Not in this case. Some aren't true, others are red herrings, and Dean was right when he said the capture of Saddam doesn't make us any safer. Even if you assume the ones that have been sold as having some future payoff, who here would be willing to bet $100's of billions, our reputation and prestige, plus 500 (and counting) lives that any, much less all, will succeed?
Bingo. Union Oil of California (Unocal) is building, or has built (I'm too lazy to check, it's late) a gigantic pipeline for that natural gas. It would go through Afghanistan and Pakistan to reach the sea/ocean. The Taliban was becoming an unstable steward, to say the least; and then 9/11 came along and gave us the pretext of invading Afghanistan. Pakistan, despite a great antipathy toward the U.S., is our "ally" largely because: a) they already have The Bomb; and b) Unocal's pipeline. As far as our invasion of Afghanistan, which killed at least as many civilians as died in 9/11---but not real civilians, mind you; you'll never see the results of what happened to them on CBS---we might have managed that a bit better. Paraphrasing Gore Vidal, "You don't carpetbomb Palermo to get rid of the Mafia."
I try to be nice because you are a fellow ROX,... but how do you feel confident that 3000+ Afghan civilians were carpetbombed? Where is the reasoning of this summation?
I never said India borders Afghanistan, though it's kind of you to pretend that I did in some way. India does border Pakistan. When Pakistan goes pear shaped, the only country in that region we have much in common with is India. You keep saying I inferred things when I said no such thing about troops in India. The current Pakistani government is the counterbalance to what? A worse muslim government in Pakistan apparently. That's not much of a comfort. I really don't care what Musharraf is taking heat for, cause apparently that's what's giving Bin Laden safe haven, and it ain't worth us holding back. This makes the whole war on terrorism thing a farce. Are we afraid of chasing Bin Laden down because a dictator might fall out of power?
If you know anything about ISI and the history of Pakistan, they freaking supported the creation of more muslim fundies with their government funds. They also turned a blind eye to those same fundies killing religious minorities. Still haven't cracked down enough since 9/11. Well apparently the United States can declare war on any country because Colin Powell can read the dictator' mind ala Iraq, so why is Pakistan any different? We can make up any reason we want, getting Bin Laden is better than getting Saddam for symbolic reasons alone. It's amusing that you are defending this dictator and then the Bushies are justifying the war in Iraq because of some other bad dictator. This guy Musharaff actually overthrew a democracy. We should be sending in the 101st and 82nd right now to rectify the matter ala Bushie logic on Iraq sans WMD and Al Qaeda evidence.
Oh yeah, I forgot, a man who has no connection to Pakistan knows more about Pakistan than someone born in Pakistan. The ISI didn't train itself, and Pakistan didn't fund the original mujahideen alone. Musharraf has tried very hard to clean up the ISI and stop extremists. He will probably end up giving his life for it like he almost has 3 times, but while you'll still be trying hard to find a scapegoat. Your hypocrisy is unbelievable He toppled one of the most corrupt regimes the region has ever seen. Individuals (including Houstonians, I can give you names) have stolen billions of dollars from this poor country during the past few decades, especially under democratically elected governments. Pakistan was on the verge of collapse under Nawaz Sharif. The economy was in shambles, law and order was in disarray in certain parts of the country (read about 1998 in Karachi, I was there, where were you?). Musharraf saved Pakistan, and I feel he deserves a couple of extra years in office. Other people also feel that he saved Pakistan, but he has worn out his welcome and needs to step down. In any case, it is absolutely none of your business.
Ok, what does India have anything to do with anything? As people have said here before, the U.S. is allied with Pakistan because it borders Afghanistan, India is not a part of this equation. In addition, India has provided no troops for Afghanistan or Iraq, nor has shown support for either wars. They have no interest in getting involved in America's regional problems. If you knew anything about Pakistani politics, you would know that although the MMA is strong in the national assembly, it is no where near strong enough as other political parties. In addition, these guys, although they may seem extreme to you, they are not much different than the Pakistani version of the modern Republican Party. No, you fail to see the big picture. Although the region that Bin Laden is in isn't really governed by the central government, people throughout Pakistan see it as a part of Pakistan. If Canada or Russia sent troops to some uninhabited parts of Alaska, do you think people wouldn't care? So... if America was allowed into these regions in Pakistan, people would see it as Musharraf giving up Pakistan's soverignity to America, and Musharraf wouldn't survive the week.
Excellent, excellent posts neXXes. Thanks. I do take issue with this statement, though. The stability of a nuclear power, especially one with the potential (hopefully small?) to turn into an Islamist state, is most definitely everyone's business.
I can understand that, but I've come to the conclusion during my last trip (just came back last week) that it's very unlikely. As long as people don't feel betrayed by traditional political parties and the current system, they have little reason to bring extremists to power. You also have to remember that the provinces and regions of Pakistan are very different from each other. Just because people in a few towns support the Taliban or people like them, it doesn't mean there is popular support everywhere for them. Even if we're just talking about support for the MMA (aliance of religious political parties). Power is concentrated within two provinces, as you can see here (PML-N is Nawaz Sharif's party, PPP-P is Benazir Bhutto's party, PPP(Patriots) broke off from the PPP-P to support Musharraf, MMA is the alliance of religious parties) Pakistan has been misrepresented by the American media and people on this board for a few years now. I just want people to know that it is a dynamic country with a functioning political system where average people live their lives just like everywhere else.
Just to clarify, at the link, table 2 is final makeup of the national assembly after including reserved seats for women and minorities and after party defections. Table 3 shows the makeup of the provincial assemblies under each province's name. You can see more detailed results here, but they don't include reserved seats or later defections.
It is not realistic to think that in either North Korea nor Iraq that closer ties between our two governments could result in a more moderate government, hence a more hardline stance was/is appropriate. In this case it is not only possible but the policy most likely to result in an eventual transition to a more free and open process.
So, the war with Iraq is OK because one set of logic applies. War with Pakistan is not OK, because a different set of logic applies. Because if you apply your logic to Iraq, the Iraq war is unjustifiable. I am simply applying the same logic the Bushies used on Iraq on Pakistan. They is either agin us or with us. They be harboring terrorists. Heck, they even have muslims in control of WMD. Iraq as the adminstration now admits, had nothing to do with 9/11. Pakistan on the other hand harbors the remnants of the 9/11 conspirators. I did not fail to see the big picture about them caring about their soverign territory, I am simply applying Bush logic on Iraq. I never said I did not see that, you just accused me of that.
I never said anything about Iraq, you're putting words in my mouth. I was against the war in Iraq and Afghanistan. I was replying to your repeated defamation of Pakistan, and it appears you have no answers.
i think india does have a vested interest in the war on terrorism (even though iraq cant be considered a part of this). these are hardly america's regional problems -- what happens in afghanistan in the hunt for al queda affects the average indian citizen as much or possibly even more than it affects the average US citizen. dont forget all those al queda fighting in kashmir. india may not have provided troops to afghanistan, but they have provided valuable intelligence to the united states on the taliban and on al queda in the region. if you didnt know, for years the indians supported and funded the northern alliance against the pakistani created taliban. as for not sending troops to iraq, perhaps they havent done so because for fear of upsetting the sizeable muslim population that makes up the country (although you wonder if the pro-hindu party in power would really care about its muslim constituents). or perhaps they havent sent troops because it doesnt have the resources to spare since most of its resources are tied up fighting all the terrorists sent over, funded, and trained by the pakistanis, not to mention the thousands of troops in kashmir ready to face off against the regular pakistani army. another possibility that india didnt send troops to iraq yet (although they have considered sending troops over) is because of the economic ties that india had with iraq.
Only those you fail to read. I wasn't aware this thread was about the nobleness of Pakistan. Which, for the record, is non existent. I'm guessing you're not a woman. excerpt of many, many, many articles and reams of data. http://www.nationbynation.com/Pakistan/Human.html . . . Pakistan is a poor country, with great extremes in the distribution of wealth. Its per capita annual income is $490. The overall illiteracy rate is 62 percent, and is even higher for women. Cotton, textiles and apparel, rice, and leather products are the principal exports. The economy includes both state-run and private industries and financial institutions. The Constitution provides for the right of private businesses to operate freely in most sectors of the economy. The Government has made several economic reforms, including privatizing state-owned enterprises and reducing tariffs. Politically driven confrontations with Independent Power Projects (IPPS) and the Government's inability to repay investors in hard currency have damaged investor confidence and hampered privatization. The Government's poor human rights record deteriorated under the Sharif Government, and there were serious problems in several areas; however, the situation worsened with the seizure of power by General Musharraf, in that after the coup, citizens no longer had the right to change their government peacefully. Despite attempts to reform and to professionalize the police, both before and after the coup police committed numerous extrajudicial killings and tortured, abused, and raped citizens. While the officers responsible for such abuses sometimes were transferred or suspended for their actions, there is no evidence that any police officers were brought to justice. In general, police continued to commit serious abuses with impunity. Prison conditions remained poor, and police arbitrarily arrested and detained citizens. In Karachi killings between rival political factions often were carried out with the assistance of criminal gangs; however, many such killings also were believed to have been committed by or with the participation of security forces. The Sharif Government used the "accountability" process--which supposedly was designed to expose previous wrongdoing, recoup ill-gotten gains, and restore public confidence in government institutions--for political purposes by harassing and arresting a number of prominent politicians and bureaucrats connected with the main opposition party. Few of those arrested and questioned were put on trial; however, former Prime Minister Benazir Bhutto and her husband were convicted on corruption charges in April. Bhutto was sentenced to 5 years in prison, disqualified from holding public office, and fined. The Musharraf regime used arbitrary detention, including incommunicado detention, against political figures from the Sharif Government and their families; and the Musharraf regime's in the Musharraf regimes' anti-corruption campaign violated due process. Case backlogs under both Governments led to long delays in trials, and lengthy pretrial detention is common. The judiciary is subject to executive and other outside influence, and suffers from inadequate resources, inefficiency, and corruption. Despite concerns about damage to the judiciary due to the December 1997 confrontation between the Prime Minister and the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, there were instances prior to the coup in which the Supreme Court showed a continued degree of independence. While in February 1998 the Sharif Government ceased using military courts to try certain civilian cases at the demand of the Supreme Court, special antiterrorism courts expanded their jurisdiction to include murder, gang rape, child molestation, and "illegal" strikes. These courts are authorized to try terrorists swiftly, and those convicted may appeal only to a higher military court. In October 1998, the National Assembly voted for a 15th constitutional amendment, which would oblige the Government to enforce Shari'a (Islamic law). However, the Senate did not vote on the measure before it was suspended by the Musharraf regime in October. Both the Sharif Government and the Musharraf Government infringed on citizen's privacy rights. Although the press continued to publish relatively freely, the Sharif Government used its large advertising budget to influence content, journalists practiced self-censorship, the broadcast media remain a closely controlled government monopoly, and the Sharif Government made several attempts to curb press criticism. In particular, the Sharif Government continued its actions against the Jang newspaper group and jailed and harassed prominent journalists such as Friday Times editor Najam Sethi. The Musharraf regime appeared to cease direct attempts to manage the press, which were common under the Sharif Government. The Sharif Government imposed limits on the freedom of assembly. Although it allowed a number of large-scale, antigovernment demonstrations to take place, it also prevented demonstrations and strikes and arrested organizers when it believed that security was threatened, particularly in advance of the September 4 strike called by general traders and sponsored by opposition parties. The Sharif Government limited freedom of association, and targeted the activities of nongovernmental organizations (NGO's), revoking the licenses of almost 2,000 NGO's in Punjab. Both Governments imposed limits on freedom of religion, particularly for Ahmadis. Three Ahmadis sentenced in 1997 to life in prison for blasphemy remain incarcerated. Both Governments imposed limits on freedom of movement. Governor's Rule continued in Sindh province until the coup, under which its citizens continued to be denied democratic representation at the provincial level. The Prime Minister in June appointed an Advisor for Sindh Affairs, who exercised executive authority in the province without a popular mandate. After the coup, Sindh shared the same status as the other provinces; assemblies in the other provinces were suspended and General Musharraf appointed governors for all four provinces. The Musharraf Government spoke out against some of the human rights abuses of the previous regime and appointed NGO representatives to a number of senior positions, but it was not clear at year's end whether the Musharraf regime would take concrete steps to address such problems. Significant numbers of women were subjected to violence, abuse, rape, trafficking, and other forms of degradation by their spouses and members of society at large. The Government failed to take action in a high profile "honor killing" case and such killings continued throughout the country. There was considerable discrimination against women, and traditional social and legal constraints kept women in a subordinate position in society. Violence against children, as well as child abuse, prostitution, and trafficking remained problems. Female children still lag far behind boys in education, health care, and other social benefits. There was considerable discrimination against religious minorities. Both Governments as well as sectarian groups continued to discriminate against religious minorities, particularly Ahmadis and Christians. Religious and ethnic-based rivalries resulted in numerous killings and civil disturbances. The Government and employers continued to restrict worker rights significantly. Bonded labor by both adults and children remained a problem. Debt slavery persisted. The use of child labor remained widespread, although it now generally is recognized as a serious problem, and industrial exporters have adopted a number of measures to eliminate child labor from specific sectors. Mob violence and terrorist attacks remained problems. In May heavy fighting broke out between Indian forces and Kashmiri militants in the Kargil sector of Indian-held Kashmir, and continued until July. Regular Pakistani forces were also involved in the conflict. Civilians were killed on both sides of the line of control during the conflict, and tens of thousands of persons were displaced on both sides of the line of control. RESPECT FOR HUMAN RIGHTS Section 1 Respect for the Integrity of the Person, Including Freedom From: a. Political and Other Extrajudicial Killing Police committed extrajudicial killings. The extrajudicial killing of criminal suspects, often in the form of deaths in police custody or staged encounters in which police shoot and kill the suspects, is common. Police officials generally insist that these deaths occur during attempts at escape or at resisting arrest; family members and the press insist that many of these deaths are staged. Police have been known to kill suspected criminals to prevent them from implicating police in crimes during court proceedings. After an attempt was made on the Prime Minister's life in early January, as many as 40 Sunni extremists associated with the Lashkar-i-Jhangvi, the group believed responsible, may have been killed in police encounters. The Human Rights Commission of Pakistan (HRCP) estimates that there were 161 extrajudicial killings in the first 4 months of the year. In March the Sindh Home Department conceded that at least two incidents since imposition of Governor's Rule resulted in extrajudicial deaths. Press reports note that in Punjab alone 265 individuals were killed in 182 encounters with police between January and June. The Urdu daily newspaper Khabrain reported on December 6 that there were 285 police encounters in Punjab in the first 10 months of the year and that 357 persons lost their lives. In October there were reports of police encounter killings of members of the Sipah-e-Sahaba Pakistan (SSP) and the Lashkar-i-Jhangvi by the police in Punjab, following a wave of sectarian violence in the province (see Section 2.c.). Estimates of SSP and Lashkar-i-Jhangvi members killed by police in this manner range from 16 to 40 persons. Police officials maintain in private that due to the lack of concrete evidence, witness intimidation, corruption in and threats against the judiciary, and sometimes political pressure, courts often fail to punish criminals involved in serious crimes. Police professionalism is low. The police view the killings of criminal suspects as appropriate given the lack of effective action by the judiciary against criminals. The judiciary, on the other hand, faults the police for presenting weak cases that do not stand up in court. Police officers occasionally are transferred or briefly suspended for their involvement in extrajudicial killings. However, court-ordered inquiries into these killings so far have failed to result in any police officer receiving criminal punishment. Punjabi police killed Tahir Prince on February 10. Following the filing of a writ by the victim's mother, the Lahore High Court ordered registration of a case against the police officers involved; however, no departmental action has been taken. In general police continued to commit such killings with impunity. Following the coup in October, a number of police officials were charged or sanctioned for extrajudicial killings. On December 2, the Lahore High Court ordered the registration of cases against the Deputy Inspector General (DIG) of Police Sarghoda Range and six other police officers in the April 5 killing of two Sarghoda residents. The residents reportedly were mistaken for a Lashkar-i-Jhangvi member and killed in a police encounter. On December 7, the Punjab Chief Secretary announced that three senior Lahore-based police officials would be removed following the killing of a suspect in police custody. The suspect was charged in connection with a series of killings of children in Lahore. One police sub-inspector was sentenced to death during the year in the 1997 killing of Iraqi Noel, whom the police officer had taken into custody. The police and security forces were responsible for the deaths of a number of individuals associated with political or terrorist groups. For example, Punjab police officers killed activists of the extremist sectarian organization Lashkar-i-Jhangvi, which was implicated in an attempt to kill the Prime Minister in January. During the year, three individuals charged with attempting to assassinate the Prime Minister in January were killed in police custody during an alleged escape attempt. As of August, 21 activists from this organization were killed in police encounters, according to press accounts and the Human Rights Commission of Pakistan. The Muttahida Quami Movement (MQM), an opposition party that has demonstrated a willingness to use violence to further its objectives, claimed that its adherents were being targeted specifically by the police for extrajudicial killings. The MQM was formed by Altaf Hussein in 1984 as a student movement to further the rights of Mohajirs, the descendants of Urdu-speaking Muslims who migrated from India to Pakistan following partition in 1947. It soon became an organization with criminal elements, which generated income through extortion and other forms of racketeering. The MQM presently is split between the original MQM, formerly known as the Mohajir Quami Movement, and headed by Altaf Hussain (MQM-Altaf), a large breakaway group (MQM-Haqiqi), and other, smaller factions. The MQM-Altaf, in part because of its efficient organization and willingness to use violence and intimidation to achieve its goals, became the dominant political party in the Sindh urban centers of Karachi and Hyderabad. The MQM, despite a number of moderate and nonviolent leaders now in the Senate, National Assembly, and Sindh Provincial Assembly, has not been able to separate itself from its violent past. As a result, it has antagonized followers, suffered violent breakaways, and continually been at odds with successive governments. In March MQM Senator Aftab Sheikh accused the Sindh police, the paramilitary Rangers, and Government intelligence agencies of abducting two MQM members--Farid and Shamim--and killing them in custody; the two reportedly were handcuffed when killed. In July London-based MQM chief Altaf Hussain accused the Karachi police of killing Mohammed Shahid after his arrest. Altaf Hussain also claimed in July that 14 MQM workers were killed extrajudicially since the imposition of Governor's Rule. In a July report, the MQM listed 10 persons, mostly MQM activists, killed in extrajudicial incidents by Karachi police between October 1998 and March. In September MQM activist Rehan Bandhani died in police custody. According to the daily newspaper The News, the police initially argued that Bandhani had died of a heart attack, but a police officer later was charged with unintentional murder. On September 7, two MQM activists were killed in an encounter with police; police officials stated that the two men shot first, but witnesses claim that the two were taken, unarmed, from their homes and shot by police in a nearby field. . . . Rape is an extensive problem. The HRCP estimates that at least eight women, five of them minors, are raped every day in Pakistan, and more than two-thirds of those are gang-raped. In 1997 the National Assembly passed a law that provided for the death penalty for persons convicted of gang rape. No executions have been carried out under this law and conviction rates remained low. This is because rape, and gang rape in particular, is commonly used as a means of social control by landlords and local criminal bosses seeking to humiliate and terrorize local residents. Therefore, police rarely respond to and are sometimes implicated in these attacks. It is estimated that less than one-third of all rapes are reported to the police. The police themselves frequently are charged with raping women (see Section 1.c.). Parliamentary Affairs Minister Muhammad Yasin Khan Wattoo informed the Senate on April 28 that in the first 90 days of the year 472 women reported that they were raped. The HRCP in the first 9 months of the year tallied 485 rape cases recorded in Lahore newspapers. Of these instances, cases were registered in 74 percent of the rapes but suspects were arrested in only 10 percent. More than 50 percent involved gang rape. According to a police official, in a majority of rape cases the victims are pressured to drop rape charges because of the threat of Hudood adultery charges being brought against them. All consensual extramarital sexual relations are considered violations of the Hudood Ordinances, which carry either Hadd (Koranic) or Tazir (secular) punishments (see Section 1.e.). Accordingly, if a woman cannot prove the absence of consent, there is a risk that she may be charged with a violation of the Hudood ordinances for fornication or adultery. The Hadd, or maximum punishment for this offense, is public flogging or stoning; however, in order for Hadd punishments to apply, special, more stringent rules of evidence are followed. Hadd punishments are mandatory if there is enough evidence to support them, and for sexual offenses require four adult male Muslims to witness the act or a confession. For non-Muslims or in cases where all of the 4 male witnesses are not Muslim, the punishment is less severe. The testimony of four female witnesses, or that of the victim alone, is insufficient to impose Hadd punishments; therefore, even if a man rapes a woman in the presence of several women, he cannot be subjected to the Hadd punishment. If the evidence falls short of Hadd requirements, then the accused may be sentenced to a lesser class of penalties (Tazir); since it is difficult to obtain sufficient evidence to support the Hadd punishments, most rape cases are tried at the Tazir level of evidence and sentencing (under which a rapist may be sentenced to up to 25 years in prison and 30 lashes). No Hadd punishment has ever been applied in the 20 years that the Hudood ordinances have been in force. For Tazir punishments, there is no distinction between Muslim and non-Muslim offenders. According to an HRCP lawyer, the Government has brought fewer charges against women under the Hudood Ordinances than in the past, and the courts have shown greater leniency toward women in their sentences and in the granting of bail. Even if a woman wishes to bring rape charges, she may have trouble bringing her attacker to justice. According to Amnesty International, men accused of rape sometimes are acquitted and released, while their victims are held on adultery charges. According to Human Rights Watch, women face difficulty at every level of the judicial system in bringing rape cases. Police are reluctant to take the complaint and may act in an abusive fashion against the victim; the courts do not have consistent standards of proof as to what constitutes rape and to what corroboration is required; and judges, police, and prosecutors are biased against female rape victims, tending towards a presumption of female consent and the belief that women lie about such things. Judges on the whole reportedly are reluctant to convict; however, if there is some evidence, judges have been known to convict the accused of the lesser offense of adultery or fornication (consensual sex). Human Rights Watch also reports that women face problems in the collection of evidence; that the doctors tasked to examine rape victims often believe that the victims are lying; that they are trained insufficiently and have inadequate facilities for the collection of forensic evidence pertaining to rape; that they do not testify very effectively in court; and that they tend to focus on the virginity status of the victim, and, due either to an inadequate understanding of the need for prompt medical evaluations or to inadequate resources, often delay the medical examinations for many days or even weeks, making any evidence that they collect of dubious utility. Medical examiners and police also have been known to be physically and verbally abusive during these exams, especially in cases where a woman is charged with adultery or fornication (for which an exam may be requested) and does not wish to be examined (such women, despite the fact that by law they should not be examined without their consent, have been examined, and even have been beaten for their refusal to be examined). Police and doctors often do not know that a woman must consent to this type of exam before it can be performed, and judges may not inform women of their right to decline. If they report rape to the police, women's cases often are delayed or mishandled, and women frequently are harassed by police or the perpetrators to drop the case. Police may accept bribes to get the complainant to drop a case, or may request bribes to carry it forward. Police tend to investigate the cases poorly, as well, and may not inform women of the need for a medical exam or may stall or block women's attempts to obtain one. . . .
Now of course India has some interest in what goes on in Afghanistan, but I am saying that they would never send troops, let U.S. troops use Indian bases etc. like some people think they would gladly do. India, Pakistan and Bangladesh send peacekeeping troops all over the world all the time. Even recently, they have all sent troops to Libera. You make it sound like India is really hurting because of Kashmir. India has one of the largest armies in the world. India has 700,000-800,000 troops stationed in Kashmir, and still has plenty of troops to fight rebels in other parts of the country. Kashmir is not the only region in rebellion. Sikhs in Punjab, indigenous groups, maoists, and all kinds of other random groups fighting in the south and east. But of course, Pakistan is the bad guy, so it's all Pakistan's fault, right?
kashmir is the major rebellion. the other ones are relatively small. do you consider rebellions in baluchistan and in sindh to be major ones? probably not. likewise for those in assam, nagaland, etc... as for sikhs in punjab... the idea of khalistan died out long ago.
Alright guys, I don't have anything to say myself, so I'm going to copy/paste tens of pages of text. I never said Pakistan has a clean human rights record. Pakistan has corrupt police forces from the top down and inept bureaucracies. Did you notice how much of that talks about human rights violations under democratically elected governments? There are countries on that website with "human rights reports" as long as Pakistan's, some are longer. Extrajudicial killings are common in many countries, why are you singling out Pakistan? Women are treated differently in different parts of Pakistan. Where I come from, women work, get PhDs, cover their hair or choose not to, etc. Almost all of the women in my immediate and extended family are well educated and love Pakistan. I don't condone the mistreatment of women and I don't know anyone who does. I'm happy you have genuine concern for problems in Pakistan, what does that have to do with Pakistan's horrible dictator that should have been deposed instead of Saddam?
