Re: G.W.Bush needs to stop giving Musharraf a "free pass"
Sid9
> I was watching Oprah (interviews with people who tried to kill
> themselves) and composing an article in the thread:
> -- Society ignores the science of lonely despondency
> when I saw a news item that former leader Benazir Bhutto of
> Pakistan has been assassinated. After thinking about the issue a
> few minutes, I have now suspended work on that article to issue a
> public statement on the assassination topic:
>
> President Bush should issue the following public announcement:
>
> We strongly believe that the current military government of
> Pakistan has assassinated Bhutto in order to suppress all political
> opposition to that military government. This assassination is
> totally contrary to democracy. Accordingly, the current military
> government of Pakistan is not a legitimate government, it is a
> rogue government, which has no right to any diplomatic recognition.
> Accordingly we are ceasing to recognize Pakistan's current
> government as a political entity. We are officially removing all
> ambassadors and other cooperative efforts such as resident aliens
> of Pakistani origin and foreign aid etc. The land controlled by
> that government will hanceforth be considered to be unclaimed
> territory, like Antarctica or the open sea, freely open to our
> troops when necessary to pursue Al Quaeda without needing to ask
> permission. If we encounter any interference by the military of
> Pakistan, we will use all necessary force to neutralize that
> interference, which may include complete disruption of the
> Pakistani military.
>
> We urge India not to take advantage of this situation, especially
> after we have neutralized the Pakistani military. If India wishes
> to join us in pursuing or investigating Al Quaeda, we welcome their
> help. But if they try to annex Kashmir or any similar act, they are
> not welcome, they are strongly discouraged.
>
> The rogue military government controlling Pakistan now claims that
> Al Quaeda is responsible for the assassination. We do not accept
> that excuse. The rogue government claimed to have Al Quaeda under
> control. We take them at their word. Accordingly Al Quaeda acted
> with permission and support of the rogue government, hence that
> rogue government is just as guilty as an accomplice in the
> assassination. Al Quaeda and the rogue government of Pakistan are
> one and the same as far as we are concerned. Both must be
> eliminated. I ask Congress for a formal declaration of war against
> Pakistani Al Quaeda. formerly Al Quaeda was free-roaming, not
> associated with any existing government, so we had nobody to
> declare war against. But now we do. "Everything changed yesterday."
>
> G.W.Bush is already on track to be impeached, mostly for
> elimination of our rights to decent treatment and legal rights
> while accused of a crime but not yet convicted. If he continues to
> give a free pass for Musharraf to get our foreign aid while failing
> to take sufficient measures to stop Al Quaeda from using Pakistan
> as a base of operations including assassinating anybody who opposes
> Musharraf and/or Al Quaeda, then we have yet another reason to
> impeach G.W.Bush, one more "article of impeachment".
>
> Have any of the Democratic candidates called for G.W.Bush's
> impeachment yet? If not, why not?
1. No
2. Because it requires
17 Republican Senators
to put their country ahead
of their party to oust this
inept Republican administration.
Kirk out...
"Sid9" <si...@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
news:z7ldj.19636$L27....@bignews9.bellsouth.net...
As long as they're getting rich and Americans don't arrest them, they'll
continue raping the treasury.
lo yeeOn
This is called the congressional Democrats' way of serving their
neocon masters by hiding behind the congressional Republicans who
openly serve their neocon masters.
Pity we the people who are powerless and do not have an advocate for
our welfare.
lo yeeOn
========
lo yeeOn
This is called the congressional Democrats' way of serving their
neocon masters by hiding behind the congressional Republicans who
openly serve their neocon masters.
Pity us people who are powerless and do not have an advocate to
protect our welfare.
lo yeeOn
========
William Black
Robert Maas, see http://tinyurl.com/uh3t wrote:
> We urge India not to take advantage of this situation, especially
> after we have neutralized the Pakistani military. If India wishes
> to join us in pursuing or investigating Al Quaeda, we welcome their
> help. But if they try to annex Kashmir or any similar act, they are
> not welcome, they are strongly discouraged.
1. India is the current holder of Kashmir. Pakistan is the one sending the
terrorists there.
2. How do you enforce that one? India has a blue water navy, proper
nuclear weapons, not the silly short range stuff the Pakistanis have, and
there are pretty obviously virtually no US intelligence assets there because
they're not a threat.
India is a country of about 1,000,000,000 people. It is a highly organised
representative democracy. It is not a banana republic
I do have to add that Pakistan has attacked India four or five times since
independence, been beaten every time and never been attacked by India.
One way to really piss the Indian government off is to suggest they have any
aggressive intentions towards any of the countries they share a common
border with.
--
William Black
I've seen things you people wouldn't believe.
Barbeques on fire by the chalets past the castle headland
I watched the gift shops glitter in the darkness off the Newborough gate
All these moments will be lost in time, like icecream on the beach
Time for tea.
eatfastnoodle
wrote:
> Robert Maas, seehttp://tinyurl.com/uh3twrote:
To be fair, India took advantage of Pakistani civil war and
intervened, that's why we had the nation called Bangladesh.
Harry Dope
PAKISTAN, along with IRAQ and AFGHANISTAN, comprise a triple-TRAP in
which the Un-United States of America is enmeshed -- as predicted in
the late 1990s by the possibly late Osama bin Laden. He further
predicted that if the U.S. ever invaded the Middle East, America
("Great Satan") could never depart except in DEFEAT! How prophetic
he
was!
Of additional note is the fact that these three countries are FAILED
NATIONS, tripped-up by backwardness due in large measure to their
foolish adherence to the "teachings" of those "leaders" who spew
false-
Islamic dogma. This, of course, constitutes the TRAP in which Muslim
nations everywhere find themselves, to one degree or another. In
today's rapidly developing world, a nation's governing body cannot be
even mildly theocratic and expect to successfully compete on the
global ECONOMIC stage.
***
eatfastnoodle
Iraq was governed by a secular dictator, had a functioning and
effective government, it's not a heaven for sure, but it's not a
failed state either. Even after the gulf war and decades of harsh
sanctions, Saddam still had the capabilities to control most of
Iraq(san the Kurdish enclave, but Kurdish enclave is always the most
democratic, peaceful and prosper part of Iraq ever since 2003). It's
invasion in 2003 that turned Iraq into a failed state. Saddam wasn't a
angel, but he was much better than complete chaos, which rules Iraq
today. Further, having a strong Iraq at its border will certain deter
Iran's ambition to dominate the gulf as Bush senior correctly
calculated back in 91. Now, his moronic son destroyed his political
legacy and tarnished the name of Bush family and the United States. My
sympathy goes to Bush Senior who bravely fought the Japanese in WWII,
what did he do to deserve such a stupid and incompetent son?
Robert Maas, see http://tinyurl.com/uh3t
> India is the current holder of Kashmir. Pakistan is the one
> sending the terrorists there.
Oops, I stand corrected. We should then say that India should not
strengthen its hold over Kashmir, and should preferably allow an
international force to take it over, thereby relieving the need of
Pakistan to send terrorists there, and also giving the
international force the authority and ability to destroy any
terrorists that show up anyway.
> How do you enforce that one?
I don't propose any enforcement. I merely want GWBush to suggest to
India that they shouldn't take any advantage from our clamp-down on
Pakistan's current illegimate government.
> ... I do have to add that Pakistan has attacked India four or
> five times since independence, been beaten every time and never
> been attacked by India.
Hopefully India will continue to be a good citizen in the region,
especially if we make it clear they should behave themselves during
the crisis.
> One way to really piss the Indian government off is to suggest
> they have any aggressive intentions towards any of the countries
> they share a common border with.
Perhaps you can choose a wording that would avoid insulting them
while nevertheless telling them what is expected of them.
Robert Maas, see http://tinyurl.com/uh3t
> To be fair, India took advantage of Pakistani civil war and
> intervened, that's why we had the nation called Bangladesh.
I suppose we gave them a "free pass" because the idea of a poor
country being split into two parts with a huge gap between, and an
enemy between, was a stupid idea to begin with. So India did them a
favor by splitting them into separate contiguous nations.
Unfortunately East Pakistan (renamed Bangladesh) had such extreme
poverty that they suffered horribly as a separate nation. Too bad
we didn't have the InterNet with satellite service so that we might
have set up work-over-the-net situations to produce some trickle-up
income in each village to relieve the most extreme of the poverty.
Even without the InterNet, perhaps if MacGovern had been elected
President of the USA in 1972, and if he had established his new
WPA, he might have found a way to extend the idea to other nations,
starting with the ones that had the most severe poverty, such as
Bangladesh.
Robert Maas, see http://tinyurl.com/uh3t
> PAKISTAN, along with IRAQ and AFGHANISTAN, comprise a triple-TRAP
> in which the Un-United States of America is enmeshed -- as
> predicted in the late 1990s by the possibly late Osama bin Laden.
> He further predicted that if the U.S. ever invaded the Middle East,
> America ("Great Satan") could never depart except in DEFEAT! How
> prophetic he was!
We have no idea until the current situation is played out to the
end so we see whether Osama was correct or not.
> Of additional note is the fact that these three countries are
> FAILED NATIONS, tripped-up by backwardness due in large measure to
> their foolish adherence to the "teachings" of those "leaders" who
> spew false- Islamic dogma. This, of course, constitutes the TRAP
> in which Muslim nations everywhere find themselves, to one degree
> or another. In today's rapidly developing world, a nation's
> governing body cannot be even mildly theocratic and expect to
> successfully compete on the global ECONOMIC stage.
That's part of why I am against Fred Thompson. He says that he
wants de jure separation of church and state, but nevertheless he
will allow his church affiliation to dictate/influence the
decisions he would make as President. This contrasts with JFK's
declaraction of not only de jure separation but also that he would
think for himself without paying special attention to his church.
What about the majority of Supreme Court justices who are Catholic?
Have any of them made a JFK-style declaraction of independence
from church influence? Or are most/all of them just like Thompson?
Joseph R Loegering
"Robert Maas, see http://tinyurl.com/uh3t" <rem...@yahoo.com> wrote in
message news:rem-2008...@yahoo.com...
to the People called of God, not a Building or Religious Establishment, so
being a part of both the State and the Church, which part of us should we
amputate?
Destructive Political and Religious Doctrines, exalted as a way for
defending Liberty, are a way of life for Tyrants that bring us into bondage!
They even quote part of this out of context, to justify themselves for
jailing and or killing the innocent, while they themselves do the evil it
speaks of.
2 Peter 2:9-19
"The Lord knows how to deliver the godly out of temptations, and to reserve
the unjust unto the day of judgment to be punished: But chiefly them that
walk after the flesh in the lust of uncleanness, and despise government.
Presumptuous are they, selfwilled, they are not afraid to speak evil of
dignities. Whereas angels, which are greater in power and might, bring not
railing accusation against them before the Lord. But these, as natural brute
beasts, made to be taken and destroyed, speak evil of the things that they
understand not; and shall utterly perish in their own corruption; And shall
receive the reward of unrighteousness, as they that count it pleasure to
riot in the day time. Spots they are and blemishes, sporting themselves with
their own deceiving while they feast with you; Having eyes full of adultery,
and that cannot cease from sin; beguiling unstable souls: an heart they have
exercised with covetous practices; cursed children: Which have forsaken the
right way, and are gone astray, following the way of Balaam the son of
Bosor, who loved the wages of unrighteousness; But was rebuked for his
iniquity: the dumb ass speaking with man's voice forbad the madness of the
prophet. These are wells without water, clouds that are carried with a
tempest; to whom the mist of darkness is reserved for ever. For when they
speak great swelling words of vanity, they allure through the lusts of the
flesh, through much wantonness, those that were clean escaped from them who
live in error. While they promise them liberty, they themselves are the
servants of corruption: for of whom a man is overcome, of the same is he
brought in bondage."
In service of God and Country
Joseph
William Black
"Robert Maas, see http://tinyurl.com/uh3t" <rem...@yahoo.com> wrote in
message news:rem-2008...@yahoo.com...
>> India is the current holder of Kashmir. Pakistan is the one
>> sending the terrorists there.
>
> Oops, I stand corrected. We should then say that India should not
> strengthen its hold over Kashmir, and should preferably allow an
> international force to take it over, thereby relieving the need of
> Pakistan to send terrorists there, and also giving the
> international force the authority and ability to destroy any
> terrorists that show up anyway.
Not a hope.
The party currently in power in India was pissed off quite severly with
partition in the first place in 1947 and is fully aware that about as many
Moslems live in India as live in Pakistan, but with a lot less trouble and
far fewer sudden bangs and absolutely no military coups.
>
>> How do you enforce that one?
>
> I don't propose any enforcement. I merely want GWBush to suggest to
> India that they shouldn't take any advantage from our clamp-down on
> Pakistan's current illegimate government.
>
>> ... I do have to add that Pakistan has attacked India four or
>> five times since independence, been beaten every time and never
>> been attacked by India.
>
> Hopefully India will continue to be a good citizen in the region,
> especially if we make it clear they should behave themselves during
> the crisis.
>
>> One way to really piss the Indian government off is to suggest
>> they have any aggressive intentions towards any of the countries
>> they share a common border with.
>
> Perhaps you can choose a wording that would avoid insulting them
> while nevertheless telling them what is expected of them.
You are aware that the current Prime Minister of India is a Cambridge
educated economist who spent a lot of time working for the world bank and
the President has three degrees, has been in politics since 1962 and she
left politics to run several educational charities and schools, and a bank,
before her elevation?
You're suggesting George Bush 'drops them a hint' not to interfere an area
of their own country?
It's a bit like them asking George not to interfere in New Orleans after the
floods.
There is no subtle way to do it...
Also, Indian politicians tend to carry an awful lot of baggage from colonial
days.