Well it has to doesn't it? If it doesn't then what will happen to all of those people who argued that it was all about oil? They can't exactly go claiming it was all about the oil getting to the market because the oil output was higher before the war than it is now.Shackley said:I wonder if the "amended draft law on how to share the country's oil wealth" will involve many US contractors and what their margin will be?
anarchist said:even stranger because the guy making the threat was supposedly killed by US forces a couple of months ago!
US diplomacy is going completely down the pan; they are in grave danger of having Musharraf booted out of office (and probably executed by exiled Benazir Bhutto), Pakistan becoming another fundamentalist Islamic state and Afghanistan cosying up to Iran.President George Bush insisted yesterday that the US would kill Osama bin Laden and other al-Qaida leaders believed to be hiding in Pakistan if it had "actionable intelligence". He refused to say whether he would first seek permission for an attack from Pakistan's president.
. . .
Relations between the US and Gen Musharraf have deteriorated sharply over the last year as the Bush administration has put pressure on him to send troops into the tribal region of Waziristan, where Bin Laden is suspected of hiding.
. . .
Relations between [Afghan President] Mr Karzai and Gen Musharraf have also been strained, with the Afghan leader claiming repeatedly during the past year that Pakistan was providing a safe haven for the Taliban. The Pakistan government has denied this.
. . .
A notable split also opened up between Mr Bush and Mr Karzai over the alleged role of Iran in Afghanistan. The US administration claims that Iran has been arming the Taliban but Mr Karzai, in an interview on US television on Sunday, described Iran as a "helper" to his country. Guardian Link
www.medialens.org/alerts/07/070802_bush_brown_summit.phpThis described how 8 million Iraqis - almost a third of the population - are in need of emergency aid. Forty-three per cent are living in "absolute poverty". Children are suffering the most: malnutrition rates have risen from 19 per cent before the 2003 invasion - a time when Iraq was being crushed by a UN sanctions regime described as “genocidal” by one senior UN diplomat - to 28 per cent now. Some 92 per cent of children show learning difficulties related to psychological trauma.
The number of Iraqis without access to adequate water supplies has risen from 50 per cent in 2003 to 70 per cent now. Eighty per cent of Iraqis lack effective sanitation. Most homes in Baghdad and other cities have two hours of electricity a day.
anarchist said:....than the huge humanitarian catastrophe going on in Iraq...
www.medialens.org/alerts/07/070802_bush_brown_summit.php
Also from MediaLens...@if ®afiq said:If Brown's speech at the recent summit was anything to go by, Iraq doesn't even register as a catastrophe, to paraphrase: "Sudan is the biggest humanitarian issue of the centuary" - in a nutsehll, the crimes we commit and the suffereing that we cause is never mentioned, let alone thought about.
Noam Chomsky recently responded to the argument that the guilt of Western governments is lessened by the fact that they do not intentionally set out to kill civilians in their attacks on Third World countries. Chomsky proposed a case that was “far more depraved than massacring civilians intentionally”:
“Namely, knowing that you are massacring them but not doing so intentionally because you don't regard them as worthy of concern. That is, you don't even care enough about them to intend to kill them. Thus when I walk down the street, if I stop to think about it I know I'll probably kill lots of ants, but I don't intend to kill them, because in my mind they do not even rise to the level where it matters. There are many such examples. To take one of the very minor ones, when Clinton bombed the al-Shifa pharmaceutical facility in Sudan, he and the other perpetrators surely knew that the bombing would kill civilians (tens of thousands, apparently). But Clinton and associates did not intend to kill them, because by the standards of Western liberal humanitarian racism, they are no more significant than ants. Same in the case of tens of millions of others.
Seems to remind me of the British Government response to the Gurkhas who went to court fighting for the right of the Nepalese veterans to settle in Britain.Iraqi interpreters who have risked their lives to help UK forces will not get asylum, a report has claimed.
. . .
BBC security correspondent Frank Gardner says interpreters are marked men who "face a horrific death". BBC Link
President Pervez Musharraf took over in a military coup in 1999, has allowed corruption to flourish and in 2007 suspended the constitution and decided that the legislative process was incompatible with his dictatorship.Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf, who is facing impeachment by parliament, says he will resign.
...
The president's public standing suffered a huge setback in 2007 when he sacked Pakistan's chief justice and nearly 60 judges to prevent them from overturning his re-election as president.
...
He has been one of the United States' strongest allies in its war against Islamist extremism - http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/7567451.stm
President Pervez Musharraf took over in a military coup in 1999, has allowed corruption to flourish and in 2007 suspended the constitution and decided that the legislative process was incompatible with his dictatorship.
It's going to be interesting to to see how exactly America's declared enthusiasm for "democracy" will cope with this little setback![]()
I have no reason to believe that those that follow Musharraf will be any less corrupt than he is - however, they do appear to have been democratically elected.He's done more for Pakistan then the other lot before him, you think he was bad?
Just watch what those criminals Zardari and Sharif will do. Pakistan is on a downhill slope now, the only thing that will save it will be another military coup, mark my works.
Just watch what those criminals zardari and sharif will do. Pakistan is on a downhill slope now, the only thing that will save it will be another military coupe, mark my works.
I have no reason to believe that those that follow him will be any less corrupt than he is - however, they do appear to have been democratically elected.
By the same token, I expect that the Americans will do everything they can to engineer another military coup, imposing a new undemocratic dictator more to their liking![]()
President Pervez Musharraf took over in a military coup in 1999, has allowed corruption to flourish and in 2007 suspended the constitution and decided that the legislative process was incompatible with his dictatorship.
It's going to be interesting to to see how exactly America's declared enthusiasm for "democracy" will cope with this little setback![]()
Yes, there is much corruption in Pakistan - I wasn't aware that Musharraf was doing so much as you suggest to stop it. Perhaps you could enlighten me on how he was going about this?Corrupt? lol, you dont know how Pakistan works, its based on corruption. To get past a police checkpoint without harassment you have to give them a 100 rupees or so.
One of the joys of dictatorship - you don't have to listen to anyone.At the same time he was free of the problem politicians suffer which is there constant bickering, ignoring ground realities and failure to act decisevely.
I don't think so; so far as I am aware, India for instance doesn't have a dictator?Pakistan is facing terrorism from its own citizens and sometimes foreign countries aid this to their own advantage. Add to this a hard war in the NWFP, unfriendly countries such as India and Afghanistan on its borders, nuclear weapons capability then you should understand that Pakistan needed a military dictator.
Maybe they did, maybe they didn't. For all I know, the CIA were asleep on the job and knew nothing about it.By your last sentence are you inferring that America engineered the coup of 1999?
stock said:Yes, there is much corruption in Pakistan - I wasn't aware that Musharraf was doing so much as you suggest to stop it. Perhaps you could enlighten me on how he was going about this?
Yes its true and it is what is needed when a country is in crisis.stock said:One of the joys of dictatorship - you don't have to listen to anyone.
stock said:I don't think so; so far as I am aware, India for instance doesn't have a dictator?
stock said:Maybe they did, maybe they didn't. For all I know, the CIA were asleep on the job and knew nothing about it.
Certainly, the Americans have never been reluctant to support coups de etat in South America or the Middle East or to oppose democracy where it suits them - why not in Pakistan?