Who's your presidential pick?

How about Emerson and Thoreau?

 

I've read their work, but my ideas are pretty much based on the things I've learned myself over the years. Not based on what any one person or group of people says, but just on the things I've researched.

There are people I have been influenced by certainly, but I wouldn't say they have any bearing on what I believe necessarily.

 

That's what I was asking...who are your influences.

Oh, whatever, I know you're going to be all enigmatic and stuff...lol.

 

DP

(deep penetration)

 

Ummm... President Musharraf is a professional snake oil salesman and a dictator. His idea of democracy is ruling over the masses by martial law and controlling some of the worlds most lucrative nuclear weapons while leaving the Afghanistan border unsecured and permitting only shoeless men wearing blue turbans to enter his country from India carrying box crates on their heads.

The place is a gateway between the economics of industrially booming India and the rich oppressions of the Middle East. It's the Panama of the West-of-Central Asian.

I can't see how the world can sit back and take a laissez-fair attitude about the courageous and multicultural people of Pakistan.

 

LOL!!

Do you know how much money the US gives to the Pakistani government?? Maybe we could start by not funding them.

So you think the US should invade a sovereign nation because of a dictator that WE are helping to prop up? I suppose you think we should invade Iran as well to save the Iranian people from their oppressive dictator?

After all, it's about helping the people, right??

Tell me you honestly believe the people running this government give a shit about the suffering that goes on in these countries.

And gee, just look at how the Iraqis have benefited from the US removing their evil dictator (which the US also funded and provided chemical and biological weapons to).

 

i say the more nukes the better

 

Errrrrrm, hell no!!!

You are totally putting words into my mouth at this point. I think I walked into this thread at bad time (perhaps not early enough) at which you for some reason feel like going off at me.

I suggest we should cut funding from the terrorists and extremist groups that are Islamic in creed and extreme in upholding Musharraf's regime. The US military arms dealerships and partnerships in the country of Pakistan is out of control and tightly weaved through underground networks and the de-regulations of big name arms and warfare vehicle manufacteurs like Sikorsky, the Tata group or the copying and making of there own arms, like you can read about here.

I think people should give a shit about the people suffering in these countries, and I don't believe a laissez-fair attitude is appropriate for the leader of a country to take.

EDIT: And that's all I wanted to say, and have expressed in my post above. I don't think we should expect Obama to say "Well gee, it's okay for Pakistan and their dictator to do whatever they want to do to their own people as long as we don't have to go to... *gasp* go to war with them!!"

That's just not how you win in politics.

 

I think most people that are aware of what's going on care. I care. You care. Does the government care? No, but the government will use that as an excuse to provide the "solution" to the problems they played a major role in helping to create in the first place. That's their modus operandi... it's how they operate. It's called problem-reaction-solution. They're giving us the same line of BS about Iraq and Iran, and how it's all about "liberating" the people. Sure, they liberate them from their existing dictatorship that THEY helped prop up, and then they replace it with their own "loving," corporate-friendly dictatorship.

It's not the United States' duty or that of any other country to police the world. What countries like the US can start doing is to stop funding people like Musharraf. What the US can stop doing is meddling in the affairs of other countries. The CIA can stop engaging in covert activities aimed at creating conflicts for the US to then intervene in. How about that? Other than that it's not this country or any other country's duty to bring so-called "peace" to another country at the barrel of a gun.

This poliarized left/right mentality scares me because I think a lot of people probably think like you. They are anti-war with Bush, but put someone in office with a (D) next to their name and suddenly war is just so wonderful and loving.

If Obama wanted to really address the problems with Pakistan, he should have addressed the US and their funding of Pakistan and the relationship between our CIA and their ISI, which are virtually one and the same.

Now I don't mean to go off on you or anything like that. Perhaps I am reading too much into what you're saying, but you seem to be advocating US intervention in Pakistan, when a good bulk of the problems there can be attributed to the West funding and providing aid to their corrupt government.

 

Yeah, s'okay. I am not saying that the US should be an interventionalist in Pakistani politics. I was trying to say that the US could really help Pakistan establish a true and functioning democratic government by ensuring fair and honourable elections through independent election volunteers and investments into basic infrastructure - rather than arms and warfare interests. I support other means than warfare and free markets.

I'm saying that you don't win an election by publicly announcing that it's okay not to take a stand against a dictator like Musharraf.

That's not how you win the game of politics, or at least not in your country.

Aren't you always saying how we can't trust the puppet candidates running for office, that they are all the same, that you can't take what they say at face value, or any value at all most of the time. So what makes Obama's statements about being tough on Pakistan any different? For all we know and according to your logic, the man could be talking right out of his ass about it in order to win votes.

And that's what I believe in this case.

You see my dear, you are harping a slogan of "don't trust what politicians have to say" and yet this seems to be the tragic flaw that punctures a large scale of your intrinsic theories of proof about the "Trust No One" philosophies against the New World Order.

 

How is the US going to help Pakistan establish a "true and functioning democratic government," and why would they even want to? We don't even have "fair and honorable" elections here, so what makes you think we're going to install such a system in Pakistan? And what gives us the right to meddle in the affairs of a sovereign nation anyway? Would you want Pakistan (or the US) to come into your country and tell your government how to run things? No matter who is put into office, it's going to be someone who is a puppet of the West, much like Musharraf is. Musharraf is one of Bushy's little lap dogs.

Perhaps Obama is talking out of his ass. Then again maybe he's not. Then again, Zbigniew Brzezinski is his foreign policy advisor. Either way he's highlighting how disingenuous of a politician he is. He attacks the current administration for their hawkish policies, then advocates an invasion of Pakistan, which is the height of hypocrisy. If Obama was a genuine person, he wouldn't be telling the people what he thinks they want to hear, but what he believes.

 

I'm very much aware of US involvement with encouraging and supporting the arms race in Pakistan. I know the way it works.

And while I believe economic sanctions are usually effective on cutting the funds from totalitarian regimes, I know for a fact that them alone, they simply do not have the capability to remove the dictator from a position of power. (think Castro or Mugabe)

Afghanistan is in the process of having democratic elections widely supported by internationals working the poll stations and independent organisations that are present to ensure fair and non-violent elections. It's a process that we should be supporting and advocating. Unless you can actually think of a better way to remove bad people in power who have been doing it by coup d'état and coup d'état at a time, such as in the history of Paskistan.

If anyone is interested in learning about the US involvement with Paskistan nuclear weapons and the inter-connected network of interventionalists already cutting a slice of Pakistan, I suggest that you take a look at this vid

 

Well, I do not support sanctions like those imposed on Iraq for ten years. Sanctions are government mandates. I am simply talking about the US providing massive funding to Musharraf's government for their own nefarious purposes, much like the US provided chemical and biological weapons to Saddam and funding for al-Qaeda. It's not about sanctions. We placed sanctions on Iraq after we propped up Saddam Hussein for all those years, which caused the needless suffering of the innocent people of Iraq.

And no, I do not support international groups overseeing the elections of other countries because I respect what is called national sovereignty and the right for countries to govern themselves without outside meddling. The problem with most of these countries to begin with is outside intervention from the West. I am opposed to globalism and world government, so it makes sense that I am against this rampant internationlism that presents itself as being for the greater good of the people. Would you want Americans, or Europeans, or Pakistanis overseeing the elections in your country? And what makes you so sure that the objective of these groups is as it appears? How do you know it's not nothing more than window dressing? What makes you believe the West wants free and democratic elections in these countries, when the West has had a hand in these countries' affairs all along?

You talk about the "bad people" in power in these third world countries, but I look at the people who have propped these bad people up in the first place. I realize that they're running my own country and want to instill their way of "Democracy" on other nations through their deceptive and forceful ways.

You need to understand that the Western governments that commit such evil with one hand are then coming forward with pre-planned "solutions" with the other. They create the problems so they have a pretext to intervene and exercise more control over these nations. That's how globalism and imperialism works.