usefull…

Democracy when it is just starting off, has many many wars and deaths that it causes. For America alone, people died because of the difference between a republic and a monarchy. Then plenty more died when the Native Americans allied with the British in Canada to attempt to push Americans back. We’re not even mentioning what came afterwards.

What people know as “democracy” in this day and age is in actuality the Golden Age secured by two American nuclear bombs, the American military umbrella, and the American military supremacy on land, air, and sea. Economic might and control also plays a part, since people would much rather take money from America than fight in wars that might get them killed. Wars are begun because people on one side or the other wanted something, after all. When America says no, you can’t take over your neighbor’s country, other methods must be used. Like the UN and oil for food. Can’t war your way to power and wealth, then might as well bribe folks. And if the US will actually give you money for talking about democracy, then that’s good too.

Even Europe would still be fighting, democracy or not, without the United States keeping the peace on that continent.

It might sound good, but in reality it is not good, considering the fact that it doesn’t take into account the actual nature of Islam, as “the reconciliation of the values of Islam and the West” and “a moderate and modern Islam that marginalizes religious extremists” are impossibilities.

“Only Musharraf and the army can provide her the protection…”

Only Musharraf and the rmy can provide her the protection she’ll need to stay alive until she leaves on her next holiday, which should be soon.

She’s a greedy bitch who has ruined her family name while plundering the nation’s wealth.

Pakistan needs to continue to rebuild its foreign reserves (with her far away from the till) and get busy building their economy along with preparing for more earthquakes, floods, draughts, food shortages.

If you hold a true election today neither she nor Mush wins.

Peters is a fool. Yes, civilian leaders are automatically preferable to military leaders, because you can kick the civilians out. See, modern Pakistan for an example of how military rule works. Or alternatively, Burma.

Americaneocon, Musharref has been a strong man, but has he been a particularly effective one? Yes military regimes are stable, by virtue of the fact that they repress rival political movements. But they are highly unstable when they finally collapse; democracy is inherently more stable than military dictatorship.

As to corruption, I recommend an article in the most recent Atlantic for an example of how easily corruption has permeated the Pakistani military. Remember, power corrupts, regardless of whether you’re wearing a suit or a uniform.

As to Americaneocons points about the militants fear of democracy, I agree with that completely. They fear it because they know that a true democratic Pakistan will deal with them considerably more harshly than Musharref has while at the same time sapping them of the moderate Muslims who might be inclined to support them against the dictatorship.

Yet, Bhutto’s return, with the bombing, shows how frightening genuine reform democracy is to the al Qaeda barbarians. So maybe a strongman, from the terrorist’ perspective, is seen as actually the most compliant, especially if the military in a regime like Pakistan’s becomes infiltrated with coddlers of the forces of nihilist terrorism.

Interesting, in any case…

Also, I’m passing along this link on the regrouping of neoconservatism:

http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/commentary/la-oe-heilbrunn19oct19,0,1500804.story?coll=la-news-comment-opinions

A great morning read, with promising implications!