Your are viewing a read-only archive of the old DiS boards. Please hit the Community button above to engage with the DiS !
again, not the cleverest idea?
Still I think that its par for the course.....I think that the whole world is aware that right wing US presidents are provocative and like to intervene 'with extreme force' wherever they fancy, irrespective of the rest of the worlds opinion, up to now this has been based on the assumption that they are known as having the biggest hammer with which to hit anyone who rises to the bait. It seems silly with Pakistan though, but then again
he obviosuly listens to the hawks to an unwise degree (I realise there are always hawk and dove advisors trying to bend the ear of every president)
ever to be president
where Bush leaves such a clusterfuck of a mess that Obama and McCain are pleading for the other to be elected.
or just trying to persuade unsure voting 'foreigner haters'
As I recall, he alienated more people than he got support from for it.
It's overly-simplstic to think it's anything to do with foreigner-hating. Essentially the goal of any American President (as is the case of the leader of any country) is to protect its country's interests in the best way possible. Therefore many would feel that if it is possible to capture people who want to blow up America then they should be captured, regardless of if that tramples over a few international laws.
'consider' isn't actually doing, he might have been choosing his words carefully so as not to alienate both sides.
i don't know though, i've not been following intensely.
"If we have actionable intelligence about high-value terrorist targets and President Musharraf won't act, we will,"
Musharraf, actually is more of an ally to the west than many an alternative Pakistanni leadership though. He MUST do something in response to the US incursion to protect his own tenure.
Do you think that the US has properly considered the implications of destabilising the current leader and possibley have him replaced with one who is less against renegades or anti west extremism?
And then decided the benefits outweigh the risks.
The truth of the matter is Pakistan will probably lodge a diplomatic protest and realise they can't do owt else so that'll be the end of the matter.
talked about all the implications and i think that they have gone with the hawks and taken an approach that is high risk (imo) of encouraging conditions in pakistan which might favour a more anti western, anti US leadership. I think this is foolhardy, because the US has never taken on any country as daunting or big as pakistan before, in this way.
I suppose they think they ought to take the 'window of opportunity' given by the russians invading georgia, to get away with breaking international boundary law.....just to send out the message, tha just cos they is a democracy, it doesnt mean they will be hampered or totally weakened by legislation.....i.e, that they're not a toothless pussycat whos frightened of doing 'bad things' (they dont want to be regarded as regulation loving wusses who would be a pushover when it came to pr n stuff
there, cos its fun.