if your name is bhutto an early death is not unexpected. she knew the risks.
she chose to go because she knew there are things that are worth fighting to the death; and indeed dying for.
she also knew what impact this would have on her family as she lived through it herself.
Yes; people here often don’t realize that a civil war with side A over here and side A over there isn’t the norm.
At one time I did support the intervention for the purpose of removing a dictator. I tentively support the presence of US troops as long as progress is apparent because of the responsibility for the US to do its best to restore stability that it fucked up. But I no longer believe in the US intervening in the internal affairs militarily or by diplomacy of other nations for the purpose of freedom and democracy.
It was the US that pressured Musharraf to allow Bhutto to return. Bhutto was only interested in her own political ambitions, not the stability of her country.
In fact, the vast majority of the country, the poor, did not bother to protest the imposition of the state of emergency, because they want Musharraf (98%). Just like Russia wants Putin. Stability man, thats what they really want. They don’t care how the establishment organizes itself to rule.
That’s for sure.
I wept bitterly when I heard the news of Bhutto’s assassination. I am beyond words. She really seemed to want to engender true change in Pakistan and that she cared deeply about her country - so much so that she was willing to risk her own life. And she was a woman living in an Islamic society - talk about bad ass.
Fixed typo in title
I won’t claim that Bhutto was a selfless angel. She certainly was interested in her own political ambitions. However, that’s not all she was interested in. For example, instability would not be consistent with her political ambitions, so she had to be interested in stability. Furthermore, since returning to Pakistan, she faced death on a daily basis. No one does that only because of political ambitions that are based on rather slim chances.
As I’ve said, Bhutto was an egomaniac and a thief, but she faced a bullet every day, and you don’t do that just for power and money.
Boy, you are in possession of some special knowledge there, man. Musharraf is increasingly unpopular, mostly because of his support of the United States. The only way he’s going to stay in power is by thwarting American interests. How’s that for stability?
Stability man, that’s the one thing Musharraf can’t deliver. And everybody knows it. Except you.
My first reaction was that it was o’l Mushy and he will now re-institute emergency rule and beyond that try to absorb her support as his own (unbelievably) as the next-closest thing the way the US aligned with him in a way that never would have happened were it not for the ‘war on terror.’ My suspicion is that the US alliance has given him the idea that partners of convenience as an idea can be extended into his own country in some version. If true, it’d be a bold, cynical move to say “well, we had lots of differences but we were both against the Taliban, etc. and that’s the real enemy so let’s pull together we’re on the same side, etc…”
Valid points. But I dont think we will see open warfare between opposing armies. To me, civil war implies that the opposing sides are under the control of some type of commander and have strategic goals in mind. Civil strife has neither which makes it worse.
Discussing things with my roommate, who is from Parachinar in western Pakistan, he blames Musharraf, not some nameless ‘extremists’. Almost everyone wants Musharraf to resign, and a return of the judiciary. Today will only make those desires stronger, not weaker. He is the current target. There is no way Musharraf will gain any new supporters from Bhuttos party.
I dont see how they can have a valid election now, though Musharraf will probably try to hold one anyway.
She’s also very corrupt. Pakistan’s political history is sad. It vacillates between corrupt civilian governments and autocratic military dictators. Bhutto is no real loss for Pakistan. If she had gained power it would have just swung back to corrupt civilian government, which isn’t that much better.
How much evidence is there of Bhutto’s corruption? I’ve never seen anything other than insinuation from political opponents.
Lots. For example, she was found guilty in Switzerland of money laundering.
According to her Wiki page she was accused and convicted in multiple countries.
I don’t think it’s Musharraf.
I think whoever did it wants us to believe it’s Musharraf, & may succeed in that. But to turn the rivalry between large mainstream secular parties into open violence is to the benefit of smaller parties. Perhaps it’s simply those who want to pull Musharraf’s government & military away from the ungoverned frontier where al Qaeda hide. Perhaps it’s someone with whom we Westerners are unfamiliar.
I disagree. Bhutto is a real loss for Pakistan. She was a leading voice for democracy and greater rights for women. She represented the best hope for a modern liberal government. Her party will continue her work, but it lost its most important asset today.
And she presided over a corrupt administration, but I haven’t seen any evidence of personal corruption other than her choice of husband. He was corrupt, but he was also railroaded on trumped up charges as much as he may have been guilty of legitimate ones and spent over eight years in prison. Whatever the case, that was also 12 years ago. And neither of us knows if her next administration would have suffered from the same faults. Sadly we will never have the chance to find out now. And the corruption was/is just as bad under the military dictators as under civilian leaders. It would not have swung back, since it never swung away in the first place.
I beg to differ, corrupt civilian government is much better than military rule, at least in the sense that gonorrhea is much better than AIDS.
Actions bring reactions and that’s what we’re seeing here. The old domino effect. But I don’t the pieces are falling nearly as neatly as the neocons thought they would when they put their grandiose plans in motion.
Hope I am wrong as per usual when it comes to my views about this whole mess, but to say that this doesn’t look good, would be a gross understatement. Because that’s how I already felt prior to Bhutto’s assassination. It’s going to get much bumpier I’m afraid. With global fallout to boot.
After all, we all know were the real WMDs have been ‘hiding’ all along. What ever happened to all that hogwash about going after the terra’ists wherever they might be and holding the Governments of said places accountable for it? In hindsight, backing the dictator of a nukular nation we know aided and abetted Osama – and still does – must not seem like such a good idea, huh, George? Who’s more dangerous, an out of control nuclear and zealous Pakistan or the pre-invasion, secular and weapons-depleted Iraq? Amazing one would need ask these questions.
Nice going Boy King. May the rivers of blood still to come wash your amoral self and my they make you and all your cronies richer still.
There is no other purpose.
I’m sorry… Did you just blame Bush for this?
While the US’s attention and muscle has been diverted to the debacle in Iraq and to a lesser degree, the one in Afghanistan, radical Islam has been brewing-up a storm under their (the US) collective noses in so-called allied territory, Pakistan. This is hardly hindsight as it has been debated on this very board more than once.
Interpret that as is your wont. I already have.
PS-It does appear, however, to be hindsight for this Administration:
US to expand mily presence in Pakistan
Happy New Year, Sam.
Blaming Bush is a bit of a stretch. Ghandi probably has more to do with it. That country was fucked royally way before monkey boy came to power.