Musharraf wins Prez polls [Archive]

@_@ Artman

10-06-2007, 11:14 AM

http://www.ndtv.com/convergence/ndtv/story.aspx?id=NEWEN20070028438&ch=10/6/2007%205:18:00%20PM

:lol:

I am waiting for GWB to congratulate Musharraf on his victory as the champion in the fight against "terrorists". Now that he has the clear mandate of the people of Pakistan, we will soon be hearing about how "insurgents" are demonstrating against a lovable leader. :rolleyes:

To quote Mel Brooks, "Its good to be king" or rather, "Its good to be a dictator".

Agreed. But this women had something to do with this...

http://www.scu.edu/ethics/architects-of-peace/Bhutto/resources/portrait_hr.jpg

To try and smoothen the political turbulence of the last few months and push through a political deal with Benazir Bhutto that ensures he stays on as president, Musharraf signed an ordinance for national reconciliation on Friday.

Under the deal her party will not resign from the assembly before the vote for president and corruption charges will be dropped against Bhutto and other politicians dating between 1986 and 1999.

It also amends rules to protect from fraud parliamentary elections due by January.

''Before arresting any member of parliament there must be a recommendation by the parliamentary ethics committee. The members of the ethics committee will be made up equally of members of the ruling party and from the opposition. If six are from the government then six will be from the opposition, they will also be drawn equally from the Senate and National assembly.

''This will be a safeguard against people being arrested under false charges and there should be a democratic political culture. We should all admit that in the past we took turns in arresting people under false charges,'' said Mushahid Hussein, Secy-Gen, Pakistan Muslim League (PML-Q).

Under the deal, Bhutto's party, the largest in Pakistan, will abstain from today's election.

We. Shall. See...:rolleyes:

iPoster

10-06-2007, 03:52 PM

Was there ever any real doubt he would get re-'elected'?

:rolleyes:

Everyone votes for me! (or ELSE!)

:no:

sammi jo

10-06-2007, 05:12 PM

Another old-guard sponsored thug retains power. Nothing ever changes. Nothing more to see here, move along now.

talksense101

11-03-2007, 06:51 PM

Another old-guard sponsored thug retains power. Nothing ever changes. Nothing more to see here, move along now.

A supreme court judgment was due on Tuesday on the legality of Musharraf participating in the elections. So, emergency has been declared. The legal system changed to prevent judges from passing orders against the president. The chief justice and anyone else opposed to Musharraf in the legal system has been replaced.

http://news.google.com/?ned=us&nsrc=ig&.cache=-5.51990217&ncl=1122699510&hl=en

:\

@_@ Artman

11-03-2007, 08:09 PM

They have nuclear weapons right? Yeah, they do.

Akumulator

11-04-2007, 01:43 AM

This should be interesting.

sammi jo

11-04-2007, 01:11 PM

Musharraf is the latest in a line of thugs supported by the U.S., in this case by the Bush Administration in it's "war against terrorism". I wonder how the American people would react if they were aware of Musharraf's possible role as an "accessory before the fact" in the 9/11 attacks? (edit... probably wouldn't give a shit). Musharraf's former ISI (Inter Service Intelligence) Agency chief Mahmoud Ahmed was allegedly involved in the financing of the 9/11 plot by transferring in excess of $100,000 to plot ringleader Mohamed Atta in the months leading up to the attacks.

See this article here (http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Front_Page/FD08Aa01.html).

extracted:

If the 9-11 Commission is really looking for a smoking gun, it should look no further than at Lieutenant-General Mahmoud Ahmad, the director of the Pakistani Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI) at the time.

In early October 2001, Indian intelligence learned that Mahmoud had ordered flamboyant Saeed Sheikh - the convicted mastermind of the kidnapping and killing of Wall Street Journal reporter Daniel Pearl - to wire US$100,000 from Dubai to one of hijacker Mohamed Atta's two bank accounts in Florida.

A juicy direct connection was also established between Mahmoud and Republican Congressman Porter Gross and Democratic Senator Bob Graham. They were all in Washington together discussing Osama bin Laden over breakfast when the attacks of September 11, 2001, happened.

Mahmoud's involvement in September 11 might be dismissed as only Indian propaganda. But Indian intelligence swears by it, and the US Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) has confirmed the whole story: Indian intelligence even supplied Saeed's cellular-phone numbers. Nobody has bothered to check what really happened. The 9-11 Commission should pose very specific questions about it to FBI director Robert Mueller when he testifies this month.

In December 2002, Graham said he was "surprised at the evidence that there were foreign governments involved in facilitating the activities of at least some of the [September 11] terrorists in the United States ... It will become public at some point when it's turned over to the archives, but that's 20 or 30 years from now." He could not but be referring to Pakistan and Mahmoud. If Mahmoud was really involved in September 11, this means the Pakistani ISI -"the state within the state" - knew all about it. And if the intelligence elite in Pakistan knew it, an intelligence elite in Saudi Arabia knew it, as well as an intelligence elite in the US.

Ahmed was never called to account for this or his support to the Taliban post 9/11 even as General Musharraf removed him from this job in October 2001.
Mahmoud Ahmed plainly knew what was going down; common sense tells us that the DICTATOR of Pakistan, Musharraf, more than likely would have known as well, but he also has never been queried, let alone challenged on this. How surprising.... :rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:

segovius

11-04-2007, 01:21 PM

I wonder how the American people would react if they were aware of Musharraf's possible role as an "accessory before the fact" in the 9/11 attacks?

A large percentage would utter a truncated 'ugh', scratch their nether regions, phone a pizza and switch to American Idol.

A smaller section would yell 'commie fag liars!!!' as they foam rabidly about how Pakistan are friends and allies and how they and Saudi are far better than Iran who must be exterminated.

The rest would gibber inanely about Islamofascits being all the same wherever they are from and start screaming 'Death to Iran'.

And that just leaves SDW who would probably do all three.

segovius

11-04-2007, 01:28 PM

In other news - the installation of Marshall Law and suspension of the pseudo-democracy by the Dictator Musharaf will not affect US support. (http://www.thenews.com.pk/updates.asp?id=31619)

So that's a relief for us all then.

The Pentagon said Gen. Pervez Musharraf's declaration of state of emergency in Pakistan does not affect U.S. military support, a spokesman said.

U.S. Defense Secretary Robert Gates is monitoring the fast-developing situation, Pentagon spokesman Geoff Morrell said.

“Pakistan is a very important ally in the war on terror and he is closely following the developments there,'' Morrell told reporters aboard Gates' plane as he traveled to China.

The emergency declaration “does not impact our military support of Pakistan'' or its efforts in the war on terror, Morrell said of the country, which is a key U.S. partner in the fight against al-Qaida militants.

Not only are they all utter scum - they are the SAME Scum.

:mad:

sammi jo

11-04-2007, 03:13 PM

A large percentage would utter a truncated 'ugh', scratch their nether regions, phone a pizza and switch to American Idol.

A smaller section would yell 'commie fag liars!!!' as they foam rabidly about how Pakistan are friends and allies and how they and Saudi are far better than Iran who must be exterminated.

The rest would gibber inanely about Islamofascits being all the same wherever they are from and start screaming 'Death to Iran'.

And that just leaves SDW who would probably do all three.

So many of our problems stem from mass belief in a misquote implying phony patriotism ie "My country, right or wrong".

The original quote, from Senator Carl Schurz in 1899 was as follows:

"‘Our country—when right to be kept right; when wrong to be put right.’

In this case, by supporting a thug (Musharraf) who trashed a working democracy, to the tune of some $12 billion since 9/11, and who possibly had some part in the planning of those attacks, (even as an accessory) we are doing wrong. And similarly, much of what the Bush Administration has done in the last 6 years is utterly wrong by any standard of human decency.

It seems as if there is a large segment of the population who is unable to distinguish between the basic notion of right and wrong, and there is one reason as to how the Bush Administration has gotten away with doing bad stuff for so long.

Then, combine that with the still-held belief by a large number of people in the (much discredited) concept, a central plank in Kissinger's realpolitik that "the enemy of my enemy of my friend", is there any hope left?

:no::mad:

screener

11-04-2007, 04:04 PM

And that just leaves SDW who would probably do all three.

Pretty sad really.

segovius

11-04-2007, 05:59 PM

More than 100 opposition protesters have been arrested now - and they say elections will be delayed by a year.

That's democracy for 'ya.

Imagine if they weren't our friends and allies :wow:

sammi jo

11-04-2007, 10:01 PM

More than 100 opposition protesters have been arrested now - and they say elections will be delayed by a year.

That's democracy for 'ya.

Imagine if they weren't our friends and allies :wow:

About 500 opposition have been arrested now, and 1500 are on a list "to be arrested" (http://www.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/asiapcf/11/04/pakistan/index.html). Is he getting advice straight from Washington DC?

I wonder what the Bush Administration is going to say about this? Since they approve of Musharraf (but are not going to openly and publicly support his going this far, we can probably expect to hear statements from the White House that go something like this: "We urge the Pakistani president to show restraint in dealing with the opposition".. meaning "we're on your side, but don't embarass us".. or "if you're going to get gnarly amd violent, make sure the media's in a "free speech zone" (!!!!!) where they can't report on it first hand".

sammi jo

11-05-2007, 02:36 PM

segovius

11-05-2007, 03:13 PM

The arrest count rises to 3,500 (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20071105/ap_on_re_as/pakistan). Many of these are Pakistani lawyers who got clubbed and tear-gassed by Musharraf's thugs. For a US administration which has got most of its political mileage by promoting Muslims as the new evil and a permanent enemy, there in Pakistan is one of the nastiest leaders in the region, a guy who wrecked a democracy in a military coup, who has a godawful human rights record, presides over an increasingly unstable country, with nukes, and more than likely had a hand in the planning of the 9/11 attacks, it seems more than strange that the US is treating him in a special and privileged fashion.

Granted, Pakistan is no Israel when it comes to US favoritism and serial duplicity, but it does make one wonder how far Pakistan can go before getting a 'slap on the wrist'.

No surprise...Saudi are cut from the same cloth and they are supported too. The US would probably give them a nuke.

Then there is Israel of course.

Seems that wherever there is a fascist dictatorship or an apartheid State the US is right there with a friendly grin, an open wallet and a hug of welcome.

Where's SDW btw?

We all know his take on this but I do so love to hear him play it...

mojo2

11-06-2007, 06:20 PM

You guys seem to have a Bush/Mush Bash and a Jihadi love fest going on in this thread, huh?

:smokey:

mojo2

11-06-2007, 06:26 PM

No surprise...Saudi are cut from the same cloth and they are supported too. The US would probably give them a nuke.

Then there is Israel of course.

Seems that wherever there is a fascist dictatorship or an apartheid State the US is right there with a friendly grin, an open wallet and a hug of welcome.

Where's SDW btw?

We all know his take on this but I do so love to hear him play it...

Let's get this straight.

Musharraf is the best alternative that exists there.

It's either we support Musharraf or we allow al Qaeda to take control of Pakistan AND it's nukes.

And if we are willing to bomb Iran BEFORE they get a nuclear device, how long before you think Pakistan would become the next Bosnia? (Bombings but no invasion.)

Tell you what, how about you move to Rawalpindi and really show support for your Jihadi brethren?

@_@ Artman

11-06-2007, 07:08 PM

Tell you what, how about you move to Rawalpindi and really show support for your Jihadi brethren?

Why don't you join the Surge and step on some jihadi ass? Become another duped soldier in this illegal invasion reluctantly policing states that don't want us there anymore.

mojo2

11-06-2007, 08:18 PM

Why don't you join the Surge and step on some jihadi ass? Become another duped soldier in this illegal invasion reluctantly policing states that don't want us there anymore.

I served my country. Who do you serve, Allah?

screener

11-07-2007, 12:43 AM

I served my country. Who do you serve, Allah?

This Administration has shown it's ineptness countless times, cost thousands of lives and made the Middle East more dangerous, and created more hatred toward the US.

If you think questioning the policies, motivations after the last 6 years is serving Allah, you truly are a dupe.

segovius

11-07-2007, 02:24 AM

I served my country. Who do you serve, Allah?

Technically we all serve Allah as Allah is not an individual in the sense of Jehovah but rather a word that stands for the ultimate governing principle to which all else is subordinated.

Westerners tend think in terms of 'the individual identity' and as such can only understand the concept of Allah as 'big man God in the sky' but Easterners have more flexibility and see it in the correct sense which is more akin to the Buddhist tao and encompasses everything that exists.

Even Bush serves Allah and if SDW gets his wish for Iranian annihilation that will be the will of Allah too.

screener

11-07-2007, 10:58 AM

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/05/world/asia/06diplo.html?fta=y
They called the American reaction “muted,” saying General Musharraf had not received phone calls of protest from Mr. Bush or other senior American officials. In unusually candid terms, they said American officials supported stability over democracy.

Makes sense to me?
One of the minor reasons for war was spreading democracy:no:?
It was unclear to what extent General Musharraf perceived an urgent threat to the country in deciding to declare an emergency that suspended civil liberties.

But several administration officials said they were struck by the heavy-handed nature of the crackdown announced Saturday. Until a few days ago, they said, General Musharraf had been offering private assurances that any emergency declaration would be short-lived. “They have made this crisis more acute by the way they’ve done this,” the official concluded.

Maybe the threat was this?
A poll in September by Terror Free Tomorrow, a Washington-based nonprofit group, showed that Osama bin Laden was more popular in Pakistan than General Musharraf, with 46 percent of respondents giving him a “favorable” rating against 38 percent for the president. Ms. Bhutto got a “favorable” rating from 63 percent. The nationwide poll surveyed 1,044 adults and had a margin of sampling error of plus or minus three percentage points.
What a mess.

mojo2

11-07-2007, 02:44 PM

This Administration has shown it's ineptness countless times, cost thousands of lives and made the Middle East more dangerous, and created more hatred toward the US.

If you think questioning the policies, motivations after the last 6 years is serving Allah, you truly are a dupe.

Let's see, I posed a question for Artman and you answered. So that would make you his mouthpiece.

I guess anyone else who answers for him must represent OTHER parts of his body. We'll wait and see who shows himself to be the sphincter.

mojo2

11-07-2007, 02:49 PM

Technically we all serve Allah as Allah is not an individual in the sense of Jehovah but rather a word that stands for the ultimate governing principle to which all else is subordinated.

Westerners tend think in terms of 'the individual identity' and as such can only understand the concept of Allah as 'big man God in the sky' but Easterners have more flexibility and see it in the correct sense which is more akin to the Buddhist tao and encompasses everything that exists.

Even Bush serves Allah and if SDW gets his wish for Iranian annihilation that will be the will of Allah too.

I really enjoy and respect posters who share with us their philosophies such as you have.

I wish you peace and I wish that you wished me freedom to live without coercion.

As for the wish for Iranian annihilation...

"We do not worship Iran. We worship Allah...For patriotism is another name for paganism. I say let this land (Iran) burn. I say let this land go up in smoke, provided Islam emerges triumphant in the rest of the world."

Ayatollah Khomeini

mojo2

11-07-2007, 03:51 PM

US Official: Musharraf 'Indispensable'

Wednesday November 7, 2007 8:16 PM

By ANNE FLAHERTY

Associated Press Writer

WASHINGTON (AP) - Deputy Secretary of State John Negroponte told Congress on Wednesday that Pakistan President Pervez Musharraf is an ``indispensable'' ally in the U.S.-led war on terrorism and that ``partnership with Pakistan and its people is the only option.''

In prepared testimony, Negroponte also told the House Foreign Affairs Committee that administration officials ``strongly disagree'' with Musharraf's crackdown on his political opponents.

``We strongly counseled against emergency rule, but Pakistan's leadership did not follow our advice,'' Negroponte said.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/worldlatest/story/0,,-7058535,00.html

"indispensable"

Outsider

11-07-2007, 04:43 PM

Yeah we know how Negroponte likes his 'allies'. He'll cover up for them, even if they engage in human rights abuses, kidnapping, torture and assassination. Welcome back to the early 80s.

screener

11-07-2007, 06:17 PM

Let's see, I posed a question for Artman and you answered. So that would make you his mouthpiece.

I guess anyone else who answers for him must represent OTHER parts of his body. We'll wait and see who shows himself to be the sphincter.
Why not reply to what I said?

As for Pakistan being indispensable,
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/05/world/asia/06diplo.html?_r=1&pagewanted=2&fta=y&oref=slogin
For more than a year before Saturday’s declaration, American officials have seethed over Pakistan’s poor performance against Al Qaeda and the Taliban. General Musharraf’s effort to strike a deal with Islamic militant groups in the tribal areas failed. When he ordered troops back into the tribal areas in recent months, many were killed or kidnapped.

In interviews before and after the emergency declaration, Western diplomats and former Pakistani military officials said General Musharraf had done a poor job countering growing militancy, particularly this year. The military-led government has moved too slowly, prepared poorly for operations and often appeased militant groups.
This goes back to my question, why would you think this Administration knows what the hell it's doing.

It's the only option because they screwed up the Afghan war.

mojo2

11-07-2007, 08:14 PM

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/05/world/asia/06diplo.html?fta=y

It was unclear to what extent General Musharraf perceived an urgent threat to the country in deciding to declare an emergency that suspended civil liberties.
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/05/world/asia/06diplo.html?_r=1&adxnnl=1&oref=slogin&fta=y&adxnnlx=1194484091-GbuTUe2ppnkfn+MCCAxL5A

Maybe the threat was this?

Things were certainly heating up a lot last week in Pakistan though the various jihadi attacks didn't get much coverage in the West.

In the Punjab, far from the frontier there was a major suicide bomb attack against the Pakistani Air Force, killing eight officers and cadets (probably a reprisal for air strikes in Waziristan in October). There was intense fighting in the Swat valley, a popular vacation area on the edge of the tribal area, with Pakistani helicopter gunships striking militants of the TNSM, a.k.a. the Pakistani Taliban. Another suicide bomber exploded himself and seven other people in a high security area of Rawalpindi near General Musharaf's official residence (on the anniversary of a Pakistani missile attack on an extremist TNSM madrassa last year). Whatever Musharraf's actual motives, I can think of lots of countries where this level of violence might prompt a state of emergency....

http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=NTdhZDY0NGRkODYyZWQxOWZkODZkYjgzODRiNDQ4ODA=

"...I can think of lots of countries where this level of violence might prompt a state of emergency...."

screener

11-07-2007, 08:30 PM

"...I can think of lots of countries where this level of violence might prompt a state of emergency...."
But, from your link,
This does look like a second coup by the general, given the arrests of senior judicial figures and the shutting down of private TV and radio stations (though the newspapers are as free and critical as ever). It makes it clearer than ever that the war between Musharraf and the legal community has been a disaster for Pakistan (Musharraf may well have launched his coup to pre-empt a Supreme Court ruling forbidding him to run in the election scheduled early next year).
And this,
The State Department response — calling for immediate free elections — is idiotic. Break down Pakistan's instability into just some of its component parts — Islamist militancy, tribal unrest, deep-seated ethnic separatism, feudal oppression, sectarian hatred, an incompetent and corrupt ruling elite, an ill-educated population, a paranoid and conspiratorial culture — and it's far from clear that dictatorship is the disease or elections the cure.
Seems like a lot of this was ignored by the Bush Admin. leading up to and continuing the war in Iraq.
Why would you continue to support and believe the dopes in charge?

mojo2

11-07-2007, 08:44 PM

Yeah we know how Negroponte likes his 'allies'. He'll cover up for them, even if they engage in human rights abuses, kidnapping, torture and assassination. Welcome back to the early 80s.

http://img152.imageshack.us/img152/2826/1980hh8.jpg (http://imageshack.us)

While gazing at the image play this theme music.

http://www.ultimatedallas.com/multimedia/DALAS78C.WAV

mojo2

11-07-2007, 09:06 PM

But, from your link,

And this,

Seems like a lot of this was ignored by the Bush Admin. leading up to and continuing the war in Iraq.
Why would you continue to support and believe the dopes in charge?

You are trying to falsely assert the current perception of incompetence is real just as some traditionalists might assert that the previous decades' appearance of super competence is real.

The act of calling mom and dad and your teacher a bitch or a bastard or an asshole (or EVEN a 'dope') because they do something you think is wrong is a greater wrong! But because you have never suffered the consequences of your corrosive disloyalty up close and personally (much less have you ever been in a position of leadership to understand how harmful it can be) you do it and here attempt to recruit me to join your ranks of spoiled brats by suggesting that I'M acting irrationally!

:wow: :no:

mojo2

11-07-2007, 09:30 PM

Why not reply to what I said?

As for Pakistan being indispensable,
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/05/world/asia/06diplo.html?_r=1&pagewanted=2&fta=y&oref=slogin

FP: To what degree has Musharraf been a valued ally in the fight against al-Qaeda and the Taliban?

Schippert: Simply put, Musharraf's value has always been that he kept Pakistan as a state from aligning against us. Our hope had been that he would aggressively take on the Taliban and al-Qaeda inside Pakistan. But he has not, and now they may well be too strong for him and his army to dispatch. Such are the magnified later dangers granted when terrorists are given safe haven through 'peace accords,' namely in ceding North and South Waziristan. And now it's “later.”

The unfortunate fact remains is that of those in position to cede him, one way or another, he is still the most effective – or least damaging – alternative.

http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/Read.aspx?GUID=C09A66C5-FDA4-405F-B8A5-90F3338A22AD

"...he kept Pakistan as a state from aligning against us."

This goes back to my question, why would you think this Administration knows what the hell it's doing.

Because I know the issues are more complex than we see them to be and the challenge of responding to those issues is not as easy as some of us would like to believe and that, by and large, the issue that makes you think is one of competence is actually a matter of ignorance about the nature and goals of Jihad.

Once the country understands what Jihad is all about much of the incompetence you see will magically disappear.

It's that same misunderstanding which causes the political divide in this country.

@_@ Artman

11-07-2007, 09:35 PM

http://i58.photobucket.com/albums/g255/artman46/laughzp6.gif

screener

11-07-2007, 09:54 PM

You are trying to falsely assert the current perception of incompetence is real just as some traditionalists might assert that the previous decades' appearance of super competence is real.

The act of calling mom and dad and your teacher a bitch or a bastard or an asshole (or EVEN a 'dope') because they do something you think is wrong is a greater wrong! But because you have never suffered the consequences of your corrosive disloyalty up close and personally (much less have you ever been in a position of leadership to understand how harmful it can be) you do it and here attempt to recruit me to join your ranks of spoiled brats by suggesting that I'M acting irrationally!

:wow: :no:
There ya go, blind loyalty, unquestioning lemming.
You actually believe Bush and Company are competent, wow.

Another dumb analogy, mom and dad, really, how old are you?
To humor you, if mom or dad had a history of being an asshole, well, they're assholes.

Your country was created by questioning and being "disloyal" you dimwit.

Seems to me you're a perfect yes man to authority which is your problem, but in a democracy, people get to dissent and voice opinions.

No ones trying to recruit you, you're to far gone.

screener

11-07-2007, 10:21 PM

"...he kept Pakistan as a state from aligning against us."

Because I know the issues are more complex than we see them to be and the challenge of responding to those issues is not as easy as some of us would like to believe and that, by and large, the issue that makes you think is one of competence is actually a matter of ignorance about the nature and goals of Jihad.

Once the country understands what Jihad is all about much of the incompetence you see will magically disappear.

It's that same misunderstanding which causes the political divide in this country.

The issue of competence goes back to the Afghan War.
It's simple really.
They didn't finish the fucking job, the Jihad hero is still out there, a lightning rod, attracting more terrorists.

To add to this fuckup, they decided to create more potential terrorists in Iraq by fucking up that country and getting more people killed.

And now these "Leaders" are eyeing Iran, using the fear factor yet again, terrific.

Just imagine where we would be now if they had only finished the job in Afghanistan, the home of the monster.

Maybe you wouldn't need to rely on a dictator as an only option.

mojo2

11-07-2007, 11:00 PM

The issue of competence goes back to the Afghan War.
It's simple really.
They didn't finish the fucking job, the Jihad hero is still out there, a lightning rod, attracting more terrorists.

To add to this fuckup, they decided to create more potential terrorists in Iraq by fucking up that country and getting more people killed.

And now these "Leaders" are eyeing Iran, using the fear factor yet again, terrific.

Just imagine where we would be now if they had only finished the job in Afghanistan, the home of the monster.

Maybe you wouldn't need to rely on a dictator as an only option.

Try this scenario, John Foster 'Dullard', ( http://www.arlingtoncemetery.net/jfdulles.htm ):

WMD threat to Israel.

Israel pre-emption/prevention would have started regional war or worse.

When Iran discovered Saddam had no WMD's they'd have invaded/attacked/exported terrorism into Iraq.

Oil deliveries were in jeopardy all the while.

And as this was happening we'd be on a wild goose chase looking for one guy. And one guy is not going to stop a religious agenda of global conquest.

http://www.spiegel.de/international/0,1518,369448,00.html

screener

11-08-2007, 12:04 AM

Try this scenario, John Foster 'Dullard', ( http://www.arlingtoncemetery.net/jfdulles.htm ):

WMD threat to Israel.

Israel pre-emption/prevention would have started regional war or worse.

When Iran discovered Saddam had no WMD's they'd have invaded/attacked/exported terrorism into Iraq.

Oil deliveries were in jeopardy all the while.

And as this was happening we'd be on a wild goose chase looking for one guy. And one guy is not going to stop a religious agenda of global conquest.

http://www.spiegel.de/international/0,1518,369448,00.html

Just imagine where we would be now if they had only finished the job in Afghanistan, the home of the monster.

Bin Laden is al-Qaida, chop off the head and all that.

Maybe you wouldn't need to rely on a dictator as an only option.

mojo2

11-08-2007, 02:31 AM

Just imagine where we would be now if they had only finished the job in Afghanistan, the home of the monster.

Bin Laden is al-Qaida, chop off the head and all that.

Maybe you wouldn't need to rely on a dictator as an only option.

But the danger of Israel starting WW4 wasn't going to be prevented with us keeping all our forces in Afghanistan, now was it?

@_@ Artman

11-08-2007, 10:52 AM

We're sending the Musharraff $100 million a month -- in cash?!?! (http://www.correntewire.com/were_sending_the_musharraff_100_million_a_month_in _cash)

In fact, however, a considerable amount of the money the U.S. gives to Pakistan is administered not through U.S. agencies or joint U.S.-Pakistani programs. Instead, the U.S. gives Musharraf’s government about $200 million annually and his military $100 million monthly in the form of direct cash transfers. Once that money leaves the U.S. Treasury, Musharraf can do with it whatever he wants. He needs only promise in a secret annual meeting that he’ll use it to invest in the Pakistani people. And whatever happens as the result of Rice’s review, few Pakistan watchers expect the cash transfers to end.

If you don't have nuclear weapons, you get invaded for wanting them, if you have nuclear weapons, you get paid.

Don't worry, the value of those pieces of paper are decreasing fast. :rolleyes:

segovius

11-08-2007, 11:25 AM

screener

11-08-2007, 12:11 PM

But the danger of Israel starting WW4 wasn't going to be prevented with us keeping all our forces in Afghanistan, now was it?
Iraq was no threat and the Israelis new it.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,1140458,00.html
"It was known in Israel that the story that weapons of mass destruction could be activated in 45 minutes was an old wives' tale," Yossi Sarid, a member of the foreign affairs and defence committee which is investigating the quality of Israeli intelligence on Iraq, told the Associated Press yesterday.

"Israel didn't want to spoil President Bush's scenario, and it should have," he said.
And then Scott Ritter, who was more right than wrong,
On Sunday, the former UN weapons inspector, Scott Ritter, told Y-Net, an Israeli newswire, that the Israeli intelligence services reached the conclusion years ago that Iraq no longer had weapons of mass destruction.

"In the end, if the Israeli intelligence knew that Iraq did not have weapons of mass destruction, so the CIA knew it and thus British intelligence too" he said.
Israel's War on Terror has been ongoing since it's inception.
Bush's War on Terror has expanded and is close to making it WW4 by his ineptness, incompetence.

If they had only finished the job in Afghanistan.

mojo2

11-08-2007, 12:47 PM

We're sending the Musharraff $100 million a month -- in cash?!?! (http://www.correntewire.com/were_sending_the_musharraff_100_million_a_month_in _cash)

If you don't have nuclear weapons, you get invaded for wanting them, if you have nuclear weapons, you get paid.

Don't worry, the value of those pieces of paper are decreasing fast. :rolleyes:

If Ahmadinejad is using his nuclear quest as a way of wrangling to get US foreign aid ( :lol: ) he may just be playing the strongest hand there could be! :D

However, for the sake of those who I'd guess may be some of your dear friends, you'd better hope Musharraf's administration holds strong.

@_@ Artman

11-08-2007, 12:55 PM

More famous quotes (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20071107/ap_on_go_co/us_pakistan) from our Commander and Chief of the Armed Forces to Musharraf:

"You can't be the president and the head of the military at the same time," Bush

"My message was that we believe strongly in elections and that you ought to have elections soon and you need to take off your uniform," Bush said.

http://z.about.com/d/politicalhumor/1/0/E/X/bush_badass.jpg

Indeed...:lol: :\

mojo2

11-08-2007, 01:32 PM

Iraq was no threat and the Israelis new it.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,1140458,00.html

As if a member of the Israeli government or IDF would step up to claim ownership of the scenario after we had already paid the price for world peace by displaying world class leadership. ;)

Maybe you can get some choice quotes from this guy, too.

http://img413.imageshack.us/img413/3899/indexjewsyeshivastudentgn3.jpg (http://imageshack.us)

:lol:

Bush's War on Terror has expanded and is close to making it WW4 by his ineptness, incompetence.

If they had only finished the job in Afghanistan.

Killing or catching OBL was never going to be more than a symbolic gesture. Just as killing Zarqawi and al Masri didn't stop the movement in Iraq, neither would silencing the voice of bin Laden stop Jihad.

Jihad means the conquest of all non-Muslim territories.

http://www.prophetofdoom.net/The_Little_Green_Book_1_01.Islam

An Islamic government cannot be totalitarian or despotic, but is constitutional and democratic.

http://www.prophetofdoom.net/The_Little_Green_Book_1_03.Islam

Ayatollah Kohmeini died in 1989 and close to twenty years later his words remain just as fresh today as they did when he first issued them to the world's Muslim populations.

mojo2

11-08-2007, 01:45 PM

More famous quotes (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20071107/ap_on_go_co/us_pakistan) from our Commander and Chief of the Armed Forces to Musharraf:

http://z.about.com/d/politicalhumor/1/0/E/X/bush_badass.jpg

Indeed...:lol: :\

You liberals are so into appearances that you often fail to look beneath the surface to see what's truly important.

You crack open a lobster and eat the shell rather than the delicious part.

GWB has a delicious aspect you refuse to eat. It's like black folks who were forced to eat the discarded parts of the slave master's slaughtered hogs if they were to have any meat at all and they made the best of it and now we call it Soul Food.

What will you guys call those who consume the outside shell and the crap of a matter as a regular dietary staple?

Partisan Democraps?

http://img211.imageshack.us/img211/5571/lolpoint2jc4.gif (http://imageshack.us)

mojo2

11-08-2007, 01:51 PM

We're gonna smoke out the evildoers......

Well, to be completely honest some of them weren't smoked out.

And not all of them were actually evildoers.

But there is no easy way to separate and isolate the evildoers from the non-evildoers. Therefore, as the threat continues, so does the effort.

@_@ Artman

11-08-2007, 02:03 PM

GWB has a delicious aspect you refuse to eat. It's like black folks who were forced to eat the discarded parts of the slave master's slaughtered hogs if they were to have any meat at all and they made the best of it and now we call it Soul Food.

Whoa, you are a sick fuck.

mojo2

11-08-2007, 02:34 PM

Whoa, you are a sick fuck.

That's like cursing the mirror for reflecting what you don't like about yourself.

:lol::D

@_@ Artman

11-08-2007, 02:43 PM

That's like cursing the mirror for reflecting what you don't like about yourself.

:lol::D

Yeah, you keep doing that...:rolleyes:

mojo2

11-08-2007, 04:34 PM

IIsrael's War on Terror has been ongoing since it's inception.

I disagree! The WoT has only been going on since it started.

Bush's War on Terror has expanded and is close to making it WW4 by his ineptness, incompetence.

If they had only finished the job in Afghanistan.

No, there are situations in life where you are stuck between Iraq and a hard place and you are damned either way you go.

If the State Department hadn't been full of wrong headed liberal Prima Donnas who thought THEY were the ones who directed foreign policy instead of loyal Americans who served at the direction of their superior officers and supervisors we might have had a credible and coherent policy in place after the cessation of major ground combat operations in Iraq. THAT was one of the major causes of things spiraling out of control in Iraq.

The liberal opposition to his presidency has existed before he even took office and if there is one thing we know that lasts forever it's a woman's scorn and a liberal's petty vindictiveness. No matter what it took, even for those who TRIED to keep their jobs separate from their feelings, the desire or need to exact revenge had to be straining at the bit to be unleashed when, after Bush had committed SOOOOOOOOO many 'mistakes' until then (in their eyes), he finally made the ultimate mistake by not siding with THEIR vision of how this government's foreign policy should be run in regards to Iraq's after invasion planning.

Basically, because their plan wasn't chosen they said, "ok, that was the last straw! I'm not going to help you AT ALL!" Oh, they did participate but instead of trying to make things WORK WELL they did only enough to keep from being accused of malingering.

And they KNEW the results would be messed up. And they KNEW this country would suffer. But they didn't care. The most important thing to them was to be able to make GWB look bad. And so they have. And so they do. And so do you represent that same sickening pettiness here.

Just as in the courtroom scene from the Caine Mutiny, I wonder what successes this country might have enjoyed had you and your ilk shown a bit of loyalty. :mad:

Queeg: As I always say, a command is a lonely job. It isn't easy to make decisions. Sometimes the captain of a ship needs help. And by help, I mean constructive loyalty. What I'm trying to say is, uh, a ship is like a family. We all have our ideas of right and wrong but we have to pitch in for the good of the family. If there was only some way we could help each other.

[...]

Greenwald: When I was studying law, and Mr. Keefer here was writing his stories, and you, Willie, were tearing up the playing fields of dear old Princeton, who was standing guard over this fat, dumb, happy country of ours, eh? Not us. Oh, no! We knew you couldn't make any money in the service. So who did the dirty work for us? Queeg did! And a lot of other guys, tough, sharp guys who didn't crack up like Queeg.

Keith: But no matter what, Captain Queeg endangered the ship and the lives of the men.

Greenwald: He didn't endanger anybody's life! You did! All of you! You're a fine bunch of officers.

He criticizes Maryk and the other officers for not preserving military integrity and supporting Queeg as captain when he needed their loyalty and sympathy after the dye-marking incident:

Greenwald: Tell me, Steve, after the Yellowstain business, Queeg came to you guys for help and you turned him down, didn't you?

Maryk: Yes, we did.

Greenwald: You didn't approve of his conduct as an officer. He wasn't worthy of your loyalty. So you turned on him. You ragged him. You made up songs about him. If you'd given Queeg the loyalty he needed, do you suppose the whole issue would have come up in the typhoon?

[...]

Greenwald: You ought to read his testimony. He never even heard of Captain Queeg!...Queeg was sick. He couldn't help himself. But you - you're real healthy. Only you didn't have one-tenth the guts that he had...I want to drink a toast to you, Mr. Keefer. From the beginning, you hated the Navy, and then you thought up this whole idea, and you managed to keep your skirts nice and starched and clean, even in the court martial. Steve Maryk will always be remembered as a mutineer. But you! You'll publish your novel, you'll make a million bucks, you'll marry a big movie star, and, for the rest of your life, you'll live with your conscience, if you have any. Now, here's to the real author of the Caine mutiny. Here's to you, Mr. Keefer.

And after the mock toast, he throws his champagne [another yellow-stained marker] in Keefer's face, and then offers an outspoken challenge:

Greenwald: If you wanna do anything about it, I'll be outside. I'm a lot drunker than you are - so it'll be a fair fight.

http://www.filmsite.org/cain2.html

screener

11-08-2007, 05:42 PM

I disagree! The WoT has only been going on since it started.

No, there are situations in life where you are stuck between Iraq and a hard place and you are damned either way you go.

If the State Department hadn't been full of wrong headed liberal Prima Donnas who thought THEY were the ones who directed foreign policy instead of loyal Americans who served at the direction of their superior officers and supervisors we might have had a credible and coherent policy in place after the cessation of major ground combat operations in Iraq. THAT was one of the major causes of things spiraling out of control in Iraq.

The liberal opposition to his presidency has existed before he even took office and if there is one thing we know that lasts forever it's a woman's scorn and a liberal's petty vindictiveness. No matter what it took, even for those who TRIED to keep their jobs separate from their feelings, the desire or need to exact revenge had to be straining at the bit to be unleashed when, after Bush had committed SOOOOOOOOO many 'mistakes' until then (in their eyes), he finally made the ultimate mistake by not siding with THEIR vision of how this government's foreign policy should be run in regards to Iraq's after invasion planning.

Basically, because their plan wasn't chosen they said, "ok, that was the last straw! I'm not going to help you AT ALL!" Oh, they did participate but instead of trying to make things WORK WELL they did only enough to keep from being accused of malingering.

And they KNEW the results would be messed up. And they KNEW this country would suffer. But they didn't care. The most important thing to them was to be able to make GWB look bad. And so they have. And so they do. And so do you represent that same sickening pettiness here.

Just as in the courtroom scene from the Caine Mutiny, I wonder what successes this country might have enjoyed had you and your ilk shown a bit of loyalty. :mad:

http://www.filmsite.org/cain2.html

It's the Liberals fault, who knew?:lol::lol::lol:

You gotta be missing some brain cells, commit yourself, please.

mojo2

11-08-2007, 05:51 PM

It's the Liberals fault, who knew?:lol::lol::lol:

You gotta be missing some brain cells, commit yourself, please.

Oh, there's no question that the administration made mistakes but as an American I say those were OUR mistakes. And as an American I say the faults of the bureaucracy were OUR mistakes.

However, because SOME OF US seem so willing to find and exacerbate the divisions that exist between Americans and to view our countrymen as the enemy, then I will not allow you to point at the President of the United States, who has consistently worked for the greater good despite the other differences some of us might focus on, and accuse him of wrong doing without owning up to the role you all played in this scenario.

Basically, conventional 'wisdom' allows only a one-way stream of criticism. I only present you the opportunity to show yourselves real men of character and honor in owning up to your role in what has transpired these past several years.

vinea

11-08-2007, 06:11 PM

You liberals are so into appearances that you often fail to look beneath the surface to see what's truly important.

That neither POTUS or VPOTUS choose to serve their country in battle during the war of their generation?

You crack open a lobster and eat the shell rather than the delicious part.

Or you can call a gutless wonder a gutless wonder. It is a complete disgrace that the Democratic presidential candidate had more military experience than the republican one.

That whole swiftboating thing was a complete disgrace. At least THEIR candidate had seen a frigging war.

GWB has a delicious aspect you refuse to eat.

The aspect that he had driven both our country and our party into the ground? Have you LOOKED at the state of the Republican party? Damn NeoCons. Failed liberals is what they are. Chickenhawks to the core.

The only delicious aspect is that he'd history after next year. Even that's bitter.

It used to be that we Republicans were the ones with a clue. Now we just have more "folks" like YOU.

screener

11-08-2007, 06:16 PM

Now we just have more "folks" like YOU.
:lol:

vinea

11-08-2007, 06:27 PM

If the State Department hadn't been full of wrong headed liberal Prima Donnas who thought THEY were the ones who directed foreign policy instead of loyal Americans who served at the direction of their superior officers and supervisors we might have had a credible and coherent policy in place after the cessation of major ground combat operations in Iraq. THAT was one of the major causes of things spiraling out of control in Iraq.

ARE YOU KIDDING ME? BREMER and RUMSFELD was calling the shots. Jesus christ, if we had someone like Baker calling the shots we wouldn't have had the complete cluster the first year in Iraq. There wouldn't have been a idiotic De-Baathification or even more idiotic dissolving of the Iraqi army.

You are a flipping loon. We failed EVERY aspect of the occupation from economic, security, political and ideological and it was REPUBLICANS calling the shots.

mojo2

11-08-2007, 06:46 PM

That neither POTUS or VPOTUS choose to serve their country in battle during the war of their generation?

And yet Bill Clinton...yada, yada, yada...

Or you can call a gutless wonder a gutless wonder. It is a complete disgrace that the Democratic presidential candidate had more military experience than the republican one.

And that he learned so little from the experience.

That whole swiftboating thing was a complete disgrace. At least THEIR candidate had seen a frigging war.

And THAT is exactly the appeal of the liberal. That he had SEEN war. There are some guys who SAW war who later became criminals and were imprisoned for many, many years. Their service did not make them immune from the normal human frailties, nor make them AUTOMATICALLY more wisened about the use of American power. The Democrats, however, believe that the title "war veteran" confers a special magic on a candidate, as you apparently do as well.

The truth is that men and women who are subjected to the challenges of war find their inner selves revealed, both in combat and in the period afterwards. And while we may acknowledge and honor their service we must not succumb to the casual and false liberal assumption that every war veteran knows the best way to wage war.

Sometimes soldiers aren't very good in combat.

In 1943, following the defeats of the U.S. II Corps (then part of British 1st Army) by the German Afrika Korps at the Battle of Sidi Bou Zid and again at the Battle of the Kasserine Pass, General Dwight D. "Ike" Eisenhower wanted an assessment of the corps. After Kasserine, Eisenhower sent Major-General Omar Bradley to observe the conditions of the II Corp operationally.

On 6 March 1943, as a result of Bradley's report, Patton replaced Major-General Lloyd Fredendall as commander of the II Corps. Patton was also promoted to Lieutenant-General. Soon thereafter, Patton had Bradley reassigned to his Corps Command as deputy commander. Thus began a long wartime association between the two diverse personalities.

Tough in his training, Patton was generally unpopular with his troops. However, they preferred to serve with him because they thought he was their best chance to get home alive. Both British and US officers had noted the "softness" and lack of discipline in the II Corps under Fredendall.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_S._Patton#North_African_campaign

Sometimes combat heroes aren't very good when it comes to performing in elective office. Sometimes the person who didn't serve at all is better suited for elective office.

The aspect that he had driven both our country and our party into the ground? Have you LOOKED at the state of the Republican party? Damn NeoCons. Failed liberals is what they are. Chickenhawks to the core.

What he did was to prevent a much larger war, he prevented further attacks on America, he put the enemy on it's heels, he reduced taxes, he fought the war on terror without calling for a draft, he beefed up the defenses against the evildoers without targeting peaceful Muslims, he prevented Iran from further spreading it's extremism without going underground, he kept America and the rest of the free world running, prosperous and supplied with oil, he made OBL an afterthought and he kept us so safe that most of you are able to exist in a fantasy illusion that Jihad isn't really a threat.

None of that would have been possible had GWB messed up the way you'd like to believe.

The only delicious aspect is that he'd history after next year. Even that's bitter.

It used to be that we Republicans were the ones with a clue. Now we just have more "folks" like YOU.

I usually make it a point not to attack conservatives or republicans who weaken and tire along the path, (unless they are wRONg Paul supporters) so I will stop here.

8-)