We're doomed

[Phil M]

Ron Paul gives me a lot of hope for our country, but there are some things that really depress me: According to CNN's daily unscientific poll, 40% of respondents think Musharraf was justified in declaring martial law.

[rodent]

Well, he was.

That guy is between a rock and a hard place. The people hate that he is against Osama and Osama is more popular than he is. If they do elections, Pakistan is not going to elect someone who is favorable to US policies -- they will elect someone who isn't. This means we will have no allies and Osama will be in Pakistan operating with good cover.

[OptionsTrader]

Polls are meaningless.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=If9EWDB_zK4

The market is the only thing that matters. And the market is donating to Ron Paul with more momentum than any other candidate.

And the market is betting he will win.

http://i22.tinypic.com/j13kb8.png

His positions will win in the market of ideas. And more and more people are learning who this Ron Paul guy is.

http://i21.tinypic.com/14sh8pc.jpg

[Zarxrax]

According to 95% of polls that I pulled out of my ass, 87% of people who view polling results believe that polls are within +/- 10% of accuracy, 90% of the time.

As Ron Paul supporters, I think we would all know by now to take any poll with a grain of salt.

[angelatc]

Well, he was.

That guy is between a rock and a hard place. The people hate that he is against Osama and Osama is more popular than he is. If they do elections, Pakistan is not going to elect someone who is favorable to US policies -- they will elect someone who isn't. This means we will have no allies and Osama will be in Pakistan operating with good cover.

And that is a direct result of our foreign policy, which sucks. People there might think that Osama is an extemist, but the alternative to supporting him seems to be endless occupation by American troops.

[Phil M]

According to 95% of polls that I pulled out of my ass, 87% of people who view polling results believe that polls are within +/- 10% of accuracy, 90% of the time.

As Ron Paul supporters, I think we would all know by now to take any poll with a grain of salt.

Yes, but this is a poll of CNN.com visitors, who are generally more informed than the average American. It certainly isn't scientific and doesn't matter really, but it is a sign that Americans in general are becoming careless about their freedoms.


Well, he was.

That guy is between a rock and a hard place. The people hate that he is against Osama and Osama is more popular than he is. If they do elections, Pakistan is not going to elect someone who is favorable to US policies -- they will elect someone who isn't. This means we will have no allies and Osama will be in Pakistan operating with good cover.

Arresting Supreme court justices and nationally known lawyers, suspending the Constitution, and delaying parliamentary elections indefinitely are not characteristics of a free society. If Pakistan doesn't elect someone favorable to US policies, it doesn't mean we should side a dictator.

[pcosmar]

According to 95% of polls that I pulled out of my ass, 87% of people who view polling results believe that polls are within +/- 10% of accuracy, 90% of the time.

As Ron Paul supporters, I think we would all know by now to take any poll with a grain of salt.

A grain of salt? how about a block.

http://www.esco-salt.com/export/sites/esco-salt.com/images/sideimages/pferd_leckst_hk.jpg

[rodent]

Arresting Supreme court justices and nationally known lawyers, suspending the Constitution, and delaying parliamentary elections indefinitely are not characteristics of a free society. If Pakistan doesn't elect someone favorable to US policies, it doesn't mean we should side a dictator.

Pakistan is hardly a free society. It's more of a mob-theocracy. Musharraf is only there because he was part of the military. If the military didn't back him, he'd be dead already.

Pakistan is not comparable to the US, so "democracy" and "constitution" there are just token gestures. The country was formed as a result of COINTELPRO-style operations run by the British when they had control of India. They created paranoia about muslim representation in India's new parliament. Pakistan wasn't born of Western-European traditions and written about by people like Rousseau and Locke. (The Indians, on the other hand, lifted their system from the British and then [mostly] had a dominant religion that wasn't as imposing. Hinduism doesn't demand that you have to be a follower like Islam does.) Incidentally, Pakistan's official name is "The Islamic Republic of Pakistan." They've had religion intertwined into their politics from the very formation -- they have what right-wing Christians want for the US.

...

Not related:

Incidentally, if you want a case for why freedom works and tyranny doesn't, just look at how India and Pakistan are. India's growing by leaps and bounds, has good universities, and has more freedom than Pakistan. They have issues to fix, but the markets have lifted quite a few up out of poverty. Pakistan has been theocratic, mob-ruled, and very not-free for the past 60 years. People there are poor as dirt with no real hope.

Now, when India got independence, they were very socialist. Under socialism, their economy did nothing. When free-market reforms came, they started growing rapidly. Freedom really works.

[Wendi]

Well, he was.

That guy is between a rock and a hard place. The people hate that he is against Osama and Osama is more popular than he is. If they do elections, Pakistan is not going to elect someone who is favorable to US policies -- they will elect someone who isn't. This means we will have no allies and Osama will be in Pakistan operating with good cover. Declaring martial law because you don't like the projected outlook of a pending election is never justified IMHO.

[rodent]

Declaring martial law because you don't like the projected outlook of a pending election is never justified IMHO.

Pakistan is a nuclear-enabled hotbed of extremism. If you let Musharraf go out of power and let the mob have its way, it will give Osama access to nuclear technology. Forget Iran. Pakistan already has the bomb.

What the US is doing is absolutely stupid. We should be using the CIA to quel unrest there and keep Musharraf in power. If you're going to be interventionist, at least be logical about it I say.

[Phil M]

Pakistan is hardly a free society. It's more of a mob-theocracy. Musharraf is only there because he was part of the military. If the military didn't back him, he'd be dead already.

Pakistan is not comparable to the US, so "democracy" and "constitution" there are just token gestures. The country was formed as a result of COINTELPRO-style operations run by the British when they had control of India. They created paranoia about muslim representation in India's new parliament. Pakistan wasn't born of Western-European traditions and written about by people like Rousseau and Locke. (The Indians, on the other hand, lifted their system from the British and then [mostly] had a dominant religion that wasn't as imposing. Hinduism doesn't demand that you have to be a follower like Islam does.)

...

Not related:

Incidentally, if you want a case for why freedom works and tyranny doesn't, just look at how India and Pakistan are. India's growing by leaps and bounds, has good universities, and has more freedom than Pakistan. They have issues to fix, but the markets have lifted quite a few up out of poverty. Pakistan has been theocratic, mob-ruled, and very not-free for the past 60 years. People there are poor as dirt with no real hope.

Now, when India got independence, they were very socialist. Under socialism, their economy did nothing. When free-market reforms came, they started growing rapidly. Freedom really works.

Well, I agree that whoever they would elect instead of Musharraf wouldn't be all that great. But my point isn't that democracy would magically free Pakistan, it is that any level of democracy or elections, even if it is theocracy by consent of the majority, acts as a check on government power. That check is gone now.

However, you do seem to have a point. This Bhutto lady I've read about isn't all that much better that Musharraf:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benazir_Bhutto#Policy_on_Taliban

[Kregener]

The wheels are about to come completely off the cart in Pakistan. Both Don Mcalvany and Richard Maybury have been saying it would happen for over a decade.

[rodent]

Well, I agree that whoever they would elect instead of Musharraf wouldn't be all that great. But my point isn't that democracy would magically free Pakistan, it is that any level of democracy or elections, even if it is theocracy by consent of the majority, acts as a check on government power. That check is gone now.

However, you do seem to have a point. This Bhutto lady I've read about isn't all that much better that Musharraf:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benazir_Bhutto#Policy_on_Taliban

I love your thinking, personally. However, I think it's framed from a western POV.

The real issue in Pakistan is that they hate the US and American interventionism. The only reason they are our ally is because Musharraf claims he is doing everything he can to find Osama in the northwest regions of the country. If Musharraf doesn't ally with the US, the US would then use interventionist policies to invade Pakistan to find Osama. If the US invades Pakistan, we have a conflict on our hands with a nuclear armed enemy and a new war.

In this one case, Musharraf sees the picture far more clearly than the public. The public generally wants to enable Osama to have access to their weapons. The public in Pakistan is more or less on the side of Osama Bin Laden. Nothing the US can say or do will change that sentiment.

[pcosmar]

Pakistan is a nuclear-enabled hotbed of extremism. If you let Musharraf go out of power and let the mob have its way, it will give Osama access to nuclear technology. Forget Iran. Pakistan already has the bomb.

What the US is doing is absolutely stupid. We should be using the CIA to quel unrest there and keep Musharraf in power. If you're going to be interventionist, at least be logical about it I say.

They can't possibly launch and hit us. Let them alone and they will set it off on themselves.

Just like a idiot with a gun, he will shoot himself in the foot.

[Kregener]

Mutulally-Assured Destruction worked like a CHARM against the Soviet Union.

[rodent]

They can't possibly launch and hit us. Let them alone and they will set it off on themselves.

Just like a idiot with a gun, he will shoot himself in the foot.

They don't have to launch against us at home. They just have to pass the device over to Iran or use it on our troops in Iraq or Afghanistan.

Remember, the guy who developed the bomb for them in Pakistan sold the technology to Iran illegally already. The ties are already there, meaning the transfer of weaponry can happen. They can also strike our troops in Afghanistan.

The other thing to note is that the US has been a military enabler of Pakistan. They have access to our F-16s and other US technology. The US supplied them with armaments during the cold war. They simply need to enable their American technology to attack us over there.

[Kregener]

Rodent,

Are you a supporter of Ron Paul? Your postings look like the would reach a more agreeable audience over at Hannity.com.

Just saying...

[rodent]

Rodent,

Are you a supporter of Ron Paul? Your postings look like the would reach a more agreeable audience over at Hannity.com.

Just saying...

You need to realize that RP's ideas won't be in effect until he's in office. If we're playing the interventionist game, we have to be smart about it.

There is nothing smart about letting the supporter of the US in Pakistan lose power to pro-Osama factions with access to nuclear technology.

[pcosmar]

There is nothing smart about letting the supporter of the US in Pakistan lose power to pro-Osama factions with access to nuclear technology.

There was nothing smart about our propping up his government all these years while he protected Osama.
There is nothing smart about having troops in Iraq.
There is nothing smart about the CIA.
The only smart thing to do is to get out of their business.

[Jimmy]

There was nothing smart about our propping up his government all these years while he protected Osama.
There is nothing smart about having troops in Iraq.
There is nothing smart about the CIA.
The only smart thing to do is to get out of their business.

Totally agree....but right now is another story. Were in this thing up to our eyeballs....certainly shouldn't have but here we are. Hopefully Ron Paul will win and get us out and change things were they need to be but that doesn't change the present. As evil as martical law is...look at our position. One nuke hits our troops main base somewhere and what happens you think? There won't be any oportuntity to fix things. It would be out of control instantly. Hopefully we can work our way out of this and change everything for the better.

[paulitics]

I think the problem is all roads lead to Rome. Why is our "ally" harboring Osama? Why do we continue to fund the ISI, when there is a money trail leading to Al Quada, like the events leading up to 911?

Tyrrany seems to be very effective in keeping the political dissidents in check, the political activists who wants democracy, or want the end to Musharref's reign . It would seem fairly easy to find, imprison, or at least freeze the assets of a major terrorist group that are "stronger than pre 911" with all of our help, and top notch CIA trained intelligence.

Why does the US puppet government harbor terrorists, and why are we doing nothing about it? To me, it is like the border issue. It makes a mockery out of the whole was on terror.

[rodent]

There was nothing smart about our propping up his government all these years while he protected Osama.
There is nothing smart about having troops in Iraq.
There is nothing smart about the CIA.
The only smart thing to do is to get out of their business.

If you can snap your fingers and make RP president, then please do it.

Until 2009, we're going to have an interventionist neo-con in power. They're focused on Iran and haven't bothered to look into Pakistan, where the real danger is. They need to keep that situation in check.

What are they doing instead? Condi Rice just denounced him and wants elections! She wants anti-US people in power. That makes no sense to me at all.

[pcosmar]

If Ron Paul is not elected we will have much worse problems than Pakistan or Iran.

[Wendi]

What are they doing instead? Condi Rice just denounced him and wants elections! She wants anti-US people in power. That makes no sense to me at all. It makes more sense than declaring martial law in the name of freedom :eek:

You can't force people to be free. If we want to give them freedom of choice, we must be willing to accept that they may choose to give up their freedom.

On the other hand, if our goal is to force them to live the way we want them to live and the way we think is okay and right... then by all means we don't actually want them to have a free election that allows them to choose what they want for themselves.

[kylejack]

You need to realize that RP's ideas won't be in effect until he's in office. If we're playing the interventionist game, we have to be smart about it.

There is nothing smart about letting the supporter of the US in Pakistan lose power to pro-Osama factions with access to nuclear technology.
The longer we support a military dictator who was never elected, the more animosity we create against ourselves. If this were happening in my country, I'd be making plans to kill my oppressers.

[Primbs]

I am surprised the Bush administration would be saying anything. We are trying to keep Musharraf from being killed yet we want to punish him at the same time for clamping down.

I would hate to see hoards of violent extremists overrun Pakistan military bases containing the nuclear bombs.

[pcosmar]

I am surprised the Bush administration would be saying anything. We are trying to keep Musharraf from being killed yet we want to punish him at the same time for clamping down.

I would hate to see hoards of violent extremists overrun Pakistan military bases containing the nuclear bombs.

I would be fine with them detonating in place.

[pcosmar]

I am more concerned with the corrupt, rogue leaders in this country.

[Primbs]

Ron Paul would probably say that we should let Pakistan be Pakistan. Not every culture or country is cut out for democracy or a Republic right now.

I don't think you can have a functioning Republic or Democracy where bribes are a way of life. Property rights will never be respected in that type of environment. Business will not want to invest if they can't insure that their property and profits won't be taken away by confiscation or other schemes.

[constituent]

That guy is between a rock and a hard place... If they do elections, Pakistan is not going to elect someone who is favorable to US policies -- they will elect someone who isn't. This means we will have no allies and Osama will be in Pakistan operating with good cover.

a rock and a hard place... where every UNLAWFUL military dictator belongs (yea, we put him in charge before 9/11... posturing?)

Osama will have cover as long as the globalist are running the show. He is nothing more than a puppet, on the level of G.W. himself.

[paulitics]

I'm more concerned with our role in Pakistan. We gave them the bombs. We gave them Al quada. We gave the Musharref. What are we trying to accomplish there, seriously. Like RP said, our foreign policy is defective.