Bhutto almost asassinated

[mears]

You've answered your own question, in a roundabout way. It's not necessarily because she's a woman, it's because she supports (like Thatcher) neo-liberal politics, and big business and it's media appendages lurve neo-liberalism.

Oh big boy with the mighty slogans. You know, its amazing someone as bad a Thatcher could remain PM of the UK for so long. Seems as though she had plenty of support amongst the people.

What politics do you support? Obviously not the "neo-liberal" sort and not "big Business" - more slogans there. Do you support small business? I wonder, if not "neo liberalism" for you than what? What policies should politicians like Thatcher and Bhutto support?

 

[mears]

I think you're assuming that genuine democracy would emerge at the same time as the neo-liberal economics. History and common sense (and knowledge of Pakistani politics) says that this won't happen - despite what the neo-cons would have us believe.

So you'll effectively get a neo-liberal dictatorship with the trappings of a parliamentary democracy, alllowing the country to be plundered at will. Not a huge improvement on military dictatorship then.

Really?

What would be an improvement than?

 

[newharper]

Backstage, U.S. Nurtured Pakistan Rivals’ Deal

Whats interesting is what kind of deal Bhutto has cut with Musharaf, he will certainly be remaining as President with her support and with his placeman as Chief of Staff of the Army, there have also been reports recently that she will be allowed access to the $13,000,000 frozen in her Swiss accounts.

No surprise here then.

In turning back to Ms. Bhutto, administration officials said they acted with reluctance, after General Musharraf’s own political missteps and the mounting opposition to his military government had weakened his grip on power and threatened to plunge Pakistan deeper into turmoil.

The administration concluded over the summer that a power-sharing deal with Ms. Bhutto might be the only way that General Musharraf could keep from being toppled.

It began quietly nurturing the accord, under which Ms. Bhutto’s party did not boycott General Musharraf’s election last month, and the president issued a decree granting Ms. Bhutto and others amnesty for recent corruption charges, opening the way for her return.

John D. Negroponte, the deputy secretary of state, and Richard A. Boucher, the top State Department official for Pakistan, each went to Islamabad to press General Musharraf into the deal.

But they're not really convinced.

Now they (American intelligence officials) worry that Ms. Bhutto’s re-entry to Pakistan’s political scene will complicate their lagging efforts to pursue insurgents from Al Qaeda and the Taliban.

State Department bureaucrats also fret that her turbulent past will further inflame an already volatile country. Inside and outside the American bureaucracy, there remains deep skepticism that the arrangement between two longtime enemies has a chance for long-term success.

“This backroom deal I think is going to explode in our face,” said Bruce Riedel, who advised three presidents on South Asian issues and is now at the Brookings Institution. “Ms. Bhutto and Mr. Musharraf detest each other, and the concept that they can somehow work collaboratively is a real stretch.”

Well at least they won't be surprised when the shits start fanning the fires.

Still, there is concern among American officials that, given rising anti-Americanism inside Pakistan, eventually she and General Musharraf could compete for public support by showing who is less beholden to the White House — especially on matters like attacking Al Qaeda’s haven in Pakistan’s tribal areas.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/20/world/asia/20bhutto.html?pagewanted=1&hp

 

[Kaka Tim]

The bomb attack is a bit useful for Musharraf is isn't it? Puts Bhutto in her place and dependant on him for her own security.

I wonder if the ISF (elemnts of which have very close links with the taliban) turned a bit of blind eye. After all the jihadis have been pretty keen to off Musharraf but have never got close - then Bhutto nearly gets topped on her first day back.

They're now talking about a ban on rallies for the upcoming election.

All seems well dodge to me.

 

[mk12]

She should be shot just for wearing those glasses.

 

[DogorKat?]

I'm currently travaling northen Pakistan and the sad opinion of many of the people that i have spoke to is that there are no easy short term solutions to the political problems here. they seem resigned to the the fact that the country is fucked and that they will continue to be shafted by corrupt politicians and the army for some time yet.

 

[Detroit City]

So who are the heroes of Pakistan?If Bhutto is that bad, whom do we measure her against in Pakistan?

i guess it would be the founder, Mohammed Ali Jinnah

 

[ViolentPanda]

Oh big boy with the mighty slogans. You know, its amazing someone as bad a Thatcher could remain PM of the UK for so long. Seems as though she had plenty of support amongst the people.

What politics do you support? Obviously not the "neo-liberal" sort and not "big Business" - more slogans there. Do you support small business? I wonder, if not "neo liberalism" for you than what? What policies should politicians like Thatcher and Bhutto support?

If you have to post, why not post something substantive, rather than your usual piss-thin knee-jerk republican cocksucking?

 

[mears]

i guess it would be the founder, Mohammed Ali Jinnah

Sad that you have to answer the question for him.

 

[mears]

If you have to post, why not post something substantive, rather than your usual piss-thin knee-jerk republican cocksucking?

I know, nothing but personal insults for you. But when you post on political forums and are unable to put your ideological beliefs in a straightforward manner, when all you do is complain - what you get is someone going around talking about sucking cocks.

Bhutto might be Pakistans best hope for a pluralist democratic country which practicies the types of economic policies which have lifted so many out of poverty in India and China.

Its not like radical islamists have any plan. They are just like you, all bark and no concrete proposals.

 

[david dissadent]

Id be willing to bet Blackwater are finalising a contract right now, but the question is who will be paying for them to be covering Bhutto.... herself from her alleged $750 000 000 fortune (now unfrozen), the US state department or some or other endowment for 'democracy'.

But as for who did it, well its not open and shut. You could make a case for any number of groups, everything from dissident officers out to just off her, others aiming to embarrass Musharif, perhaps the CIA to drive her firmly into there protection or most Machevelian of all her own people to either off her or to embarass Musharif and raly sympathy. God knows it may even have just been terrorists.

Hell given that Saudi will now see the Pakistani army as about the only reliable force in the medium term to counter any threats from Iran...... what a world we have wrought.

 

[newharper]

Bhutto might be Pakistans best hope for a pluralist democratic country which practicies the types of economic policies which have lifted so many out of poverty in India and China.

Oh really Mears, Ziauddin Sardar
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ziauddin_Sardar

is not so sanguine.

Bhutto, the twice-failed prime minister, talks an impressive line about moderate Islam, development, and democracy. Her rhetoric is music to the ears of the White House, which has engineered her deal with General Musharraf. It allows her to evade the outstanding corruption charges which otherwise would have impeded her making another tilt for power.

None of Bhutto's rhetorical qualities - liberalising Islam, genuine development or empowering democracy - were much in evidence during her previous administrations. The father of the Pakistani bomb, AQ Khan, whom she is now willing to hand over to international authorities, was diligently at work developing his weapons while she was in power. The opportunities to tackle endemic poverty were frittered away in corrupt feathering of the fortunes of favoured citizens, most notably her husband. Not a single development project, not even a motorway, was completed during her two administrations.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,,2195411,00.html

this is just a sticking plaster, a temporary fix.

 

[mears]

Oh really Mears, Ziauddin Sardar
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ziauddin_Sardar

is not so sanguine.



http://www.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,,2195411,00.html

this is just a sticking plaster, a temporary fix.

I am not saying she is some Mother Teresa, But I would assume to survive in politics in a place like Pakistan you have to be tough as shit.

I just don't know if there is a better alternative in Pakistan.

 

[Fisher_Gate]

Statement of the Labour Party Pakistan:

http://internationalviewpoint.org/spip.php?article1326

 

[ViolentPanda]

I know, nothing but personal insults for you. But when you post on political forums and are unable to put your ideological beliefs in a straightforward manner, when all you do is complain - what you get is someone going around talking about sucking cocks.

It's quite surprising, the degree to which your memory edits out all the times you've been "pwned", isn't it, Mr "there's no such thing as a mixed economy".

Bhutto might be Pakistans best hope for a pluralist democratic country which practicies the types of economic policies which have lifted so many out of poverty in India and China.

Have you read up on Pakistan's economic and political history, any biographies and/or analyses of the various politicians?
if you have, you should be well aware that Bhutto's presence will make no difference to whether Pakistan achieves a pluralist democracy, because she taps into the same tribal support network as every other Pakistani politician.
As for "types of economic policies", study the geo-politics of Pakistan, even just a primer, and you'll see why every new set of economic policies in the last 60 years to promote industrial and agricultural growth have fallen way short of their targets. If you don't have the infrastructure or the will to create a national infrastructure "on the ground", you can't operate an economy efficiently.

Its not like radical islamists have any plan. They are just like you, all bark and no concrete proposals.

Whereas you prescribe the same medicine that has failed in most other developing countries.
Why, because you might benefit, not through any modicum of altruism.

 

[ViolentPanda]

I am not saying she is some Mother Teresa, But I would assume to survive in politics in a place like Pakistan you have to be tough as shit.

Except, of course, that she's spent almost two-thirds of her life outside Pakistan, and still lives off of her father's reputation.

I just don't know if there is a better alternative in Pakistan.

So Bhutto should be supported purely because, in your eyes, she's the least worst option?

 

[mears]

It's quite surprising, the degree to which your memory edits out all the times you've been "pwned", isn't it, Mr "there's no such thing as a mixed economy".

Have you read up on Pakistan's economic and political history, any biographies and/or analyses of the various politicians?
if you have, you should be well aware that Bhutto's presence will make no difference to whether Pakistan achieves a pluralist democracy, because she taps into the same tribal support network as every other Pakistani politician.
As for "types of economic policies", study the geo-politics of Pakistan, even just a primer, and you'll see why every new set of economic policies in the last 60 years to promote industrial and agricultural growth have fallen way short of their targets. If you don't have the infrastructure or the will to create a national infrastructure "on the ground", you can't operate an economy efficiently.

Whereas you prescribe the same medicine that has failed in most other developing countries.
Why, because you might benefit, not through any modicum of altruism.

Right, like its failed in China, Chile, Taiwan, South Korea and India

So you believe Pakistan needs to improve their infrastructure? They would not be the only one in the region - look at India. But yes, one does need good ports, roads, bridges and airports to build a stable growing economy. I could not agree more.

 

[ViolentPanda]

Right, like its failed in China, Chile, Taiwan, South Korea and India

Success, in your eyes, is only about money. My eyes prefer to weigh the social cost too when factoring the "successful/unsuccessful" cost/benefit analysis, something that's anathema to most "free marketeers".
We're talking about Pakistan, not China, Chile, Taiwan, South Korea or India, three of which countries have had a solid industrial base for at least 100 years, the other two having been "forced" (like rhubarb, not through violence) into becoming heavily industrialised.
Yet again mears rolls his eyes while pontificating on a subject that he obvioulsy knows little about.

So you believe Pakistan needs to improve their infrastructure? They would not be the only one in the region - look at India. But yes, one does need good ports, roads, bridges and airports to build a stable growing economy. I could not agree more.

You miss the point (as usual).
India (as it is post-independence) had the majority of what infrastructure colonialism left, therefore it's always had at least something to build on. Pakistan only inherited a usable infrastructure in about two thirds of the country, the rest was, as it had been under the Raj, too inhospitable to work with.
That means that Pakistan, to actually realise it's ambitions in terms of old-fashioned infrastructure (roads, rail, airports and other civil engineering projects) would have to attempt to work in those inhospitable areas. The problem with that is that we're talking about the tribal areas, where the Pakistani government holds no power and has absolutely no wish to destabilise (why would you want to destabilise an area that your own military are loath to enter and have mutinied when ordered to do so?).
So Pakistan is stuck with it's strange mix of a small tech industry, some old heavy industry, agriculture and the ubiquitous small to medium -scale sweated production of textiles until such time as it can politically pacify important sectors of territory.

 

[nino_savatte]

I just don't know if there is a better alternative in Pakistan.

There is: reunite the two partitioned halves of the country once known as "India".

 

[ViolentPanda]

There is: reunite the two partitioned halves of the country once known as "India".

Would India want to assume responsibility for a nation-state whose current level of production is at around the same efficiency as Andra Pradesh? Can't see it, myself.
Then there's the whole issue of suddenly enlarging the Muslim element of India's citizenry by 170 million+. I don't think that the Hindu nationalists would accept any move that established something approaching parity of numbers between the two main religions.

 

[Belushi]

Would India want to assume responsibility for a nation-state whose current level of production is at around the same efficiency as Andra Pradesh? Can't see it, myself.
Then there's the whole issue of suddenly enlarging the Muslim element of India's citizenry by 170 million+. I don't think that the Hindu nationalists would accept any move that established something approaching parity of numbers between the two main religions.

Yup, despite Hindu anger about partition I cant imagine the BJP and others for a moment accepting such a massive increase in the Muslim population, or many Pakistanis wanting to be part of a Hindu majority state. And lets not even start thinking about Bangladesh...

 

[nino_savatte]

Would India want to assume responsibility for a nation-state whose current level of production is at around the same efficiency as Andra Pradesh? Can't see it, myself.
Then there's the whole issue of suddenly enlarging the Muslim element of India's citizenry by 170 million+. I don't think that the Hindu nationalists would accept any move that established something approaching parity of numbers between the two main religions.

Sure but partition hasn't exactly helped either; the Hindu nationalists are a product of partition.

 

[ViolentPanda]

Sure but partition hasn't exactly helped either; the Hindu nationalists are a product of partition.

Nah, the Hindu nationalists were a problem even back when my grandad served in India (followed by Burma) in the 1930s. As soon as India was treated as a country rather than a bunch of disparate kingdoms the Hindus started getting together and scheming (as did, to be fair, the Muslims too).
What partition did, IMO, was to validate to a degree the idea of separatism as a valid politics, something the likes of the BJP are fixated on.