear arsenal is a horribly bad thing.
BBC is saying 15. I don't particularly trust CNN. Regardless, it's still terrible.
I imagine the first thing that the UN would do in case of civil war is secure the nuclear arsenal, through force if necessary. That's in the best interests of the entire world.
I'm not saying it would be easy or safe, but at this point, with Musharraf declaring martial law, very possibly being complicit with global terrorism, and perhaps even responsible for at least one (and probably more, given the long list of deaths in Pakistani politics) other leader's assassination, revolution might be the only responsible choice. The U.S. rebelled for less.
The question is, is there anyone strong enough to take over that isn't completely corrupt themselves?
It's interesting how dictators can be well liked by their own people. I live in an area that has many Pakistanis and they actually like Musharaf. I'm guessing the prior leader was such a shitty one that they're afraid that things could worsen if he left.
The 136 number was an earlier bombing in October which Bhutto survived.
Whereas the central government would exert direct control over the major cities or important agriculture/commercial/industrial or infrastructure points and of course things like the military. So the central government's actual control over places like Wariztan/North Western Province were always more in the potential rather than actual sense. Which means if they ever had to exert direct authority trouble might well result
See, when people say things like that I get somewhat freaked out. Does anyone actually think a sitting dictator, when faced with anything even remotely resembling an organized revolution, is going to do anything other than go batshit insane if some third party comes in and tries to take away a significant military resource?
I mean, fuck. I don't want to even imagine how badly that would play out.
Just heard about it right then on the news.
Pakistan is going to hell in a hand basket.
I'm not sure how indicative immigrants can be of their home countries to be honest - they've left, and in your case (i assume you are from the UK) they've made a clear choice to make the UK home for good, not like say the Pakistanis who serve as guest labour in the Gulf States and who usually go home. I also think often they are detached from the best interests of the people and can often exacerbate the situation. Like in the case of the IRA/LTTE - much of the funding of both organisations came (or still does in the latter case) from expats or the descendants of expats who kept to a hardline view, in part because they didn't have to live with the consequences.
The only thing that I know for certain that would happen would be that the collection of anti UN paranoids that every country seems to have, if you look hard enough, would all simultaneously slap their foreheads and shout "I told you so!".
Yeah.
Well, it's not like Pakistan was a wealthy democratic paradise before Musharaf.
The cult of personality. Not the song, but the psychological effect of powerful public leadership and private authoritarianism. Promise new jobs, infrastructure, peace, etc.. then silence dissidents with your Stazi or Gestapo or KGB (and whatever it is in Saudi Arabia). As long as it isn't your parent/brother/friend/spouse, chances are you'll keep right on cheering.
Ex-patriates are much the same I imagine. They recieve the benefit of rhetoric without the downsides of marshal law, rampant unemployment or crumbling infrastructure. Very few "radical" dictators pass on their legacy to anything but another bloody revolution wholly unassociated with them, and yet, the new dictatorship does the exact same things in the name of stability and unity.
In other words, peepel is dum.
LOL, no. I work in Northern Virginia, we have a whole lot of everything here. Anyways, I knew a few Indians who have stuck up for Musharaf as well. How can I argue with them as they're from that region?
If he doesn't want to get his fucking country glassed, he will consent to let the UN control the arsenal for the duration of the insurgency. As mentioned by Harrier, India won't be taking any chances. Musharraf is a dictator, but he's not crazy. In fact, it would be a good choice for him, because then he wouldn't have to protect the arsenals or worry about the nukes getting into the hands of the rebels.
The only reason I can think of that Musharraf would fight to keep access to the nukes instead of simply working out a temporary deal with the UN (or maybe Russia, but I wouldn't trust Putin with my wallet, much less nukes) is if he planned on using them... in that case, we're better off knowing in advance.
I can see some many ways that line of thinking can go horribly wrong. While India won't be happy, the one sure fire way to guarantee a worst case scenario for them is to get involved in a nuclear exchange with a dictator that suddenly has nothing left to lose. edit: Hell, India even looking funny at him might be enough to have him set up a dead man switch style scenario, where he distributes his nuclear resources to ensure they can't all be taken out pre-emptively. And THAT is the nightmare scenario, where nukes are out of sight and unaccounted for in a chaotic setting.
As to why he wouldn't, besides the pride/sovereignty factor, I can't see any dictator ruling through military force/martial law taking anything off the table just because someone else is nervous. It would legitimize any revolution he was facing and remove a potent psychological weapon he would have against both the rebels and any other nations pressuring him (especially India as mentioned above).
Don't get me wrong, it's a fucked up situation, and I can see your point, but Musharraf has been in the position of assuring the U.S. that he's got everything under control for years now, and I think he's a fairly canny player in international politics. It would be a smart move to work something out so that he can not only survive the crisis but maintain international credibility: other governments are prone to support the current regime, even if it is a dictatorship, because they like to believe in the rule of law. Just give them a reason to trust you, and they'll put up with a lot.
I don't attribute to him James Bond villain-level of insidious planning quite yet.
"With all due respect, fuck Bhutto"
There is no respect in that statement
I understand what you are trying to say, but why say it so ugly? Why not say--how sad--my heart goes out for the others senselessly killed as well?
Bhutto was an amazing person... I thought this is what would happen, but I hoped it wouldn't.