[Alter Kaker]

If the king falls the maoists WILL rule.

The king will fall, all right, but I don't think the Maoists will take over -- not if something is done now.

They are already the only authority in most of Nepal, only Katmandu is left to fall

But they weren't until Gyendendra set up his little cult of personality.

Even if the maoists and the "democratic" parties weren't on the same side, which they are, nobody even imagines that the democrats could beat the maoists.

Gyanendra sure can't beat the Maoists. He made it his top priority and he's lost badly. He's completely discredited. The only opponents Gyanendra's beaten are newspapers and democracy activists. The small-d democrats are only allied with the Maoists in the sense that they're both opposed to Gyanendra's dictatorial rule. But the opposition doesn't want the Maoists in power by any stretch of the imagination.

[Tailgunner Joe]

It is completely false that the maoists did not control the countryside before the kings "coup." You act as if the maoist revolt is a response to the king's dismissal of the legislature. The reality is the reverse. The legislature was dismissed because it was worse than useless and thoroughly infiltrated with communists and maoist sympathizers.

These so-called "democrats" who refuse to participate in local elections are in open and official alliance arranged by a hostile foreign power, India, with terrorists for the express purposes of overthrowing the government. They're traitors.

The reason the king cannot beat the maoists is because their cause of overthrowing the monarchy is supported by the government of India.

[sagar]

Nepal cannot afford to concede to the Maoists. Nepal conceding to the Maoists is similar to the US conceding to the terrorists. In fact, it is more. The US conceding to the terrorists and making Osama Bin Laden the President, Al Zarqawi the VP, and the entire cabinet made up of Talibans.