What is Digg?117 Comments
- freakon, on 11/24/2007, -10/+34Oh come on. What do you want him to do? Invade? That will work out well >.
- VIrus9, on 11/24/2007, -7/+27It seems to me that the tone of this article suggests that the United States should be the world's policeman and lead the way in toppling oppressive dictatorships so people can come together and build democratic institutions in their place.
Strange then that many of the people who promote this idea are often among the first to point out that our current attempt at doing this hasn't gone so well. - OBKenobi, on 11/24/2007, -10/+29Bush will not do anything to upset Saudi Arabia or Pakistan, our "allies." Even if they beat rape victims, build nuclear weapons, support Islamic terror, and run despotic regimes.
Saddam hardly did anything worse in comparison, except slaughter on a slightly larger scale (not as much as the Iraqis themselves are doing today!). And lets not forget that even Saddam was once backed by the US, when it served HW Bush's agenda. Why, even Bin Laden was once our "friend."
I think it's obvious that the problem all along has been America's support of two-bit dictators and despotic regimes ever since the end of WW2. Is America really liberating anyone, or just pursuing its own political and financial interests? Isn't there a better way to combat "evil" than by allying with evil? - Adamande, on 11/24/2007, -8/+26Musharraf has been an ally of Bush all along, so the ongoing US endorsement of everything that crook does isn't very surprising. And by the way, the US is already very busy creating another Taliban by arming random Pakistani militias to fight the original Taliban, whom they also created.
http://www.iht.com/articles/2007/11/19/america/19p ... - LeeSoong, on 11/24/2007, -6/+17GOOD - The USA should Do Nothing More Often - it's not Our Problem, it's not our country.
Attempting to control the world is a bankrupting and demoralizing path for the USA.
Let the U.N. complain to him, but as far as the USA 'doing' anything - forget that...
Next will Navy Seals be saving orange robbed Buddhist monks from their own government killing them?
Not Our War - Not Our Problem. - inactive, on 11/24/2007, -1/+8Let China, Russia, India, Europe and Iran worry about it. We're busy at the moment.
- Filter, on 11/24/2007, -3/+9Wait! One minute we are supposed to stay out of the business of other countries (ie. Iraq) but the next we are supposed to do something about a person who insists on being a dictator? Doesn't anybody see the hypocrisy?
- Adamande, on 11/24/2007, -1/+7Yes, but the USA is actually doing something. It's actively supporting the military dictator Musharraf against his political opponents. And it intends to build Musharraf an army. That's why the UN complaining won't help. Like the UN complaining didn't help Iraq in 2003. Bush has the veto and the world's biggest nuclear arsenal. He can do what he wants. And he does.
- Ouze, on 11/24/2007, -0/+6they are a sovereign nation. If he announced he was going to formally dismiss the entire government and declare himself emperor, what should we theoretically do about it? Judging by the current quagmire we are ensnared in - nothing at all. Lets worry a little more about the US.
- GuacamoleSan, on 11/24/2007, -1/+7How do we kill the snakes? I know...let's send in gorillas to eat the snakes?...But what about the gorillas? Hopefully they'll die out in the winter.
- nebion, on 11/24/2007, -4/+9For example, warn him that if he proceeds, the US will officially condemn him for it and possibly withdraw financial/military cooperation and support.
You do realize that there's much more to international diplomacy than the use of force? Of course we all know Bush doesn't realize that... - hiikeeba, on 11/24/2007, -2/+7Bush isn't alone in this. All presidents have supported regimes that were less than Democratic when we needed an ally.
- inactive, on 11/24/2007, -2/+6What was the US supposed to do? If Iraq should have taught a number of Americans anything it should have taught them that just because we have a big chunk of land, a lot of tech, and a history of military victories doesn't mean that taking control comes at a trivial cost to us.
- sanman, on 11/24/2007, -5/+9You mean like how Bush pointed out the Clinton admin's hypocrisy in fighting nation-building wars in Europe, articulated by Bush's promise not to be the world's policeman? All this mere highlighting of hypocrisy by the other side seems to get cast aside once one regains office.
- RonnyN, on 11/24/2007, -0/+4I'm confused. Are we diggers for the US influencing other countries or against it?
Just want to make sure I'm going with the flow...kinda confused. - pintomp3, on 11/24/2007, -1/+5who said anything about control? we just don't have to support it. we could hank the financial and military aid we give to musharraf. we could have sanctions.
- Ouze, on 11/24/2007, -1/+5hey, in the Paki's defense, we couldn't find the abortion bomber Eric Rudolph for five years, the whole of which he was in North Carolina. And North Carolina is a lot better populated and mapped (not to mention much, much smaller) then the almost completely wild parts of Pakistan.
- pintomp3, on 11/24/2007, -2/+6we don't want to act unilaterally with military action. i realize that regime change and overthrowing governments is the only diplomacy neo-cons know, but suspension of aid and sanctions are what most civilized countries to do other countries when they don't support their actions.
- scottknick, on 11/24/2007, -0/+4Gosh, Digglodytes, there might possibly be an alternative here to military intervention, unilateralist strong-arming and 11th-hour isolationism. True, our covert support for Pakistan's nuclear weapons program, our turning a blind eye as Pakistan shared that technology with other nations, and our anti-democratic coddling of the Musharraf regime, are all water under the dam now. We're left with a nuclear-armed country with a military junta trying to keep a lid on Islamist extremists. Now what?
Well, step one would be to stop enabling Musharraf by insisting on his full support for democracy and anti-proliferation. That means purging the military and intelligence forces of Bin Laden supporters. And it means doing something meaningful to turn over Bin Laden. And if Musharraf won't take real steps in this direction, then we will take steps with the international community to sharply limit his nuclear program, as we are doing with North Korea and Iran, and as we did (with great success) in Iraq.
No country can become a nuclear power in isolation. You don't grow nukes like potatoes -- you get the technology and expertise from other industrialized nations. We have turned a blind eye to this because we have profited by being one of the players. It's time to get serious about nuclear non-proliferation, no matter what it costs the international arms industry. - jonathansoeder, on 11/24/2007, -1/+5The same was said about Indonesia's Dictator Suharto in the 70's. That we knew he was going to invade East Timor, and we did nothing. The reality was discovered, after documents were declassified, that Kissinger and Gerald Ford gave him the Green Light to invade, which is not doing nothing to stop a crime but in fact, doing something to support it.
I wouldn't be surprised if this is much different. Musharraf was most likely given the green light.
Put yourself in his shoes. The US military has permanent military bases directly to your north and to your west. The American Media and many of its politicians are actively labeling your country as a dangerous enemy. The CIA has direct contacts with high ranking assets in your own Intelligence network and military, any number of which might be able to overthrow you if given the order. The US has a military proxy - Israel - with nukes pointed at you.
If you are Musharraf do you take that kind of gamble? with the US on a permanent interventionist, and war footing? It is very unlikely that he acted without assurances directly from the White House. - sanman, on 11/24/2007, -0/+3Google "Pressler Amendment"
(originally known as the Reagan-Bush Amendment)
removal of congressional oversight against Pakistan's development of nuclear weapons, to place it solely in the hands of presidential discretion - noahhoward, on 11/24/2007, -5/+8An if we would have invaded you'd all be bitching about that too. Really sick of hearing what people think the US should and should do, they're damned if they do and damned if they don't. Perhaps you want them to use Bush Sr.'s policy of kicking in the door then politely leaving everyone else to suffer because the job was half done? Is that the happy median?
- urbannomad23, on 11/24/2007, -0/+3you have no understanding of diplomacy.
- Waiting2awake, on 11/24/2007, -2/+5Hikeeba - That isn't why he is being dug down. He is being dugg down because at any time whenever this Admin has had to account for itself it has falled to the "But..but..but clinton", which just smacks of the lack of responsibility taken from both sides of the fense, and the partisanship a demonstration of what is killing your country.
The trouble is that the US refuses to have any of their soldiers under UN control, thus it UN missions tend to be lead by people who are much better at other roles, but can not fill them due to nationalistic ego. - motters, on 11/24/2007, -0/+3Musharraf is in very much the same position today that Saddam Hussain was in the 1980s. He's seen as a bullwork against enemies of the west, so any indiscretions by his regime are conveniently overlooked. Unfortunately Musharraf's rule has been becoming increasingly unstable and irrational. Democracy for the people of Pakistan could be close at hand.
- ShrimpCrackers, on 11/24/2007, -0/+3The US did the same thing on Taiwan. Except it was a massacre. When the Chinese Nationalists began a massacre on the local population in Taiwan the US responded by giving the Chinese Nationalists more arms and more money. This was in the 50's. Over ten thousand innocent civilians died after 2/28 for no good reason. Much more would die in the longest Martial Law ever imposed by a government. Over the decades, after many lives lost, and many prominent opposition members assassinated, Taiwan slowly became a democracy as the locals began to rise against the government. Today the Chinese Nationalist party is still around on Taiwan and is now the richest party in any democracy in the world, thanks in part to US funding and support, however they still continue with dark practices now and then.
We voted these guys out of office. Yet some in the US, like the State Department, still support the Chinese Nationalists.
Look, yeah if China invades, we Taiwanese want your help, and we are already allies. But if the Chinese Communists come and invade and start massacres, please, please don't give the Chinese more money and more weapons to kill more of the local population. Its bad enough the US didn't just sit idly by once and supported this in Taiwan. It'll be bad if they do it elsewhere again. - inactive, on 11/24/2007, -0/+3Aloha
- prophet5, on 11/24/2007, -2/+4You Liberals need to make up your ***** minds.
First you bitch that we "interfered" in Iraq, now you're bitching that we're NOT interfering in Pakistan.
Make up your ***** minds, you bed-wetting panzies. Then grow some balls.
You ***** deserve someone like Hitlery Clinton to represent you. - SysStream, on 11/24/2007, -0/+2The US knew everything beforehand and takes a smart-ass move to keep silent. When everything starts to shake up, then comes the Bush to save them with 'facts'.
- spyd3rweb, on 11/24/2007, -4/+6Where would Al Qaeda be able to hide Bin Laden where we couldn't find him if it wasn't for Pakistan.
- arjie, on 11/24/2007, -0/+2Aargh, my links is broken:
[1] http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5h1aBshjF1CnfJ4n ...
[2] http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/la-f ... - arjie, on 11/24/2007, -0/+2Exactly!
"The United States has provided nearly $10 billion in assistance to Pakistan since 2001..."[1]
"rather than use the more than $7 billion in U.S. military aid to bolster its counter-terrorism capabilities, Pakistan has spent the bulk of it on heavy arms, aircraft and equipment that U.S. officials say are far more suited for conventional warfare with India, its regional rival."[2]
Do nothing, for god's sake, please do nothing. I really wish the US would just do that.
[1] http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5h1aBshjF1CnfJ4n ...
[2] http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/la-f ... - inactive, on 11/24/2007, -1/+3I know, lets leave it to the United Nations. They can pass about five hundred resolutions and not do a damn thing about it. Then we can have an aid program for the poor in Pakistan and the UN president can let his kids siphon off the money for a while. Lets see, next we could condemn the only countries with the balls to do anything to enforce the five hundred resolutions and finally we will blame Bush when it is all over. Musharraf is going after the Islamic extremists who are attempting to take over the country. I say send him more aid and help him exterminate the terrorist bastards.
- ubergeek09, on 11/24/2007, -1/+3If they did say or do anything everyone would complain about them doing something about it, and if they don't' everyone complains they didn't do anything.
- jtbly, on 11/24/2007, -5/+7Like the United States government doesn't have "emergency rule" plans in place. Sort of like the plan to invade a country for oil or whatever reason you can dream up.
- BrianVII, on 11/24/2007, -0/+2Yea allow democratic elections in a country that will vote in a group like Hamas. Bhutto is one of the most corrupt people in Pakistan's history, the media is doing the same thing with her as with Hillary Clinton. "poor woman" they continue to play the "she's a woman" card so she can't be "bad". Musharraf is the best thing that ever happened to Pakistan. Do you really want terrorists getting control of their nuclear arsenal? Pakistan isn't ready for a democracy nor is almost every country in the middle east. We already learned this when Palestine elected HAMAS.
- Ouze, on 11/24/2007, -1/+3I don't think referring to a Pakistani citizen as a Paki is any more offensive then referring to a British one as a Brit.... but suppose I will spell it out going forward, anyway.
- MonkeyHugger, on 11/24/2007, -0/+2Get your head out of Michael Moore's ass.
- blowmechowmnkey, on 11/24/2007, -2/+4It's not about having a reasoned policy stance, it's about hating Bush.
- hiikeeba, on 11/24/2007, -1/+3That way when the Pakistanis join the global jihad against us, they can point to American heartlessness and cruelty and imperialism just like bin Laden does. And then we'll hear "If we hadn't stuck our nose in their business. . ." all the time.
- hiikeeba, on 11/24/2007, -1/+3Ah. Been reading Digg, I see. Vote Ron Paul!
- synarchy, on 11/24/2007, -0/+2Dugg down for failure to provide even one word of explanation for posting a YouTube.com link.
- inactive, on 11/24/2007, -1/+2I'm for America shutting the ***** up for a while. They don't have a moral leg to stand on. Plus they have more than enough problems to deal with domestically.
This whole thing is ridiculous. People want America to police the world and everytime it does, hundreds of thousands die and the situation is always worst than it was at first. America is no more responsible for the fate of the world than Russia, Australia, France, the U.K., Sweden or any other country. If those degenerates want to kill each other, let them. If anything it will thin their numbers and one way or another, one side will win and the conflict will be done with. - friday1970, on 11/25/2007, -0/+1I wonder of JohnD24, the person who submitted this article to digg, would also like to have us go down to Venezuela and take out Chavez who is trying to implement a dictatorship. He is silencing any opposition, trying to remove term limits, and calling anyone who disagrees with him a traitor. Would JohnD24 like to have us "meddle" with this country as well?
- BradMajors, on 11/24/2007, -1/+2Great Britain also had advance knowledge and did nothing.
- friday1970, on 11/25/2007, -0/+1Are you going to cry now?
You're a man. Stop using the word offensive. - thegreatgazoo, on 11/24/2007, -1/+2Of course. Bush/The UN could have written a strongly worded letter, and Musharraf would have ignored it and done the same thing.
Personally, I'd rather we worked WITH him so we could protect their nukes for them. - 786digger, on 11/25/2007, -0/+1People don't care about that ***** - they care about what the ***** media tells them and then they buy it hook line and sinker - no one can think for themselves nowadays - their thinking has to be done for them.
- hendrix69, on 11/24/2007, -0/+1if the government did anything, then everyone would be pissed off at them for meddling with other countries affairs. so why are we complaining about NOT doing anything?
- friday1970, on 11/25/2007, -0/+1And your solution is?
-
Show 51 - 100 of 115 discussions
The Digg Toolbar for Firefox lets you Digg, submit content, and keep track of Digg even when you're not on the Digg site. Download the official 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is