Replies

I am pro-Musharraf, who has integrity and is a patriot, rather than pro-Pakistan.

This seems to be a trend. Support the nation with the unelected thug. Oppose the nation with the representative government. Lessee -- U.S. vs. Taliban/Al Qaeda -- U.S bad. U.S vs. Iraq -- U.S. bad. U.S. vs. Serbia -- U.S. bad(not that you were wrong there, but even a blind hog finds an acorn now and then). India vs. Pakistan -- India bad. Did I miss any?

I guess to a libertarian, if you cannot have a libertarian government, a man on a white horse is better than a republican form of government. Strange. Very strange.

"No Truce," you have no clue. Your rendition of my record is wrong. I supported a police action against Al Qaeda (see my article "Kill 'Em -- and get out!", posted on FR). You also don't seem to understand the difference between opposing a war on Iraq and supporting its government. I don't support the present government of, say, Andorra, but does that mean I should also support a US invasion of said country? I don't think so. You are also wrong about Serbia: Milosevic was elected. But, then again, so was Clinton. So was Hitler. Elections do not a free country make. Like George W. Bush, I admire Musharraf because he is taking risks in order to rid the region of its many problems -- and because of his expressed view that the Afghan war should be "short and sweet." My view exactly. Go, Musharraf, go!