RKMBs Forums .::Important::. Politics and Current Events Pakistan: Musharraf, Bush's Shah of Iran?

Since we have no Pakistan thread and that place is going to shit. Shit with a bomb and an Al queda presence.



So we have an economy sinking fast, people losing their homes left and right, a middle eastern ally with little popular support, record high gas prices.. Man, it's like the late 1970's all over again!

because you were there to see it firsthand and make accurate comparisons.

um...

Yeah.

We're not all 12 here y'know.

Back in the late 1970's me and my friends were politically active enough to write our own satirical MAD magazine style political 'zine. Of course it reflected the right wing POV though.

Like Halo and I said, these things are circular. One party becomes so entrenched and guided by pure ideology and oblivious to their constituency and the real needs of the people and as a result things turn to shit and that opens the door for another party to come along with a mandate for change. It's happened before and it will happen again. Democrats, Republicans. Doesn't matter.

Remember the greatest era in Democratic history came as a result of a Republican sending the economy into the toilet and almost destroying this nation.

The greatest Republican era came about because of a Democratic president who seemed overwhelmed by the myraid crises before him, a loss of national purpouse and beleif, and because of excessive taxation in California.

Both instances demanded real revolutionary change. We're at another crossroads again. Mind you that I'm not entirely happy with the people that are leading this change. But a change is needed. Badly. If anything, I'm looking forward to '08 so that we can finish the job of '06, in BOTH parties.

well spoken whomod.

For a guy who alleges to "demand real revolutionary change" you sure seem to have bought deeply into liberal-Democrat partisan rhetoric, and spend 99% of your time mocking the Republicans, often using untrue and partisan arguments.


On a sidenote, Herbert Hoover didn't lead the country into depression (although he didn't get us out of it either). He inherited a crippled economy from Calvin Coolidge, from the stock crash of 1929.

Franklin D. Roosevelt arguably didn't pull us out of depression either. He began the national debt to fund the Works Project Administration, providing millions of state-funded jobs to build roads, bridges, hydro-electric dams and so forth, having the positive effect of building and modernizing U.S. infrastructure while providing jobs to the unemployed.
But it was World War II that pulled us out of recession, selling war materials to Europe while we remained neutral. Social Security was a positive change too.


A guy like yourself, who endorses conspiracy theories of liberal radio comentators being beat up and intimidated in some kind of half-baked right-wing conspiracy, and still maliciously clings to the false allegation even after Randi Rhodes and her staff have refuted it, perpetuating divisive false propaganda, shouldn't crow too loudly about others' short-sighted partisanship.

You only let go of that allegation because there was no further plausible deniability, and you looked like an asshole for continuing to carry to torch for something so clearly false. You continue to hold the torch on many other issues that give you the slightest wiggle room to slander Republicans.

If you'd stick to what could be proven (and there is plenty Republicans have clearly and legitimately done wrong) I could agree with you. But your mocking antagonism and deliberate misrepresentation, even as you self-proclaim yourself the advocate of truth, frankly makes me sick.

You hate it when I'm right and you hate it that i said I was wrong. You just hate me which is fine by me. You just stew there. I really don't care. You're being left behind on just about everything you believe in and you're impotent to stop it. And you know it's true, otherwise you wouldn't be so bitter and angry all the time.

Yet another ad-hominem personal attack of yours, that bypasses the hypocrisy I pointed out in your arguments. You're a liberal-partisan true believer all the way, and have the nerve to allege your neutrality.


I already answered that.

I don't think you're right. And as Iraq continues to stabilize (our failure in Iraq is something the Democrats are deeply invested in), those poll numbers will turn.

A popular opinion poll (i.e., a perception poll of the uninformed, that only shows how effective partisan Democrats --and the complicit liberal media-- have been in their suppression of the success of the Surge) does not show that pulling out of Iraq is the wisest strategy, or even the most popularly supported strategy.

A majority polled don't support Bush's conduct of the war so far. That much is true.

But that doesn't mean a majority of Americans think we should just pack up and leave Iraq, leave the Iraqis who supported us to be slaughtered, and leave Iraq to become a hub of terrorism, from which they could attack neighboring regimes friendly to the U.S., to attack Europe, and eventually to attack the U.S.
And it certainly doesn't mean a majority of our military leaders and analysts think immediate withdrawal from Iraq is a good idea either.

It burns you up that you can't pigeonhole me the way you'd like, eh?

Deal with it.

But you don't get to characterize me or anyone else because it makes you feel better, ok?

BTW, when did I say I was neutral?

I could say the same thing about WB and G-man's claims that the surge is succeeding. But it's seems an asinine point since none of us really know what the fuck is going on overthere.

WB, this is a good example of why you piss me off. You come into this thread with-



And then talk to Who' about ad hominem attacks? Your hypocracy has never been more evident.

You don't have to take mine or G-man's word for it.

Several highly acclaimed field reporters (including pulitzer-winning N Y Times reporter John Burns, quoted on page 1 of this topic) as well as military and government officials, as well as statistics of declining violence, as well as Iraqis feeling comfortable enough to move back into the formerly war-torn areas, as well as intercepted Al Qaida, that say they don't have what they need to fight and are leaving, all demonstrate an improving situation in Iraq.
You could just read the articles posted that G-man, myself and others have quoted here in the topic. If you and Whomod weren't burying your heads in the sand and pretending these facts don't exist.

But, of course, you're patriotic, and not partisanly anti-American, are you?

I talked about the inconsistency of his arguments. In response to his ongoing ad-hominem attacks, where he constantly accuses others of being partisan, getting their goose-stepping marching orders from Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Bill O'Reilly and FOX News, despite that we quote other, more mainstream sources for our views.
Despite, conversely, that Whomod posts his views from liberal-partisan blogs, left-wing hate sites, and the oh-so-neutral-L.A.Times.

I pointed out the contradictions in his own rhetoric. I didn't attack his girlfriend, or his personal life, or call him crazy, or an idiot or other insults, as you and Whomod both routinely do to me. Because you haven't got an intellectual leg to stand on.

I saw an ABC Barbara Walters special about 3 years ago, where she interviewed "The Empress of Iran", the Shah's surviving wife. She said that the Shah used harsh measures to try and implement modernization on Iran, up until the Shi'ite radicals took control of the country.

Similarly, in Turkey, the only secular muslim nation, liberties have been suspended and harsh measures taken, essentially supending democracy to preserve it for the long term.


I dated an Iranian girl back in 1995-1996, who fled with her family from Iran in 1979. She lived in Shiraz, a large city slightly inland from the Persian Gulf, and said Iran was a paradise under the Shah, with a thriving energetic university system, the arts, and intellectual culture, until the Shi'ites took over, and basically repressed all free thought. She said her family, as a minority favored by the Shah, would have been slaughtered if they stayed in Iran. They fled first to Turkey, then W.Germany, then Canada, then the U.S.
She was an athiest because of her frightening ordeal with radical Islam.

My point is, the Shah is often portrayed as brutal and evil. But to her, he was the champion of a free and prosperous Iran. That's obviously the Empress' view too.


In Pakistan, it's difficult to tell what the true situation is. It looks to me as if Musharraf is using his authoritarian powers to just arrest and imprison his vocal political opposition (court judges, political rivals, reporters), rather than using that power to contain an actual armed uprising.

He may be fighting a legitimate threat to Pakistan's stability. But from what I've seen, it looks like he's abusing his authority to stay in power as long as possible.

Regardless, a radical islamic nuclear armed Pakistan, or a radical islamic nuclear-armed Pakistan giving weapons to Al Qaida, would be a worse scenario than an abusive Musharraf. The likely scenario seems to be another moderate general would just replace Musharraf, and things would go on pretty much as they are now.

I know about that. I also know they ommited several important facts about the situation. Such as our business with the Sunni. So nope, don't trust them.




I have, and it sounds like more of the same bullshit the govts. been shoveling since the war started.



If being patriotic means sticking my head in the sand then I'll gladly bare the label anti-american. I never did like Canada or Brazil much anyway.*

*Sarcasm in use.