What is Digg?110 Comments
- PatrioticKiwi, on 10/12/2007, -8/+61Therein lies the problem with how we pick our allies. We don't consider the long term. This is partly because politicians are only ever interested in winning elections, which means they only need to consider short term political alliances of convenience.
Pakistan is simply another Saudi Arabia in disguise. We call Pakistan our "ally" in the war against terrorism. But what about Pakistan's state sponsored terrorism against India? Have we already forgotten that the Mumbai train bombing in July last year (which killed nearly 200 people) was perpetrated by Pakistani terrorists? Pakistan is a deeply conservative Muslim country and its people are hostile to the west. They also have nuclear weapons. Musharraf is no more than a friendly-looking public face concealing the REAL Pakistan that westerners don't see. For his half-hearted measures to tackle terrorism, Musharraf has already faced numerous assassination attempts by Islamic terrorists. If Musharraf falls, it is likely that the west will be left with an anti-western regime not too dissimilar to other extremely conservative Muslim countries. - RadiantBeing, on 10/12/2007, -2/+30Zigbigniew Brzezinski, the Democratic NSA to Carter, was the architect of the plan "Operation Cyclone" to supply the mujaheddin with weapons to fight the Soviet Union's invasion of Afghanistan. Reducing history to partisanship is foolish. Incidentally, I think he made the right choice for the time.
Welcome to the real world. Situations, interests, security systems, and events change and alliances must change with them. Maybe you think foreign policy should be guided by absolute principles. Fine. Go back to the 1970s when the Soviet Union, which incidentally has tens of thousands of nukes pointed at you, wants to take over a very strategic country like Afghanistan. What do you do? Organize peace rallies or fund whoever is crazy enough to fight them. There usually aren't any black and white choices. It is all grey. - kevinmumaw, on 10/12/2007, -3/+30http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20070301/ts_nm/pakistan_taliban_dc_2
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -15/+39"That's exactly why the Republicans in power, including Rumsfeld, originally supported Saddam during his war with Iran, and the same reason why they (Reagan et al) supported the Taliban. They create monsters simply because they're sure that the ends justifies the means. It is dangerous to have people in power who are excessively certain that they're right."
Give me a break. Democrats have done the same exact thing time and time again - this isn't a Republican issue, it's a bipartisan issue. Lots of Democrats signed over for the exact same thing - and for you to pretend like it's just one party, makes you a ***** moron.
Let's put it like this - do you remember Iraq? I do. I remember it back when Clinton was in office - do you know the one story that sticks out in my head? The 100 Million Dollars he gave the Shia's to fight Saddam. We gave them that money a few years after Bush Senior drove the American flag through Iraq after they invaded Kuwait. However, the 100 million dollar proposal was Clinton's, not any Republicans. In fact - many of the Republicans were against it at the time.
Guess who he gave the money too?
Grand Ayatollah Mohammad Mohammad Sadeq al-Sadr
Guess who's daddy that was?
The current leader of the Mahdi Army, some of the largest insurgents we've been fighting in Iraq.
Kudos to you for truly researching your criteria before coming here to post.
Oh no, that's right, you decided to generalize and assume that popular opinion would forego your obvious stupid conclusions in lieu of any real evidence. - kevinmumaw, on 10/12/2007, -7/+29It gets worse. Afghan civilians in eastern Afghanistan hold as fact that the ISI fully supports the Taliban...it is a strange arrangement in which the Taliban are given free reign in the northwest provinces of Pakistan as long as they don't meddle with the rest of Pakistan. To some extent, Pakistan is an ally, but not one we can trust. Musharraf understands he has a tenuous hold as it is. An occasional arrest here and there is the minimal effort the Pakis will give.
- LGFfan74656, on 10/12/2007, -7/+26Pakistan will throw us a bone everynow and then to look like theyre doing soemthing, but no more effort than that. They know exactally where those jihadist are.
- luther70, on 10/12/2007, -0/+15It was alliance of convenience. The US help lift the economic sections that where imposed by the UN for their nuclear program.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -5/+20Pakistanis hate the US just as much as any other country over there
I think the reason they becaame our ally in the first place, after 911, was they were terified the US would invade them. But since USA is bogged down in Iraq, they are free to do what they want, ie. harbor terrorists - elebrio, on 10/12/2007, -8/+23An occasional arrest is better than what we were getting before. I don't expect any administration to work miracles overnight.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -17/+29patriot:
>Therein lies the problem with how we pick our allies. We don't consider the long term.
That's exactly why the Republicans in power, including Rumsfeld, originally supported Saddam during his war with Iran, and the same reason why they (Reagan et al) supported the Taliban. They create monsters simply because they're sure that the ends justifies the means. It is dangerous to have people in power who are excessively certain that they're right. - darushin, on 10/12/2007, -4/+15The real reason they are doing something:
The Pakistani leaders were given invitations to go hunting with VP since they weren't too busy with the war on terror.... - grobinson, on 10/12/2007, -2/+12Dick Cheney Made him an offer he couldn't refuse.
yea I thought there were NO Taliban hiding across the Afgan/Pakistan border. Or at least that's what the Pakistan Govt has been saying since 2001. - CraigB12, on 10/12/2007, -11/+20This seems strangely (or not so strangely) reminicent to the scene in Casablanca when the prefect of police arrests Ungadi at Rick's just so General Strausser thinks they're actually getting things done. Cheney should just stay there, he's doing more good for us by not being in the country.
- stonewaljacksn, on 10/12/2007, -8/+16maybe they went hunting together?
- karmic, on 10/12/2007, -3/+11Facts:
+ Pakistan and Saudi Arabia were the only countries to recognize the Taliban as the govt of Afganistan.
+ The Pakistani ISI trained and equiped the Taliban - long after the Soviets left.
+ Pakistan is still a country of haves and have nots, with the have nots being very sympathetic to Jihad in general and OBL in specific. - karmic, on 10/12/2007, -2/+9Got that right.
- royceguy, on 10/12/2007, -4/+11Dugg just to prove liberals will digg from right wing nut job sites just as often as we do for left wing nut job ones....when the story is actually worth it.
"You don't get to tell me I don't support the troops until you have served at least half as long as I did." - jetboyterp, on 10/12/2007, -13/+20Kudos! A "good news" story, from LGF, hits DIGG'S front page. How long before the libs bury this?
Lots of talk here on whether Pakistan is a true ally or not. Musharaff walks a thin line in his own country. I believe he wants to do the right thing, but he also wants to do right by Pakistan. We often have made, say, semi-allies of not-so-good friends...WW2 with Stalin, Iraq in it's war with Iran, etc...We do what's necessary for the times.
Enemies can soon be friends, and vice-versa...Like the ol' saying goes: Keep your friends close, but your enemies closer... - karmic, on 10/12/2007, -2/+9Pakistan has never had an elected government finish its term. Never.
Pakistan is a leading force behind Jihad - after 9/11, folks in washington (republican and democrat) were relieved to have Pakistan as an ally against the Taliban. We did a deal and reversed sanctions imposed for their nuke program.
Pakistan has learned to play both sides in a bit of a game. Musharraf is not a "friend" but a dictator who has to do business with the ISI to stay in power.
Al Qaeda is up and running in Waziristan as a result - a safer place for them than Afganistan was.
None of this will come to a head until the next high casualty attack in the US - then Americans will have the stomach to go after Pakistan. This time there won't be an occupation and nationbuilding effort - simply strike, depose, hobble, and leave. - JimV, on 10/12/2007, -10/+16I think what happened was one of two things:
1. Cheney told them that if they didn't shape up, we'd bomb them into the stone-age, or
2. Cheney said that if Musharraf couldn't find the terrorists, Cheney would go hunting for them with him. - ClosedCaption, on 10/12/2007, -3/+8Didnt Cheney meet with leaders in the middle east and tell them basically to get themselves in order because the Democratic Majority was threatening doing something like pulling out or with holding funds?
Isnt it Ironic....dont cha think - karmic, on 10/12/2007, -3/+8bigdavediode -
>True, and he was uniformly criticized by the Democrats for his hawkish stance on foreign policy. This contributed to Carter's loss and failure to win a second term. So your example of an aggressive interventionist policy isn't exactly typical behavior out of the Democrats while it is almost common out of the Republicans.
Are you saying that Carter lost because of a hawkish foreign policy? So the country elected a dove in Ronald Regan? Do I have that correct? - BigBaRay, on 10/12/2007, -11/+16"That's exactly why the Republicans in power"
While it might be true that these Republicans in power supported Saddam at one time. Where they alone in their support? Or is it possible that alot of people at the time supported something and then as things turned out they didn't quite go as planned?
I mean it seems ironic that some people are allowed to Flip Flop all over the board on some issues on a month to month basis. While others are held to the Bar for years and even decades.
(Kudos as well, We have meet before) - Highrise1, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5Pakistan is a Progressive country? I want what you are smoking dude. Tell that to the woman who just got murdered there. Tell that to the women who get raped there and told that their account of what happened needs to be backed up by 4 men...and do you think the 4 men who raped her are going to admit it? Are you all there? That is probably the most stupid statement I've ever heard..you are worse than a loon hehe.
- ggoriam, on 10/12/2007, -3/+7What do you consider reputable news? Kos? LMAO. Btw, LGF linked the story from ABC's Brian Ross with no commentary other than a quick explanation of what the story was about. Not that I think that ABC is totally reliable, but one seems to be in your court.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4A week after the Pakis foreign aid package was threatened they come up with a Taliban big shot. Why not offer then $1 billion and see if they can come up with the big weenies: Mullah Omar, Al-Zawahiri, and Bin Laden.
- geronimo, on 10/12/2007, -3/+7The problem with Pakistan is it's not a democracy or a democratic republic. The solution would be for them to become a democratic country with fair voting. Then we will know where they stand - pro-Taliban. Right now Musharraf is being a bit two faced, if they would just come out in the open and elect pro-Taliban leaders then we will know where they stand and we can deal with the country who really attacked us on 9/11. Right now their Taliban hide behind the dictatorship of Musharraf. When Bush said, "you are either with us or against us" he was trying to get Musharraf to stand up and take sides, but he hasn't do so yet and this wasn't effective. If Bush were a thinking man he would do his best to bring democracy to Pakistan and nip this problem in the bud. I prefer a pro-Taliban democratic Pakistan rather than a pro-Taliban undemocratic Pakistan which is only tough on terrorism when they need foreign aid. That entire region, India & Pakistan, is crawling with scammers and Musharraf is the biggest scammer of them all. He is up there with Nigeria on the scammer scale. This arrest doesn't impress me, it's a drop in the bucket.
- Cattttt, on 10/12/2007, -6/+9Do you ever, like, have an opinion on anything other than spiced lunch meat?
- bluto36, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3wow don't you think it is a bit racist to compare small animals to Pakistani or are you just projecting.
/don't understand why you have to libel small animals - OggVorbis, on 10/12/2007, -4/+7It would be good if Pakistan were a democracy......ya think? I have a better idea. Let's start trying to install democracy at digg. Let's make it work here first, and then when we can figure out how to do that, we can export it? How's that for a concept?
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -9/+12bigbaray:
>While it might be true that these Republicans in power supported Saddam at one time. Where they alone in their support? Or is it possible that alot of people at the time supported something and then as things turned out they didn't quite go as planned?
It is possible, but you don't supply examples to address. Generally, however, Democrats are not sure that their solutions are correct, while Republicans are beyond adamant that their solutions are absolutely correct. This surety results in radical, more dangerous and drastic action which although sometimes is right, often has dangerous and drastic consequences.
>Give me a break. Democrats have done the same exact thing time and time again - this isn't a Republican issue, it's a bipartisan issue. Lots of Democrats signed over for the exact same thing - and for you to pretend like it's just one party, makes you a ***** moron.
Why, because I want to assign blame not purely along party lines, but where it lies? I've upset you. You obviously have a great deal of ego invested in the Republican party. Yes, Democrats do participate in this to an extent, however things such as financing death squads in El Salvador, coups in Guatemala, efforts to overthrow governments in Panama, Eisenhower's 1953 coup against the democratically elected government of Iran which installed the Shah in the first place which then eventually caused a backlash and a theocracy, I could go on and on... but let's face it, blame does not lie anywhere near equally to each party.
>Let's put it like this - do you remember Iraq? I do. I remember it back when Clinton was in office - do you know the one story that sticks out in my head? The 100 Million Dollars he gave the Shia's to fight Saddam. We gave them that money a few years after Bush Senior drove the American flag through Iraq after they invaded Kuwait. However, the 100 million dollar proposal was Clinton's, not any Republicans. In fact - many of the Republicans were against it at the time.
Funny you mention that! I laughed out loud! That was implementing a "classified U.S. presidential order to oust Saddam Hussein" from guess what year? That's right, 1991, directly from Republican president George W. Bush. Thanks for the example! Body slam! It's not a 100% one party, but you've really brought everybody to my side with that one. Thanks again. - karmic, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3The whole "Democrat war" vs. "Republican war" bit is crap.
Whomever is in charge gets to deal with reality. Both Republican admins and Democrat admins have and will cut deals with unsavory people. Much of the rest of the planet is dominated by thugs and you have to deal with them from time to time. Can't go to war with everyone of them.
Case in point - the Democrats have yet to defund/end the Iraq war, as they said they'd do if elected to Congress. Looks like reality is biting them in the ass too. - geronimo, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4"There is minority group which suppots taliban and their agendas, Pakistan is progressive country where people have better things to worry about than helping talibans."
But then your ISI allows the Taliban to operate unimpeded, training with them, financing them, protecting them, many people move between the two groups, blurring the lines between the ISI and the Taliban. That is what people refer to when they say Pakistan helps the Taliban. It might be a minority but it's a minority which attacked the U.S. on 9/11/2001 and it is allowed to operate and even helped by your government despite a few token gestures where it allowed CIA drones to take out a few Taliban in Pakistan. If it's such an unimportant minority then why are they still operating inside of Pakistan, attacking U.S. forces? Granted there are many progressive Pakistanis but at the end of the day, Pakistan is still aiding the people who attacked the U.S. so it doesn't really mean much. - craka, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4someone may have said it already but Pakistan is in a very bad spot. I'm sure they would love to let us go in there and clean Al Qaeda out. The problem is that then they risk radicalizing much of their population against the government which would be a catastrophe since the govt is somewhat moderate. There's just no easy answer to the Pakistan problem.
- cpsoper, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Progressive?
http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/163076/when_women_are_property_husband_sells.html - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -2/+4mahmann:
>First of all, there are many "europeans" who agree with what Bush/The US is trying to do in the Middle East.
Nope, a small minority actually agrees with Bush. Would you like some polls on it? His popularity in Canada was at around 10%. Now it's lower. - karmic, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Here is another digg that is, in a way, related.
http://www.digg.com/world_news/Saudi_Arabian_oil_declines_8_in_2006
It has to do with Saudi Arabia running out of oil. Production has declined 8% there in 2006 and an oil analysts concludes that they are in a decline.
Saudi Arabia is believed to have paid for Pakistan's nuke program. The two countries are closely tied (both having been the only ones to recognize the Taliban in Afganistan).
If the Sauds start losing oil revenue, what happens to Pakistan?
OBL may get his Claiphate yet - it just won't have much in the way of natural resources. - ggoriam, on 10/12/2007, -7/+9Having a little problem with free speech today sparky?
- bigtroutz, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2erm, not exactly....
Pakistan (independence = 1947) has been aligned with the USA for most of it's existence as a country. It joined the US aligned SEATO pact in 1954 (later becoming CENTO) and [an additional agreement (the Agreement of Cooperation) on security was concluded with the United States in March 1959, by which the United States committed itself to the "preservation of the independence and integrity of Pakistan" and agreed to take "appropriate action, including the use of armed forces, as may be mutually agreed upon . . . in order to assist the Government of Pakistan at its request." ]
[Between 1954 and 1965, the United States provided Pakistan with US$630 million in direct-grant assistance and more than US$670 million in concessional sales and defense-support assistance. ]
http://lcweb2.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/r?frd/cstdy:@field(DOCID+pk0149)
All this comes under the category of 'Realpolitic' which has been the main foreign policy thrust of ALL US administrations since 'Containment' was formulated in post WWII US as a response to the Cold War.
- JohhnyNeo, on 10/12/2007, -2/+4At this time, in that part of the world, I doubt we could have a better person for the job than Musharraf. If he was totally a slave of the West he would be dead by now and some Islamic nut job would be deciding who to give their nukes to.
The army is the only thing keeping that country together, and a pro-Islamic anti-West middle-rank officer coup could easily tip that country into a terrible abyss. This has happened before in many countries - the top levels of command are loyal (bought) by the president and outside interest, but mid-ranked officers are not as invested in the regime, often have had "revolutionary" experience, and are relatively sympathetic to the opposing side. - Mahmman, on 10/12/2007, -3/+5"practically no country actually "likes" America"
I love it when people push the "intellectual Europeans who blindly hate Americans" stereotype. First of all, there are many "europeans" who agree with what Bush/The US is trying to do in the Middle East. Secondly, do you think we can't think for ourselves when we determine if we "like" or "hate" a person? And this really illustrates the point, I forget where the quote was from, but an european told an american: "The problem with you americans is that you see everything in black and white". And the american replied: "and the problem with you europeans is that you see everything in shades of gray". - bluto36, on 10/12/2007, -12/+14oh look billiam with his normal hard on for LGF. you are supposed to see the doctor if it last more than 4 hours but way to go!
- sanman, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3Pakistan is basically harboring both the Taliban and AlQaeda. They don't want the War on Terror to be over -- why kill the Goose that Lays the Golden Eggs? As long as the War on Terror keeps going, Pakistan gets lots of cash, as the "loyal military ally".
Notice that there's no Deck of 52 here. Washington and Islamabad want to keep their list open-ended, so that way they can keep screwing around without making any progress. They keep arresting lesser guys, while claiming yet another Taliban or AlQaeda "leader" has been nabbed. That way, the real leadership keeps operating, and Bin Laden stays free and living the good life in the Pakistani city of Quetta.
Anytime things get too hot for the Whitehouse, they have to pay Musharraf a visit, and nudge him to arrest someone a little closer to the top, which Musharraf normally doesn't like to do.
So between the two of them, they've got a pretty good little scam going. Recently, you all heard about how Pakistani intelligence agents busted into the hotel room of New York Times reporter Carlotta Gall and assaulted her while confiscating her laptop. This is because they were afraid she was getting too close to the truth in writing about the whereabouts of Bin Laden.
Osama Bin Laden is living in the Pakistani city of Quetta. Pakistan knows this, the US knows this, and AlQaeda and Taliban know this.
Nobody will arrest Osama to bring him to justice, or bring justice to the thousands of Americans who died on Sept 11, 2001. - bcismar, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1@neuroticus
Well the filter on who is and who isn't entitled to an opinion is always based on what the message is and not who the messenger is. Even when the claim is made that that only certain qualified people or sources have a right to post/express some view, you can be the selection of those considered qualified is crafted towards what their message is expected to be.
Qualified fee speech is NOT free speech. - cpsoper, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2Progessive indeed - enough for a husband to sell his wife's kidney without her knowledge and a daughter to be traded for poker losses (and the decision confirmed by an elder's council!)
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -3/+4Karmic:
>Are you saying that Carter lost because of a hawkish foreign policy? So the country elected a dove in Ronald Regan? Do I have that correct?
He certainly lost his base because of the unpopularity of Brzezinski. (Yes, yes, and there were other reasons as well, including economic weakness.) - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -3/+4Bamont:
>It's apparent that what you've done is precisely what many other Leftists on Digg do - anyone that disagrees with you HAS to be right-wing, Neo-conservative, or Republican. I'm none of the three, I'm a Libertarian who picks the best person for the job.
Good for you. Except for the Libertarian bit. Their solution to radicalism is... more radicalism.
>Secondly, you didn't upset me with what you said. I actually chuckled at your post because it was so ill-advised that Moore might have well wrote it. Nothing you did was irritating in the least - though I'm certain that gives you pause for amusement to be called a ***** moron - I'm certain it happens often enough that the two-word slice into your ego probably just rolls right off your back.
Yeah, your laughter came through loud and clear with the "***** moron" bit. (/sarcasm)
>I agree with the sentiment that Republicans are more gung-ho about taking military force, because it has been shown in their track-record.
So now you agree with me, thanks. I appreciate that. They are also more likely to try to influence other countries affairs and governments.
>You're very similiar to a young man I once ran into - very idealistic, rather smart, but overall lacked very much substance in his arguments. His main flaw was that he believed anytime you see a few people doing a lot of things - that all people that fall under certain pretenses will assimiliate to that behavior.
I can't speak for all Republicans, I can only tell you that the intelligent ones have already abandoned the party. I know, I am a heavy duty fiscal conservative.
>Saying that our foreign policy is where it is because of Republicans is stupid. The fact that you come here guns blazing with no evidence to support your claims is quite faulty, and while some of what you say is true - you've also manipulated some of that truth to fit your own agenda.
"No evidence" after the laundry list that I and bigbarat just assembled. Huh. I don't think you've even addressed the point -- Republican (governments) are ***** sure of their actions, because they are absolutely sure that they're right, and Democrats are weenies. (There, I insulted Democrats, I hope that makes you feel better about how bad the Republicans mess things up.) - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -3/+4Bamont:
>Uniformly? Show proof of that one. I'd like to see documents dating back from that time that describe precisely what you've described - if not, it's just a conjecture you concocted to better facilitate your faulty point of view.
He was booed at the 1980 Democratic convention from what I've read. And that's rare at those love-ins. - harshalx, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2You forgot that Saudi's and Paki's are both Sunni's. And hence the brotherhood and the sponsorship for the nukes. Saudi's wanted a Islamic nuke to keep the west at bay. West now a days means only US since any other western country as a economic & military power is absolutely negligible.
- ggoriam, on 10/12/2007, -2/+3No, the argument is over the purposeful (and organized) burying of articles submitted to digg by persons who may have a viewpoint that differs from yours. You've admitted as much in the first post in this thread.
-
Show 51 - 100 of 106 discussions
Digg is coming to a city (and computer) near you! Check out all the details on our 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is