Our "ally" Musharraf done gone CRAZY - Page 2 - PhillyBlog

Eddy333 · #11 (**permalink**) 11-15-2007, 10:39 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Michael Tree

After the U.S. backed the Taliban in our fight against the USSR, and backed Saddam Hussein in our fight against Iran, why does this new development surprise you exactly? The U.S. has been supporting lunatic despots for decades.

Who said it surprised me? Sadly, I've come to expect a poorly thought out foreign policy based solely on easy, short-term "solutions" to perceived threats, whether they be real or imagined.

Tannhauser · #12 (**permalink**) 11-15-2007, 11:53 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by seand

First he sacks the Supreme Court preemptively and locks up half the lawyers in the country - the potential core of moderate, secular Pakistan and definitely the exact opposite of Islamic extremists. Now he is trying to lock up the extremely popular former PM Benazhir Bhutto - even though he just a few weeks ago arranged her to return to the country to be part of his "loyal opposition" and secular ally when he becomes a civilian president.

I think you're getting a bad read on Pakistan. It's routinely listed as the world's most Anti-American country. The "moderate, secular[ists]" are going to be useless for strategic purposes.
Also, Bhutto has a history of being one of the most incompetent kleptocrats in modern history, so your expectation of her are a little high.
I'm no fan of Moosh, but sometimes, in world affairs, you don't have much to choose from when you need an ally.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Michael Tree

After the U.S. backed the Taliban in our fight against the USSR...

You might want to garner a better than "wikipedia level" understanding of history before you accuse your country of something like that.
First, the Taliban didn't even come into being until the 1990s.
Secondly, the U.S. funded the Mujadeen who became the factions that made up the Northern Alliance. Remember them?

OVP_Biker · #13 (**permalink**) 11-15-2007, 12:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tannhauser

Also, Bhutto has a history of being one of the most incompetent kleptocrats in modern history, so your expectation of her are a little high.

Sadly, true. I remember seeing a raw feed of her rambling, hour long press conference, and thinking that if this is what Pakistan's future relies on, things are pretty bleak. (Okay, actually I was thinking this.)

Imran Khan seems a much more likely choice to lead Pakistan to where it needs to be.

Quote:

I'm no fan of Moosh, but sometimes, in world affairs, you don't have much to choose from when you need an ally.

Yes, but sometimes you have to wonder if an ally is an ally. In this case, I think we're being played. His inability to deal with hardline ISI elements in his regime is both troubling and convenient. He gets to claim he's supporting our interests, while at the same time indirectly supporting Bin Laden and the Taliban. So long as he's Our Boy, he knows he pretty much has carte blanche on the domestic scene. So he has no real interest to acting in our best interest. The longer we need him, the better off he is. Were you in his position, would you really do anything to help us? I wouldn't. With allies like him, we don't need enemies.

seand · #14 (**permalink**) 11-15-2007, 01:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tannhauser

Also, Bhutto has a history of being one of the most incompetent kleptocrats in modern history, so your expectation of her are a little high.

I hear you but its not its more our State Department's expectations than mine. She's a 3rd world media whore of sorts but you got to admit the bit with asking the police holding her in house arrest "Shouldn't you be out looking for Osama bin Laden?" made for savy world news coverage.

Michael Tree · #15 (**permalink**) 11-17-2007, 12:14 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tannhauser

You might want to garner a better than "wikipedia level" understanding of history before you accuse your country of something like that.
First, the Taliban didn't even come into being until the 1990s.
Secondly, the U.S. funded the Mujadeen who became the factions that made up the Northern Alliance. Remember them?

You might want to garner a better than "Fox News" level of understanding of history.

You're right, we didn't officially fund the Taliban because it didn't officially exist until the 90's, but we did fund many islamist radicals that later became the Taliban. We also gave millions of dollars to the Taliban proper, right up to 2001.

Here's a good summary of the billions of dollars in U.S. money that went into Taliban hands, written in 2001 by Ron Paul.
http://www.counterpunch.org/paul2.html

Tannhauser · #16 (**permalink**) 11-17-2007, 12:25 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Michael Tree

Here's a good summary of the billions of dollars in U.S. money that went into Taliban hands, written in 2001 by Ron Paul.
http://www.counterpunch.org/paul2.html

Wow, Ron Paul AND counterpunch, two of the least sane entities on the web, together at last.

Tell you what, you go with what your moonbat site and foaming-at-the-mouth nut tell you, and I'll go with The Looming Tower and Lawrence Wright.

Comfortable with that?

Tannhauser · #17 (**permalink**) 11-17-2007, 12:31 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by OVP_Biker

Yes, but sometimes you have to wonder if an ally is an ally. In this case, I think we're being played...With allies like him, we don't need enemies.

To some extent, I think any Super Power who wants to take a benevolent course is going to be "played". You have to admit he's not jobbing us as bad as Turkey did where they voted not to let us stage pre-invasion, right after we gave them a 7 Billion dollar aid package.

Is Pakistan England/Austraila/Israel? Not by a long shot. But he's at least letting us opperate to some extent in the country and not giving them outright support.

Unfortunately, in dealing with most countries around the world, you're going to have to go quid pro quo with some tin-pot dictator.

Michael Tree · #18 (**permalink**) 11-17-2007, 12:38 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tannhauser

Wow, Ron Paul AND counterpunch, two of the least sane entities on the web, together at last.

Tell you what, you go with what your moonbat site and foaming-at-the-mouth nut tell you, and I'll go with The Looming Tower and Lawrence Wright.

Comfortable with that?

Is that what counterpunch is? It was the most sussinct article I could find with a quick google. I assumed that Paul would have some credibility with you, though I also agree he's a bit nuts.

Here's a Cato Institute article about the 43 million dollars the US gave the Taliban in May 2001. I didn't initially link to it because it only talks about the funding in 2001, not the funding in the 80's. http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=3556

Tannhauser · #19 (**permalink**) 11-17-2007, 12:46 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Michael Tree

Here's a Cato Institute article about the 43 million dollars the US gave the Taliban in May 2001. I didn't initially link to it because it only talks about the funding in 2001, not the funding in the 80's.

That part is fairly well known after "Peppermint" Patty Murray extolled the virtues of OBL, building roads, day care centers, hospitals, (AIDS hospices and abortion clinics???), and how we should send them more humanitarian aid.
We send copious amounts of aid to probably every country on earth. We send aid to North Korea, that doesn't mean we're propping up Kim Jong Il, and it sure doesn't mean we supported the Taliban against the Soviets.

Michael Tree · #20 (**permalink**) 11-17-2007, 12:58 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tannhauser

That part is fairly well known after "Peppermint" Patty Murray extolled the virtues of OBL, building roads, day care centers, hospitals, (AIDS hospices and abortion clinics???), and how we should send them more humanitarian aid.
We send copious amounts of aid to probably every country on earth. We send aid to North Korea, that doesn't mean we're propping up Kim Jong Il, and it sure doesn't mean we supported the Taliban against the Soviets.

The 43 million wasn't humanitarian aid, it was us giving money directly to the Taliban because they said they were going to crack down on opium production, only 4 months before 9/11.

Here's another article from the Cato Institute. It was written in 1986, during the height of the funding, and was remarkably prophetic:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cato Policy Analysis

Americans can and should sympathize with the plight of Afghanistan. It is entirely appropriate that the U.S. government condemn the ongoing Soviet occupation and genocide, endorse the right of the Afghan people to national self-determination, and pursue all possible diplomatic avenues to seek the removal of Soviet troops. But those who support the mujaheddin, whether inside or outside the American government, should entertain no illusions. A rebel victory in all probability will not bring about a capitalist economic system or a political system based on respect for individual rights. Even if the "moderates" triumphed, the most likely outcome would be a conservative Islamic state similar to Saudi Arabia or Pakistan. If the fundamentalists emerged dominant in a postwar government--a distinct possibility since the fanatical Hesbiz is the strongest single rebel faction--they would impose a ruthless Islamic theocracy. There should be considerable reluctance to back the mujaheddin with U.S. influence and tax dollars when there is a significant risk of creating an Iranian-style dictatorship in Afghanistan.

http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa074.html