Posted on 12/28/2007 9:20:14 AM PST by Abathar
Peters discussing this right now on FOX..
Peters is on FNC now (11:52am Central) talking about it...
Darn, I am at work now. Thanks for the heads up though.
>>>>Musharraf was pressured AGAIN by US for, yes again, DEMOCRACY!<<<<<
From day one (Moosh’s “retirement” from the military) I’ve wondered whether the people at State and elsewhere who call for “democracy in Pakistan” are childishly naive, dumb-as-rocks stupid, cynically evil, or lost completely in the fog of Foggy Bottom.
Don’t they yet understand beyond understanding that Muslims are nearly incapable of running a civil society, let alone a “democracy”.
In South Asia, corruption is part and parcel of politics. You have to have an escape plan for when thing go wrong and, even more importantly, you have to have "goodies" to pass around for your "supporters". Bhutto was worse than some, better than others (notably Sharif).
It is necessary that you be a populist - socialist to gain mass support (once again you have to have "goodies" to pass out)
Democracy always looks much more desirable to those seeking power than to those holding power.
That said, Bhutto was tied to the west. I am admittedly cynical, but she was better than most.
Sorry you missed it, classic Peters! Grumpy, direct, unapologetic:)
I got tired of sending emails to the WH about the subject. Whether it's, Iraq, Afghanistan or Egypt etc., IT DOESN'T AND WILL NOT work.
Case in point, our pressure on Egypt's Mobarak for "free" elections precipitated 25% "outlawed Moslem Brotherhood" fundamentalists to be elected! Thank God the elections were not "free" by our standards, otherwise, 70% of the Parliament would have been Islamofascists!
Nice you have strong feelings about this, however that does not excuse this habit of yours of stating your opinions as facts. Your feelings are not facts. Stating your opinion as fact is logically absurd and intellectually indefensible.
Most of the countries on earth operate on some degree or more of corruption. It’s how things are done. In the USA there is still a line between what is allowed and what is not although the line is fading some lately.
Call it what you want-
So what are the facts according to you???That the PAkistani army is not corrupt???That the Pakistani army is reasonable enough to share power with someone else??That they will totally give up support to the Taliban & anti-Indian elements due to American pressure??
What you are doing is flowing with the tide-Sure Bhutto was corrupt & probably would have not made any positive impact(other than acting as a democratic pressure valve)-but the real issue about the very nature of Pakistan is being ignored here.Pakistan is an army with a state-not the other way around here.If you call that my feeling,well Im proud of it-because it happens to be the truth.
This is the take I’ve had all along. It’s nice to see the truth about Bhutto out in the papers.
I believe Musharraf is between a rock and a hard place, honestly trying to do what’s best for his country and not for his own glory or riches. He didn’t even come to power the way most generals do — he bloodlessly ousted the prime minister who was at that moment trying to kill him and all others aboard his plane by not letting it land (after his people took control he landed with only a few minutes of fuel left).
The best way Hillary and Bhutto are similar is that they both think power and position are owed to them.
I have been saying this for the past couple of weeks. When people suggested she was the better choice, I would point out that she was under arrest at one point for corruption. That is was common in her family. That she was not an angel, sent to free Pakistan. She may have been more westernized, but the end result was that she was out to line her own pockets. Not uncommon in that, or any other, part of the world.
She used to support the Taliban and the other Muslim extremists in Pakistan (that's how they got their foothold that Musharraf has to deal with now), but she turned against them. That's all that's needed for Al Qaeda to take her out.
The Left/MSM has labeled Bhutto as a “secular liberal.” Heard it repeated many times...they’re trying to paint her as a martyr and a “kindred spirit” to their causes.
Of course, religious conservatives are the real threat in their eyes.
Last night on Fox, Monsoor Ijaz (sp) said he once asked Bhutto why she didn’t get in her helicopter and fly out to be among the average people.
She said, “Prime ministers don’t do that.”
Bhutto herself had been in exile as the result of a corruption scandal, her father was executed for official corruption.
One of her brothers was mysteriously poisoned on the French Riviera, and another was convicted of hijacking a plane in 1983. He was later killed in a shootout with Pakistani police in 1996.
Benazir Bhutto carried a lot of baggage.
The PPP (Bhutto’s party) is part of the Socialist International.
Perhaps a military dictatorship is the best thing that could be achieved in Pakistan. But lowered expectations cut both ways. It may not be easy to tell just who was the best alternative in that far from perfect part of the world.
Given that things are that flawed in South Asia, no one in public life there is apt to come up to Western standards, and what we do hear from that region is apt to be slanted by this or that faction or interest.
It would be good to get past the hype about "St. Benazir, Woman of Peace" but to figure out how good or how bad she was in the Pakistani context is going to take a lot more work than reading this article.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.