anyone have a guess what the US response is going to be to the Pakistan crisis?

[nashville_brook]

I figure, while we wait for the statement from our US State Department, why not take some wild guesses as to what our position in this will be.

Speculate. Imagine. Place bets.

[seemslikeadream]

1. I guess Condi is too busy with Turkey

[nashville_brook]

3. the fact that nothing has been said yet...

could that mean that we were caught off guard?

[gateley]

9. Biden warned us of the volatility in Pakistan during the debate on Tuesday. HE

wasn't caught off guard, I'm sure.

[gateley]

7. Condi totally understands the gravity of the situation. She called it "regrettable".

[nashville_brook]

10. "regrettable" is wine on your blouse. surely there's a better word for a coup in a nuclear power.

[bahrbearian]

13. Exactly..n/t

[tom_paine]

29. Condi is well, the Worst Secretary of State Ever.

That's two worsts. I don't think you can call Cheney the Worst Vice-President Ever because he's...quite effective.

[Lucinda]

34. Oh gosh....I can't decide if I should laugh or roll my eyes

She is a horror. And regrettable.

[tekisui]

2. While democracy is good, sometimes dictators are needed.

These steps must be taken to combat terrorist--alqueda.

[nashville_brook]

6. isn't that the mystery of our relationship with Pakistan? that they seem to have

most convienent access to al Qaeda and yet, we don't seem very interested in talking about "al Qaeda in Pakistan" the way we talk about 'al Qaeda in Iraq."

i really hate that "al Qaeda in _____" bullshit. like they're tribute bands.

[90-percent]

30. TRIBUTE BANDS

Or like a franchise. Maybe Al Quaida is nothing more than a single internet message board? Like the whole universe could fit inside one atom on your finger!

I don't know what I meant here, but I really agree with your point. Very well put.


-85% Jimmy

[nightrider767]

4. Too Easy

Nothing will happen.

The president today will come out and say "We are watching events in Pakistan very closely...."

[rodeodance]

5. just heard condi tell Pak to drop the emergency rule.

[nashville_brook]

8. on TV? cable?

[nashville_brook]

11. what Biden says:

At last week's debate, Senator Biden warned about taking our "eye off the ball". Too much focus was being placed on Iran, when Pakistan was the country to watch. Pakistan HAS nuclear weapons - "If President Pervez Musharraf is ousted and religious radicals take over the government, the potential use of nuclear weapons against Israel or other U.S. allies in that region would no longer be a subject of academic discourse."

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x3679756

_____________

Pakistan has nukes.

[nashville_brook]

15. Biden on ABC: "We have a Musharraf policy. We do not have a Pakistan policy."

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/story?id=3755678&page=1
Biden Advocates for U.S. Presence in Pakistan


By LINDSAY HAMILTON
Oct. 20, 2007


Sen. Joe Biden, D-Del., thinks the United States needs a stepped-up presence in Pakistan, and the presidential candidate tells ABC News' George Stephanopoulos that if terrorists were to eliminate Pakistani President Perez Musharraf, he would "probably" go in to secure Pakistan's nuclear arsenal if he were president.

"Here, you have a country that is on the edge, called Pakistan, with nuclear weapons and missiles to carry them that can strike the entire portion of that world, the subcontinent, all the way to the Mediterranean," Biden said.

In an interview on ABC News' "This Week," Stephanopoulos asked Biden, "If President Musharraf or the elected leader of Pakistan were taken out, you would consider, as president, going in with the military?"

"What I would consider is uniting the world," Biden said. "It's in everybody's interest, not just the United States alone. The first thing I would do, I would call a meeting. I would ask for a meeting of the Security Council. I would be on the telephone with everyone from Putin to the Chinese premier to our allies in Great Britain and NATO. This cannot be a U.S.-alone operation."

[aquart]

21. But if Bhutto were elected to the office? What then?

[nashville_brook]

23. wasn't there a power-sharing deal being made btwn her and Busharrif?

[aquart]

19. Uh, Isn't Musharraf Al qaeda's best friend in Pakistan?

Isn't he the one sheltering them (probably on an agreement that they don't bother each other)? So isn't Biden's statement a wild distortion more aimed against a Bhutto government than anything else? I haven't been following it and I'm especially ignorant on Bhutto, so correct me with facts please? (I'm being serious.)

[nashville_brook]

22. there's a canyon-wide chasm between our tolerance for al Qaeda in Pakistan, and al Qaeda anywhere

else -- odd, isn't it?

[nashville_brook]

28. Biden warns of Iran vote consequences for Pakistan/Afghanistan

http://www.delawareonline.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20071030/NEWS/71030073

Biden: "Big nations can't bluff"

By NICOLE GAUDIANO, Gannett News Service
Posted Tuesday, October 30, 2007 at 10:03 pm

WASHINGTON - Sen. Joe Biden said an amendment that passed the Senate designating Iran's Revolutionary Guard as a terrorist organization emboldens President Bush to move against Iran and has "incredible consequences for Afghanistan and Pakistan."

Speaking during tonight's ongoing Democratic debate at Drexel University in Philadelphia, Biden said, "We have now driven underground every moderate in Pakistan and Afghanistan."

(snip)

Biden said the measure plays into the urban legend that America is on a crusade against Islam. "All it has done is hurt us," he said. "Even if not another single action is taken, actions have consequences. Big nations can't bluff."

Biden said that he would do "all in his power" to stop Iran from getting nuclear weapons, but "an out of control Pakistan" was a greater threat to America when compared to the 2.6 kilograms of highly enriched uranium the Iranians may get.

(snip)

[tom_paine]

12. Pro-Bushharraf, ulimately pro-ISI/al-Qaeda position

Can Bhutto's pro-democracy forces win out? Will the ISI (Pakistani Intelligence Svc.) and the rest of the true-Bushie/radicalized Muslim nexus find a way to the top again, for they are a key line of comminications for the Bushies to al-Qaeada pals, I would suspect.

You know, now that I think about it, the Bushies would sacrifice Bushharraf himself if they could keep their ISI/al-Qaeda moles inside Pakistan's govt.

On the other hand, the Bushie ISI/al-Qaeda bunch are the ones who put Bushharraf in power to start with, so one would figure if Bhutto and democracy won out, she would get rid of those ISI/al-Qaeda bastards as being dangerous to her personally and politically. This would be the worst possible outcome for the Royal Bushies, as democracy's prevail usuially is posion to alltotalitarians, not just the Bushies.

This is very entertaining Reality TV and I riveted. Hell, I am considering even briefly watching Cable TV Infoganda, for that full-fledged propaganda taste and to see what the Bushies are programming the drones with. I try not to watch Cable TV Infoganda and usually succeed to the oint where I would say I literally watch less than 2hrs./month or sometimes none at all for several months.

But I am beginning to appreciate the entertainment value the coming dark Ages and human extintion present. The Greatest Show in Human History and WE have RINGSIDE SEATS. Of ocurse, so do half of humans who ever lived that are alive today also have such seats, though not as technologically wired to enjoy the show.

[nashville_brook]

17. i guess that's why i started the thread -- now, before any Infoganda...

what does anyone think, b/c you KNOW the bushies have to be ass-deep in what's going on there. we have an interest and we haven't stated it yet. what gives?

[sam sarrha]

14. higher gas prices.... and maybe Bu$h will try to buy them off, with more of our textile industry

[rateyes]

16. What their position on everything is:

More tax cuts for the wealthy.

[scarletwoman]

18. The U.S. will sell Musharref more weapons. (nt)

[nashville_brook]

20. BREAKING: Emerging markets for KBR and Halliburton.

[Solly Mack]

24. bomb Costa Rica?

[rucky]

26. We have a winnah! n/t

[malaise]

35. Possibly since Cheney doesn't know the difference

between Venezuela and Peru. :rofl:

[rucky]

25. Hire Musharraf as a White House advisor?

:shrug:

[tom_paine]

27. OK, guessing the specifics. Not as easy as pointing out great big trends. But let's see...

OK, to start with, it will be the usual verbal-tap-dancing and Orwellian trickery that we have come to expect, which will ultimately commit them to no real position, leaving them as flexible (just like always) as if they had said nothing at all.

Because here all the Bushie "think-tanks/propaganda mills" will be burning red-hot and probably have been since this thing began.

Here is the basic problem: This "crisis" is a PR disaster for them. It shoves right in everyone's face the blatant contradiction between Bushie Lies and what the Bushies actually do and WHO they support. It has to be handled carefully, in terms of what the Imperial Subjectsof Amerika are told.

So, at first, the Bushies will be cautiously in favor of Bushharraf but with their usual wink-of-the-eye warnings to observe human rights, freedom blah blah blah (the words are made hollow bythe tyrannical nature of those uttering them). But of course what they will WANT is Bhutto dispatched or otherwise neutralized, and Bushharraf restored to the "throne". In this modern age, it is foolish to think that Benino Aquino-ing Bhutto or Wellstoning her are the only options. They would proably prefer to leave her alive so as not to make her a martyr. That's why they have surrouinded her house "for her protection", I would guess.

So much depends on what happens to Bhutto. She is the only real threat to the ISI/al-Qaeda/Bushie bunch there, I think, but I am not familiar enough with the Pakistani political situation as it goes back to Bhutto's reign as democratically-elected Prime Minister in the early 90s, right?

But you ask me to speculate on what the first response would be and it's two 'graphs up. This is kind of fun, in a Reality TV sort of way.

And I always said I would always despise Reality TV. But this really is the best Reality TV of all.

Place your bets and spin the wheel, ladies and germs!

[gateley]

31. I want to hear Biden's take on this. I feel he'll give us the straight story. nt

[Faygo Kid]

32. Obvious: Attack Iran

I just can't figure whether this will move the timetable up or back for the inevitable coming attack on Iran. Anyway, Bush doesn't give a rat's ass about Pakistan, just like he didn't care about Afghanistan or Bin Laden except as a pretext to invade Iraq. Iran's in his sights now, and this will be an "unfortunate distraction."

Will still have to deal with it, though. Whatever he does, it will be the wrong thing to do.

[CK_John]

33. Bush will say, doing a heck of job, Condi. n/t

[Spazito]

36. Hmmm, I'll take a guess....

"The situation in Pakistan proves that Iran is dangerous as it is their interference that has forced our valuable ally in the War on Terror, to declare martial law in order to protect this emerging democracy. We have already sent an urgent message to the United Nations to support the sanctions against Iran and we believe now that Iran is threatening Pakistan they will be more willing to do so."

Crap, I must be channeling cheney to even come up with this! Geez.

[yella_dawg]

37. What response?

Are upscale shoe stores open on the weekends?

[sutz12]

38. "Nobody could have forseen a military coup in Pakistan"

Canned response number 1-A. :shrug:

[Kermitt Gribble]

39. "Our test run for a complete

and total dictatorship has been a pleasant surprise. We will now implement the same measures here."