Pakistan barred from Commonwealth

Pakistan barred from Commonwealth

I can’t believe Bush is still calling Mushaffaf quote “a valuable ally, a man of his word and committed to democracy”. The man declared emergency rule, suspended the constitution, sacked the chief justice and purged the court, installing more amenable judges, amended the constitution to pre-empt any challenge to his authority, and what? Oh yes. Committed to democracy.
Committed to Bush’s war for ratings, more like.

The devil you know is better than the devil you don’t.

Education, please. What is meant by the term “The Commonwealth,” in this usage?

If it’s a BBC source and referring to “The Commonwealth” that would be The Commonwealth as in that conglomeration of countries that once were under British rule and still retain ole Lizzy as figurehead of state. Australia, NZ, that not-French bit of Canada etc.

[ETA]: As per the source, there’s a few political and social things that all the Commonwealth nations share. Pakistan will now be barred from various meetings, the Commonwealth games etc.

It’s more like, “The devil you think you can control is usually better than the devil you think you can’t.”
And you’re usually wrong.

Ah, the British Commonwealth. Thank you, Sierra Indigo. Oddly, it’s been so long since I’ve heard of any country going to the trouble of pointing out that they’re a member, that I had become unaware that it still exists in any meaningful form.

The Commonwealth. Note, not the British Commonwealth.

Okay, now I’m confused. Information from the link suggests that to the extent that there is any entity that properly bears the name “the British Commonwealth”, this outfit is it.

Probably extraneous, anyway.

You go, guys! Kick that asshole Musharraf out!

And thus we are endlessly stuck with the devil and good never gets a chance. How nice. :rolleyes:

Erm, all of Canada has Elizabeth II as Head of State, and is part of the Commonwealth. (Also note that some Commonwealth countries don’t have her as Head of State.)

That was a bit tongue in cheeky there :slight_smile:

Regardless of what’s going on now, doesn’t the very fact that a country’s leader seized power through a military coup, and still wears a uniform, sorta disqualify him from being called “committed to democracy”? That wacky George Bush is always saying stuff that sounds like it’s from an implausibly stupid fictional president in a near-future political satire.

Give 'em the boot, says I (a Canadian – Canada being a member of the Commonwealth).

BTW, the Law Society of Upper Canada is also protesting.

I realize that individually these are trivial, in that Mushaffaf is going to do what ever he pleases, but I think that it is important to speak out. Collectively, it might make a difference at some point.

Canada is a member of the Commonwealth, la Francophonie, the Organization of American States, and the Book of the Month Club.

Tush, tush. The good general has been meaning to reintroduce democracy since he killed it in 1999 but it’s just one thing after another. You know how it is. You’re just about to move to full and free democratic elections when the phone goes. Then the cat throws up and you need to get it to the vet and before you know it, it’s 2007.

But he’s still really committed. It’s number two on his list of things to do.

He’s at least as committed to Democracy as Mr. “If this were a dictatorship, it’d be a heck of a lot easier, just so long as I’m the dictator.”

It’s all relative.

Musharraf needs to fight terror. Which is why, instead of sending the troops into the mountains to root out Al Qaeda, close down the madrassars, and kill Bin Laden, he sacked the judges, installed his own stooges, arrested the democratic opposition, and imprisoned thousands of pro-democracy supporters.

I see Bush’s statement as entirely consistent with the quality of the democracy that has to date been installed in recent US/UK invasions.

I don’t understand the distinction you’re making, because as far as I can tell, they are the same thing. That’s also what the Wikipedia article on the subject says.

It calls itself The Commonwealth. There’s a difference between its actual self-determined name, and “sometimes [known] as” per your Wiki cite. I suspect that you should respect that and call it by its actual name.

Same as we say “The United States of America” and not “The Unruly Colonies”. :wink:

Ah, I thought that Cunctator was saying that the “British Commonwealth” was something completely different than the “Commonwealth of Nations” or “the Commonwealth.”

Edited to add that it’s possible that an American might use the “British Commonwealth” to distinguish it from the commonwealths of Kentucky, Massachusetts, Pennsylvania or Virginia.