WASHINGTON - Deputy Secretary of State John Negroponte told Congress on Wednesday that Pakistan President Pervez Musharraf is an "indispensable" ally in the U.S.-led war on terrorism and that "partnership with Pakistan and its people is the only option."
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20071107/ap_on_go_co/us_pakistan
Is this what Reagan said about Saddam Hussein?
2007-11-07 08:22:44 · 15 answers · asked by Chi Guy 5 in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
YA, YA, YA,.......Typical American way!
Today a die hard fan and tomorrow an invader!
Well in regard to the statement, there's no need to wast our energy, in order to justify/rectify what bush's Adm. is saying!!
This is not the first time of this nonsense!
Add: It's hilarious, how swiftly people who're marching against Musharraf on the streets of Pakistan are already been labelled as ""terrorists""!!!
ONLY IN AMERICA!
2007-11-07 08:35:17 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 5⤊ 1⤋
Bush must have looked into Musharraf's eyes as he did Putin's. The man places his trust in the wrong leaders and America pays the price.
Musharraf has been harboring Al Qaeda and the Taliban for 6 years, agreeing to leave them alone in exchange for peace. Even now, with Al Qaeda trying to kill Bhutto and launching terrorists attacks against Musharraf's govt., Musharraf has not made a move against Al Qaeda. He has a million man standing army, yet only 10% is spread thin along a long Pakistan/ Afghan border. The $10 billion in U.S. aid to Musharraf has been spent on military resources located on Pakistan's border with India.
Bush has been betrayed by his friend King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia, Dictator Musharraf of Pakistan, and Bush couldn't easily betray Putin of Russia with his missile defense system.
Bhutto has pledged to destroy Al Qaeda. Democracy now!!
2007-11-07 16:37:38 · answer #2 · answered by CaesarLives 5 · 2⤊ 0⤋
You have to take into account that this was John Negroponte speaking.
He was apparently aware of human rights violations in Honduras while serving as Ambassador, and did nothing. It seems the end justifies the means in his mind.
Reagan may well have said that about both Saddam and Tariq Aziz.
2007-11-07 16:35:28 · answer #3 · answered by Think 1st 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
It should make us worried when we have to support a very unpopular dictator of a nation that controls nuclear weapons. Eventually that dictator will be deposed and the new power will resent the Americans' support of the man who suppressed civil rights. Our support of Musharraf is now only buying us some time.
Most dictators that the United States supports do not die of old age. I don't understand why we don't learn from this.
2007-11-07 16:34:54 · answer #4 · answered by cattledog 7 · 3⤊ 0⤋
I think you need to know quite a bit more about the area, as well as Musharraf! I agree with the Negroponte.
2007-11-07 16:39:14 · answer #5 · answered by Mercedes 6 · 1⤊ 1⤋
Yes, Reagan believed in Saddam Hussein. He turned colors clearly. Musharraf? Although in my understanding of the situation, he is a military man, he has done alot for the democracy efforts. He has been paid well. Unfortunately he is the lessor of two evils right now. The US needs him vs. the Islamic rebels and even Al Quaeda forming 90 miles away. The idea was to offer the country free elections in January. Should he not comply quickly Pakistan will begin to see some sticks. We gave him plenty of carrots already... 10 million reasons for him to comply. We then will be placed in a difficult situation with our troops supplies going thru the region.
Most important is the security of the nuclear arsenal. For better or worse Musharraf is our best hope of controlling them right now. "Indispensable"... rock -n- a hard place as far as I read it.
Thanks CHI!
edit: 10 Billion, sorry and I tend to believe he will not betray US at this point... Every nation is in an uproar... Georgia today and Russia closing in trying to keep out NATO?
This US election is critical to our Super Power Status. Anyone voting for gender or just politics needs to review each candidate. International concerns are Top priority here. We have debated abortion and immigration for over 20 years already. These leaders will clearly not wait that long.
2007-11-07 17:11:47 · answer #6 · answered by Mele Kai 6 · 0⤊ 5⤋
That the US has elected a pragmatic leader - again.
Don't kid yourself that this is the first time we've allied with a 'lesser' evil to face a greater. We propped up lots of dictators to slow the spread of communism durring the Cold War. We allied with the USSR in WWII. Heck you can take it all the way back to the American Revolution when we allied with crazy monarch Louis XVI against crazy monarch George III.
2007-11-07 16:46:19 · answer #7 · answered by B.Kevorkian 7 · 3⤊ 1⤋
It means the next time Musharaff wants War Toys, he'll have to go shopping by himself at the Chinese-run : "Dictators-R-us"
But this reminds me of another Dead Milkmen song:
_______
Wonderfully colored plastic war toys
We went down to look at war toys
Wonderfully colored plastic war toys
We went down to look at war toys
But all the war toys were gone
All my life I've always wondered
What it would be like to fire off a bazooka
All my life I've always wondered
What it would be like to fire off a ballistic missile
2007-11-07 16:37:52 · answer #8 · answered by outcrop 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
While Musharraf is certainly not indispensable many of the alternatives would be disastrous.
2007-11-07 16:30:07 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 4⤊ 2⤋
It's a bit like divorce. You can be enamoured one day and a few years later you get a divorce. So it is with political leaders. They serve a useful purpose at times and when times change the opposite may be true.
2007-11-07 16:27:42 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 2⤋