A dictator of a Muslim country with WOMDs...

[el freako]

Would this combination worry anyone?

A dictator of a country with a lot of fundamentalist islamic activity, who overthrew a democratically elected government and who has access to nuclear weapons.

So, are the americans happy with their Pakistani 'ally' Mussaraf?

Indeed are they as pleased with him as the CIA was with Bin Laden in Afghanistan in the 1980's ?

If he plays to domestic opinon then the US (and India, and the wider world) has a problem - if he cracks down hard on islamists in his own country then it's possible he could go the way of the Shah in 1979.

[Q Classic]

no more than a dictator in an atheist country with womd scares me.

or a dictator in a jewish country, or christian country.

dictators and wmd? bad news.

not the faith.

[el freako]

A nice, reasoned reply.

Let's see if others can be as impartial.

[Datajack Franit]

I think that dictatorships can't be good in any condition, but if I had to choose, an atheist dictator ruling a fundamentalist country and using its influence to keep the crazy folks at bay could be the only way to accept such a thing; Qaddafi is a psycho but other "democratic" countries seem to be hostages of stronger, subversive movements which are political ideologies, wiew of the role of religion in the state, ethnic differences and so on.. Pakistan would become a hell on earth for example, for the role of local spiritual guides and its nuclear strenght

[Q Classic]

somehow, that doesn't make me feel any better about kim jong il.

ostensibly atheist, he thrives on a cult of personality that enjoys the same fervor that some of those islamic and christian fundamentlists have.

[Datajack Franit]

The real problem is that there's a huge different between the role of religion in North Korea and in every single muslim country in the world- not saying that muslim countries are crazy of course, but muslim countries are somehow backed by characters with a strong charisma that twist the teachings of islam to their purposes, while such a thing wouldn't happen in christian countries for examples, just for the reason that there are NO fundamentalist christian countries anymore. We can expect a change in global politics when every single muslim fundamentalist dictatorship will be put down- and don't ever forget that dictatorships all over the world often cooperate against a common enemy (Korea and Iran seem a damn good example)

[Seeker]

Young Kim is only an athiest about 'other gods'.......

[Q Classic]

kim jong il, unfortunately, has brainwashed his followers so much so that they think he is the most charismatic god on earth. why else would they name something that looks no different from a poinsetta a "kimjongillia"?

charisma is like beauty. it's in the eye of its victims. pat robertson, jerry falwell--they have rather large followings because they are charismatic to their groups; the only reason why they don't have a fundamentalist country of their own is that there still are enough sane americans to fight them at every turn.

the other reason that there are no fundamentalist christian countries is that christian countries all tend to be completely and utterly westernized--meaning secularism has become the dominant philosophy, not the religion itself.

had the modern world begun in the islamic states, i'm willing to bet you'd have many super-secular muslim nations and a fundamentalist, backward christian dictatorship in many places of the world.

[Whaleboy]

Would bother me no more than any other type of dictator. I'm more bothered about dictators than I am about democracies, but in that latter respect, I'd be no more bothered if a Muslim democracy ( ) were to have nukes etc.

[Imran Siddiqui]

'd be no more bothered if a Muslim democracy were to have nukes etc.

Yes you would. If Pakistan had the pre-Musharraf government, you'd be very scared right now.

[chequita guevara]

I'd be more bothered if Pakistan were democracy right now, actually,

[Q Classic]

well of course we'd be more worried if they had the pre-musharaff gov't.

benazir bhutto (sp?) and her ilk were all übercorrupt.

then again, so are many other 'democracies'...

good thing most of those don't have nukes.

[Whaleboy]

Yes you would. If Pakistan had the pre-Musharraf government, you'd be very scared right now.

No I wouldn't, I'd be a shadow on the wall!

Che:

[el freako]

Imran & chegitz,

What about my parallel between Musharraf and the Shah?

[Imran Siddiqui]

well of course we'd be more worried if they had the pre-musharaff gov't.

benazir bhutto (sp?) and her ilk were all übercorrupt.

Bhutto was already out of government at the time. She had been exiled for corruption. The current government at the time Musharraf took power was the Sharif government, which REALLY looked like it was going to go more Islamist. He had been making gestures to them when Musharraf took over and basically took power from the hands of the Islamists.

Seriously, without the coup, I wouldn't have suprised to see a Iran type government pop up in Pakistan after 9/11... though in this case they'd take it by election.