This blog explores the contemporary political and cultural trends from a distinct perspective
What it means for USA
Published on October 19, 2007 By Bahu Virupaksha In Politics
A few days back I had predicted that the US support to "democracy" by brokering a power sharing arrangement with the Military regime in Pakistan will lead to instability in the region: the attack on the cavalcade of Ms Bhutto in Karachi proves that my assessment was right.

The return of Benazir Bhutto to Pakistan at this juncture is not in the interest of peace in the region: her covert endorsement of US military strategy in the "War against Terror" has made Ms Bhutto's posion extremely vulnerable. She should not have taken apublic position in favor of the US led war against terror, because in most parts of the world the US is perceived as a militaristic, violent, and destabalising force. The war on Iraq has not endeared the USA to the people in the region and the attack on Ms Bhutto inly undescores the fact that anyone perceived as being soft on the USA will be assasinated at the earliest opportunity. The USA should back General Musharaf to the hilt and should not whittle down his standing by proping up a democratic fascade like Bhutto. In fact she has not helped by stating that she would allow the use of Pakistani territory by the US military in its hunt for its wanted terrorisr leaders. This sinle statement has undermined the political standing of Ms Bhutto.

Instead of giving a democratic public face to its war against Islam, the USA will be betteroff backing its generals so that the people of Pakistan atre protected from the sort of attacks we witnessed in Karachi. US policy in the region will lead to the take over of both Pakistan and Afghanistan by, radical Islamic regimes.

Comments
on Oct 19, 2007
US policy in the region will lead to the take over of both Pakistan and Afghanistan by, radical Islamic regimes.



i guess you forgot that General Musharaf has also been the target of assissions.

the only people who would be against democracy would be those who would lose power if it works. the list seems to include iran, syria, taliban, al quida, and you.


as for the fall of the usa that isn't going to happen.
on Oct 19, 2007
Blah, blah, blah, blah.

Bray, bray, bray, bray.

Rinse, repeat.

Notice the complete absence of any discussion, let alone criticism, of the wack jobs who perpetrated the attack?
on Oct 21, 2007
Notice the complete absence of any discussion, let alone criticism, of the wack jobs who perpetrated the attack


I have said clearly that the attack was planned by anti USW and anti Musharaff forces.
on Dec 28, 2007
She should not have taken apublic position in favor of the US led war against terror, because in most parts of the world the US is perceived as a militaristic, violent, and destabalising force. The war on Iraq has not endeared the USA to the people in the region and the attack on Ms Bhutto inly undescores the fact that anyone perceived as being soft on the USA will be assasinated at the earliest opportunity

Once again I was ad to say right. And this was well before her assasinationterday as I posted this blog on 19th October 2007.
on Dec 28, 2007

She should not have taken apublic position in favor of the US led war against terror,




Yet her supporters loved her for it. And violent people hate her. It's the usual situation of peaceful, sane people supporting the US and violent fanatics opposing the US.




because in most parts of the world the US is perceived as a militaristic, violent, and destabalising force.




Whereas in some parts of the world, like Kosovo, the US is perceived as the best hope for freedom.




The war on Iraq has not endeared the USA to the people in the region




Actually, it has endeared the USA to the people in _Iraq_. The Arab reporting of the conflict has not endeared the USA to the rest of the Arab world.




and the attack on Ms Bhutto inly undescores the fact that anyone perceived as being soft on the USA will be assasinated at the earliest opportunity




And one must ALWAYS do what the violent people want, right Bahu?



Hence the US should abandon the Kurds, the Jews, the Nubians, the Darfurians, the south Sudanese, the Afghanis, and Bhutto's supporters in Pakistan, because the new god, Al Qaeda, wills it so.



I am not brave myself, but caving in to violence that happens to other people is a form of "vorauseilender Gehorsam". The description is in German because it is traditionally a German habit. It describes some people's need to adapt to the will of self-declared authority.



The literal translation is "overtaking (or hurrying) obedience".



It's symptoms include a tendency not only to obey but to go ahead and implement what might be the next order (so it has never to be given) while believing that one acts out of one's own volition.



Be very careful Bahu. You are way ahead of us there. Giving in to violence is one thing but giving in ahead of time just because violence exists, that is what makes nations fall to fascism.


on Dec 28, 2007
The war on Iraq has not endeared the USA to the people


except for the ones who really count at this point and that is the people of iraq.
on Dec 28, 2007
And one must ALWAYS do what the violent people want, right Bahu?


it seems that this man is pro 'the violent people'


mayhaps one of the al quida, or taliban members.
on Dec 28, 2007
It is also one thing not to help other people and quite another to condemn those who do help.

on Dec 28, 2007
Bizarre that Bahu would claim to be "right" when there is no evidence that his assumptions are anywhere close to the truth. But, then, his job is Chief Apologist for Thugs Who Kill & Maim in the Name of Religion.