Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Pakistan

Collapse
X
Collapse
 
  • Page of 8
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts
Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 template Next
  • #76
    Originally posted by East Street Trader
    My suspicion is that staying in or moving to India would prove to have been the winning move. And that at least one reason is that a larger economic unit seems eventually to do generally better than a small one.
    arguably Indias economic stagnation pre-1990 was in part to its size foistering the illusion that it could pursue a closed economy model and avoid international trade, unlike many smaller states which prospered earlier.
    "A person cannot approach the divine by reaching beyond the human. To become human, is what this individual person, has been created for.” Martin Buber

    Comment

    • #77
      I don't get why Obama is so for invading Pakistan. Really, I had considered him if one of those Republicans who were anti-evolution won the primary. Up until now.
      He said he was for attacking Salafi militants in Waziristan if there's actionable intel regardless of whether Musharraf consents. A position that everyone basically agreed with. It may be true that in terms of public diplomacy, he didn't strike the right tone (as indicated by the small protests that broke out), but those concerns seem overblown to me.
      "Beware of the man who works hard to learn something, learns it, and finds himself no wiser than before. He is full of murderous resentment of people who are ignorant without having come by their ignorance the hard way. "
      -Bokonon

      Comment

      • #78
        Originally posted by Ramo


        He said he was for attacking Salafi militants in Waziristan if there's actionable intel regardless of whether Musharraf consents. A position that everyone basically agreed with. It may be true that in terms of public diplomacy, he didn't strike the right tone (as indicated by the small protests that broke out), but those concerns seem overblown to me.
        NPR did a piece this morning with some educated Pakistanis, it was a flavor piece for the birthday, a "theres more to Pakistan than fundamentalism and terror and politics" and one of them brought up the Obama thing, and indicated folks there were really freaked by it.

        AFAICT the concerns are not overblown, at all.


        heres the quote:

        'Pakistan's purpose in world news today is to frighten, mainly," Hamid says. "Pakistan hasn't been cast in the role of ... interesting cultural place or, you know, land of great comedians. And so therefore nobody covers the many other aspects of Pakistan which are the majority of Pakistan."

        When Democratic U.S. presidential candidate Barack Obama said during a recent debate that he was prepared to order U.S. military forces into Pakistan if the terrorist threat warranted, it was "viewed with complete horror" in Pakistan, Hamid says.

        "Suddenly people are asking you, 'Is America about to invade Pakistan?'" he says. "It's just a way of showing you how one sentence at one point can suddenly become in a country a view that the other country is full of people who want to attack them. It's a fine balance between, as Kamila says, really exciting times and also really frightening times."'


        I have lot to dislike about NPR, but the fact that theyve already got a transcript of this up on their site surprised and delighted me. Kudos to NPR, or at least to their web team.
        Last edited by lord of the mark; August 15, 2007, 11:52.
        "A person cannot approach the divine by reaching beyond the human. To become human, is what this individual person, has been created for.” Martin Buber

        Comment

        • #79
          Originally posted by East Street Trader
          I wonder if any comparison is possible between Moslems who decided to up sticks at the time of partition and move to Pakistan compared to those who decided to stay put?

          Which, I wonder, have done better - economically and in terms of quality of life generally?

          I suppose the same question could also be posed as regards Hidus who left Pakistan and those who stayed.

          My suspicion is that staying in or moving to India would prove to have been the winning move. And that at least one reason is that a larger economic unit seems eventually to do generally better than a small one.
          In terms of real conditions, I think Indian Muslims are far better off.

          For one thing, they have those convenient little things called human rights.

          And Pakistan never had land reform, so most rural land is still in the hands of a few Zamindars. So their rural people are pretty much screwed.





          As for Hindus - staying in Pakistan wasn't just a losing move, it was a dying move.

          Comment

          • #80
            it will be interesting to see if we will have a nuclear war on the Indian subcontinent.

            This war is almost inevitable, and after it Pakistan will be annexed back no doubt with millions of dead in between.

            This kind of solution is IMO "odds on" unfortunately, as I am not sure that the islamic radicals, who are almost certain to come to power in future will be able to handle the power the Pakistani state has developed to date.It will very likely be much worse version of Iran, as Iran is at least pretty rich for the region.
            Socrates: "Good is That at which all things aim, If one knows what the good is, one will always do what is good." Brian: "Romanes eunt domus"
            GW 2013: "and juistin bieber is gay with me and we have 10 kids we live in u.s.a in the white house with obama"

            Comment

            • #81
              AFAICT the concerns are not overblown, at all.
              Meh. I mean, there were air strikes on militants (including Zawahiri - it missed and killed civilians) that forced Musharraf to publicly rebuke us twice (whether or not Musharraf consented, he certainly acted like he didn't). I don't see how the threat would be any more outrageous than the badly implemented action.

              The basic problem was how it was reported in the US media, i.e. Obama wants to invade Pakistan (see Apoc). Which gets onto Pakistani street without subtlety.
              "Beware of the man who works hard to learn something, learns it, and finds himself no wiser than before. He is full of murderous resentment of people who are ignorant without having come by their ignorance the hard way. "
              -Bokonon

              Comment

              • #82
                Originally posted by Ramo


                Meh. I mean, there were air strikes on militants (including Zawahiri - it missed and killed civilians) that forced Musharraf to publicly rebuke us twice (whether or not Musharraf consented, he certainly acted like he didn't). I don't see how the threat would be any more outrageous than the badly implemented action.

                Maybe cause the threat comes on top of the action? Maybe cause the willingness to make the threat, in the abstract, with no actual High Value target in the cross hairs, comes off as heavy handed?

                But lets assume youre right, its all CNN et al's fault. Maybe an experienced candidate would think of how their words play out in the media, and the impact overseas?

                Ive been fed up with Dubyas saying things whose impact (predictably) was far different than he intended - from "axis of evil" to "mission accomplished". Why would I want another, when I have the choice of someone who carefully weighs her every word?

                In a brief period of time, weve had "I will meet with every two bit dictator in my first year in office, unconditionally" which has been semiretracted, I guess - "There will be preparations of coure" not clear if preparations are conditions, or not. And trumpeting an entry into Waziristan, despite the sensitivity of the Pakistani polity. Today hes played the Rush Limbaugh card.

                Face it, hes lost momentum in the polls, and hes flailing.
                "A person cannot approach the divine by reaching beyond the human. To become human, is what this individual person, has been created for.” Martin Buber

                Comment

                • #83
                  Maybe cause the willingness to make the threat, in the abstract, with no actual High Value target in the cross hairs, comes off as heavy handed?
                  It's not in the abstract. The specific context was Bush's failure to go through with a snatch and grab op to pick up Zawahiri and other bigwigs...

                  It was a mistake, just not a big one.

                  In a brief period of time, weve had "I will meet with every two bit dictator in my first year in office, unconditionally" which has been semiretracted, I guess - "There will be preparations of coure" not clear if preparations are conditions, or not.
                  Preconditions in diplospeak means that the other party needs to do something substantial first (like stopping a nuclear program). Saying that Obama's willing to fly to Tehran tomorrow and have tea with Khamenei and Ahmedinejad is totally dishonest on Clinton's part.

                  What I find a lot more worrying than Obama's Waziristan comment are Clinton's willingness to use lack of bellicosity as a political bludgeon, and her equation of talk with endorsement. These are much deeper problems in the Bush policy than the occasional verbal gaffe.

                  Axis of Evil wasn't the fundamental problem in our Iran policy; refusing to acknowledge the comprehensive peace offer that the Swiss relayed was.
                  "Beware of the man who works hard to learn something, learns it, and finds himself no wiser than before. He is full of murderous resentment of people who are ignorant without having come by their ignorance the hard way. "
                  -Bokonon

                  Comment

                  • #84
                    [QUOTE] Originally posted by Ramo

                    "Preconditions in diplospeak means that the other party needs to do something substantial first (like stopping a nuclear program). "

                    Oh, is that what it means? Albright didnt seem to think so. Nor did Richard Holbrooke.

                    I think we do need substantial movement from Iran before they get a presidential summit. Note, you can talk to them at levels OTHER than a Presidential summit. Ditto for all the others.

                    "Saying that Obama's willing to fly to Tehran tomorrow and have tea with Khamenei and Ahmedinejad is totally dishonest on Clinton's part."

                    He said, IIUC, that hed do it in the first year, and that we was committed to it. Obviously there would have to be logistics arrangements first. What else would Obama insist on beyond logistics arrangements? Has he said?


                    BTW, the reference to having tea is straight from Obamas mouth.

                    "What I find a lot more worrying than Obama's Waziristan comment are Clinton's willingness to use lack of bellicosity as a political bludgeon"

                    As opposed to what Obama is doing wrt Pakistan? Look, this is opening up a dialogue, as Obama says. If a candidate says this is what theyre going to do, this is what they commit to, its perfectly legitimate

                    "and her equation of talk with endorsement."

                    A presidential summit is more than talk, which can be accomplished at many levels. Its a big deal. It matters in the currency of international affairs.

                    BTW, if Obama beleives talk is no big deal, can he at least insist that Ahmadinajad meet with Shimon Peres first? Since talking doesnt imply endorsement, and doesnt represent a concesssion, not even a tiny little one?

                    "These are much deeper problems in the Bush policy than the occasional verbal gaffe."

                    I think the way Bush has communicated his policies is a major problem.

                    "Axis of Evil wasn't the fundamental problem in our Iran policy;"

                    It gave a lot of people the impression that invasion was our first option for dealing with Iran, which has not been actual admin policy.

                    " refusing to acknowledge the comprehensive peace offer that the Swiss relayed was."


                    I believe we long ago debated the reality of that offer. Lets not get sidetracked. I want a President with foreign policy experience, who understands the importance of words in international affairs.
                    "A person cannot approach the divine by reaching beyond the human. To become human, is what this individual person, has been created for.” Martin Buber

                    Comment

                    • #85
                      Originally posted by Ramo

                      and her equation of talk with endorsement. These are much deeper problems in the Bush policy than the occasional verbal gaffe.

                      evidently Obama agrees that talk CAN equal endorsement:

                      "That is why we must strengthen the hands of Palestinian moderates who seek peace and that is why we must maintain the isolation of Hamas and other extremists who are committed to Israel's destruction"
                      "A person cannot approach the divine by reaching beyond the human. To become human, is what this individual person, has been created for.” Martin Buber

                      Comment

                      • #86
                        It just keeps coming.



                        http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070815/...tan_fact_check;_ylt=AkpDrIsGqUVtC.G_DuBQEW2M5QcF


                        agree with him or not, this stuff is gonna haunt him in the general. We basically know what the right is gonna throw at Hillary,everyones heard it all before, and she still beats them all in one on one poll match ups.

                        But this guy keeps serving up red meat.
                        Last edited by lord of the mark; August 15, 2007, 13:56.
                        "A person cannot approach the divine by reaching beyond the human. To become human, is what this individual person, has been created for.” Martin Buber

                        Comment

                        • #87
                          Oh, is that what it means? Albright didnt seem to think so. Nor did Richard Holbrooke.
                          As if they were disinterested players. They're spinning to support their favored candidate, what a surprise. If you want to cite high profile diplomats, I'm sure Obama has plenty in his corner.

                          What exactly do you think "preconditions" are supposed to mean?

                          He said, IIUC, that hed do it in the first year, and that we was committed to it.
                          No. The question was whether he'd be willing to do it (Would the candidates for president be willing to meet, within their first year in office, with the leaders of Iran, Syria, Venezuela, Cuba and North Korea?) And he said yes. There was absolutely no commitment. Since Ahmedinejad, maybe Castro will be gone by then, committing to meet these people would be impossible.

                          BTW, the reference to having tea is straight from Obamas mouth.
                          I've been following the story, it was a good analogy.

                          A presidential summit is more than talk, which can be accomplished at many levels. Its a big deal. It matters in the currency of international affairs.

                          BTW, if Obama beleives talk is no big deal, can he at least insist that Ahmadinajad meet with Shimon Peres first? Since talking doesnt imply endorsement, and doesnt represent a concesssion, not even a tiny little one?
                          So now Ahmedinejad has a diplomatic model that we should emulate? Where are you going with this?

                          Incidentally, did Sadat endorse the election of the former leader of the Irgun (remember, that was the context of the question) when he strolled into Jerusalem?

                          I believe we long ago debated the reality of that offer.
                          The point, again, is that the substance of our arguments with other countries have a lot more importance than words. The MEK and PEJAK were a lot more important than "Axis of Evil."
                          "Beware of the man who works hard to learn something, learns it, and finds himself no wiser than before. He is full of murderous resentment of people who are ignorant without having come by their ignorance the hard way. "
                          -Bokonon

                          Comment

                          • #88
                            Originally posted by Ramo

                            Incidentally, did Sadat endorse the election of the former leader of the Irgun (remember, that was the context of the question) when he strolled into Jerusalem?
                            he didnt endorse Begins election. he sure as hell knew it was a HUGE benefit to Israel, but since he was trying free Egypt from dependence on the USSR, and get back the Sinai, he didnt have any choice. And of course Egypt was a peer of Israel in power terms, if not in fact weaker. So it was more equivalent to Nixon meeting Brezhnev, than to a US president meeting with Ahmadinajad.
                            "A person cannot approach the divine by reaching beyond the human. To become human, is what this individual person, has been created for.” Martin Buber

                            Comment

                            • #89
                              It just keeps coming.
                              Seriously, you're citing Mitt? I only watched five minutes of the last GOP debate, but of that tiny sample I did see Romney interrupting Paul "what about 9/11?" when he was discussing the mistake of going into Iraq. Really now...

                              "That is why we must strengthen the hands of Palestinian moderates who seek peace and that is why we must maintain the isolation of Hamas and other extremists who are committed to Israel's destruction"
                              I don't see refusing talk anywhere in that statement. Isolation is a rather broad category. And yeah, I disagree with it; Obama's much closer to your foreign policy views (particularly on Israel) than mine...
                              "Beware of the man who works hard to learn something, learns it, and finds himself no wiser than before. He is full of murderous resentment of people who are ignorant without having come by their ignorance the hard way. "
                              -Bokonon

                              Comment

                              • #90
                                he sure as hell knew it was a HUGE benefit to Israel,
                                That's sort of the intent of talking. Mutually beneficial results...
                                "Beware of the man who works hard to learn something, learns it, and finds himself no wiser than before. He is full of murderous resentment of people who are ignorant without having come by their ignorance the hard way. "
                                -Bokonon

                                Comment

                                Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 template Next
                                Working...
                                X