Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

the devil and deep blue inconsequential sea

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

    the devil and deep blue inconsequential sea

    and i just lost interest in the whole presidential race.

    The Democratic Presidential Candidates Debate Pakistan

    'Pakistan Has Misled the World on Nuclear Proliferation'

    Special SAT Report

    WASHINGTON: Almost all the presidential candidates of the Democratic Party want the US policy towards Pakistan to be tougher and most believe General Musharraf has not been an honest ally.

    These impressions emerged after the candidates were asked questions about Pakistan during a debate organized by the National Public Radio (NPR) on January 6, 2004. Neal Conan was the host of the debate broadcast live from the downtown Des Moines campus of Iowa State University. Such detailed questioning about US-Pakistan relations has not yet been done in any of the televised TV debates.

    Six Democrats, who hope to challenge President George W. Bush next fall, were present, seated at a U-shaped table in front of the host, but the debate was on radio only, with no cameras. The participants included former Governor Howard Dean of Vermont, Congressman Dick Gephardt of Missouri, Senator John Kerry of Massachusetts, Congressman Dennis Kucinich of Ohio, Senator Joe Lieberman of Connecticut and former Ambassador Carol Moseley Braun of Illinois. Wesley Clark declined the invitation. Senator John Edwards and Reverend Al Sharpton accepted but changed their plans.

    Important quotes from the candidates include:

    Senator Kerry: Pakistan has, frankly, misled the United States and the world with respect to its proliferation responsibilities for years... I am convinced we can be tougher with Pakistan.

    Governor Howard Dean: They'll sell that weaponry to terrorists or to other countries like Libya or Pakistan for hard currency. That is a major national security threat. And this president is not defending this country.

    Richard Gephardt: This is one of the most dangerous countries in the world. They have nuclear power. This president is not doing enough to see to it that we don't face the imposition of nuclear weapons from other countries like Pakistan to the terrorists and finding their way into the United States.

    Senator John Kerry: We should have taken the initiative long ago, recognizing the Islamic realities in Pakistan to have worked with India to create a nuclear oversight capacity so that if there were an assassination or there were an overthrow, we know that the nuclear weapons can't fall in the hands of terrorists.

    Senator Joe Lieberman: I proposed an international Marshall Plan for the Muslim world, very different from the 'do nothing' approach of the Bush administration.

    Following is the Transcript of the questions and answers on Pakistan and related issues, taken from the NPR Web site:

    CONAN: Senator Kerry, Pakistani officials are accused of trading nuclear weapons technology to other countries, including Iran, North Korea and, as we heard today, possibly to Libya as well. Pakistan is also an essential American ally in the war on terrorism and, look at the map, it's crucial to any continuing operations in Afghanistan. How do you balance those two issues?

    Sen. KERRY: It's complicated, but--excuse me--you have to balance them, and it's even more complicated than that. There have been two attempts on the life of President Musharraf. The specter of an Islamic radical state with nuclear weapons is unacceptable for the world, and that is what is at risk in Pakistan today. Pakistan has, frankly, misled the United States and the world with respect to its proliferation responsibilities for years. I remember meeting in Washington with President Zia and he lied to my face about what they were doing with respect to nuclear weapons. And that's when we put sanctions in place on Pakistan as a consequence.

    I believe that you have to walk a very fine line, but I am convinced we can be tougher with Pakistan. There are steps that we could take now to deal with the northwest component, where Osama bin Laden is. We know he's up there. We have not pushed hard enough. And I think there are combinations of initiatives we could take with India that would also help us resolve the tensions in that area.

    CONAN: Some follows. Ambassador Braun.

    Ms. BRAUN: Senator Kerry is exactly right. When Benazir Bhutto was president, she swore directly to us that there was no nuclear rising going on, and we saw the O-rings on the Chinese boat in Karachi's harbor. The fact of the matter is Musharraf overthrew a democratically elected government there. We have to work with the Pakistanis but be very clear about the fact that our interests and their interests may not be coherent. There are rumors even that bin Laden is hanging out in the northwest territories there. So the fact of the matter is we have to, you know, take advantage of our--we have to relationship-build even with bad people. But at the same time, we have to be very clear about who it is we're dealing with.

    CONAN: And, Governor Dean, you wanted to get in on this.

    Dr. DEAN: I just wanted to bring up one other point about this. As we sit here, the president of the United States is refusing to have bilateral negotiations with the North Koreans, who almost certainly have a bomb already. This president is about to allow North Korea to become a nuclear power. The danger in that is not that the North Koreans will immediately attack us. The real danger is that they will do what Pakistan is accused of. They'll sell that weaponry to terrorists or to other countries like Libya or Pakistan for hard currency. That is a major national security threat. And this president is not defending this country the way he ought to be by refusing to engage in those kinds of deliberations because the hard-liners in this administration believe somehow North Korea's going to fall. Well, if they don't fall of their own accord and they end up with nuclear weapons, that's a pretty serious security risk for the United States of America.

    CONAN: Congressman Kucinich.

    Rep. KUCINICH: We have to consider the implications of this administration's policy of nuclear first strike and of developing new nuclear weapons, which was enunciated in their Nuclear Posture Review. Once the administration took that position, it lost credibility with the world community to ask any nation to disarm. As president of the United States, I would lead the way towards reasserting the primacy of the Non-Proliferation Treaty, which calls for the United States and all nuclear nations to get rid of their nuclear weapons and for the non-nuclear nations not to develop them. That's how we can regain credibility. That's how we can help secure the world.

    CONAN: And, Congressman Gephardt.

    Rep. GEPHARDT: Back on Pakistan, I think this administration has failed a lot in doing something to stop the Saudi support for madrassas schools in especially Pakistan that is producing young terrorists coming forward. You've now had two attacks on Musharraf's life. This is one of the most dangerous countries in the world. They have nuclear power. This president is not doing enough to see to it that we don't face the imposition of nuclear weapons from other countries like Pakistan to the terrorists and finding their way into the United States.

    CONAN: And I'll get to you just in a second, Senator Lieberman, but I did want to follow up with Congressman Gephardt. You and others have criticized the institutions of the madrassas, which you say are teaching anti-Western values. Where do we get off telling other countries how to run their schools?

    Rep. GEPHARDT: When you're teaching people to be terrorists, when you're advocating behavior which is really terrorism, I think the whole world has a stake in changing that educational system. This is putting lives at stake all over the world. This is a manufacturing facility of terrorism, and the whole world has to take a stand against this, and it's being funded in large part by some members of the Saudi society, and we have to take a hard stand against it and get it to change, get it to move.

    CONAN: And now, Senator Lieberman.

    Sen. LIEBERMAN: Yeah, thanks. Who would have guessed that Pakistan would have brought forth each of us to offer a comment? Let me make two points about this. The first is that the most significant threat we face to American security and American lives in the coming period of history is from fanatical Islamic terrorism. They attacked us brutally on September 11th, 2001, but Osama bin Laden in his most insane moments does not contemplate conquering the United States of America. More likely targets are Islamabad, Pakistan and Riyadh, Saudi Arabia. So working with General Musharraf--not perfect--is very important to our security.

    Secondly, finally, this administration has been woefully disengaged from playing the kind of constructive mediating role we should be playing between Pakistan and India to resolve and mediate those conflicts which will be in everybody's interests.
    Din-e-Mullah fee sabeelillah fasad (Allama Iqbal)

    #2
    CONAN: Senator Kerry. Then we'll move on to another part of the world.

    Sen. KERRY: Well, at the end of my comment when I ran out of time, I raised the India issue. The United States, this administration, has been negligent, absent from the effort to put on the global agenda proliferation as a whole. We should have purchased all of the loose nuclear material, fissionable material in Russia today. We should have taken the initiative long ago, recognizing the Islamic realities in Pakistan to have worked with India to create a nuclear oversight capacity so that if there were an assassination or there were an overthrow, we know that the nuclear weapons can't fall in the hands of terrorists. This is one of the most glaring weaknesses in this administration's entire foreign policy, and they have left the world at much greater risk, including, obviously, the United States of America.

    Dr. DEAN: Well...

    Sen. KERRY: They are not making America safer, Neal, and I believe I bring to this race the deepest level of foreign policy experience and an involvement in arms control that can help to deal with these issues so that we, in fact, fight a legitimate war on terror.

    CONAN: Governor Dean wanted to get in there.

    Dr. DEAN: I want to make one quick point about this, since we're talking about Islamic terrorists. There is a civil war going on, but it's not between the West and Islam. It's inside Islam between the radicals and the moderates, and this administration continually acts to strengthen the radicals inadvertently. I think, in response to Dick's answer about the schools, everybody, including moderate Muslims, has an interest in making sure that the radicals are not teaching small children to hate Americans, Christians, Jews and moderate Muslims, and that is the place that we have to start. I totally agree with the comments that have been made about the Saudis. We cannot afford to have them teaching hate to the next generation of suicide bombers and terrorists.

    CONAN: How do you convince them not to teach hate to the--how do you convince them to do that? How?

    Dr. DEAN: We have to make it economically not worth their while to continue to do what they're doing. We have...

    CONAN: Stop buying their oil?

    Dr. DEAN: Well, that would be...

    Unidentified Panelist: Yeah.

    Dr. DEAN: Actually, you know what? That would be a terrific start. A renewable energy policy would go a long way to defending the United States of America. This president doesn't seem to think renewable energy exists.

    CONAN: Ambassador Moseley Braun.

    Ms. BRAUN: Well, some of us have a little foreign policy experience also, John, but the point needs to be made that it has happened before that we have intervened. You've asked the question about how can you teach people what to teach their children in their schools? Well, after World War II, we did as much for Germany as well as Japan to try to...

    CONAN: After conquering those countries.

    Ms. BRAUN: Well, but the point is we engaged to make certain that the kind of militarism that happened at that level was ended. And I think that that argues well for our ability to use our diplomacy in a variety of ways to create another kind of culture in the sense of America in these parts of the world.

    CONAN: Congressman Kucinich.

    Rep. KUCINICH: What credibility do we have as a nation trying to teach peace when we're involved in a war against Iraq at this very moment and the ongoing occupation, in trying to control the oil and privatize the country? The way that we teach peace is through example. We need to set aside policies of unilateralism and pre-emption. We need to set aside policies of nuclear first strike. And we need to engage the world, fearlessly and confidently, once again, not the America of duct tape and plastic, but the America of Francis Scott Key's land of the free, home of the brave.

    CONAN: And I promise this will be the last one, Senator Lieberman.

    Sen. LIEBERMAN: OK. I wanted to speak about Saudi Arabia. How do we convince them to stop supporting the madrassas? Because it's in their interests, because, you know, this is a classic case. You try to ride the back of the tiger, he's going to eat you up. If they don't stop the spread of radical Islam, they're going to be overthrown. The great victory that we will win in the war against terrorism is not just to capture and kill bin Laden, but it is to empower the great majority of Muslims to live better, freer lives, and we can only do that if the leadership, too often despotic, often sitting on top of gravely impoverished people, will allow us to help them open up. I proposed an international Marshall Plan for the Muslim world, very different from the 'do nothing' approach of the Bush administration.

    http://www.satribune.com/archives/ja...ion_debate.htm
    Din-e-Mullah fee sabeelillah fasad (Allama Iqbal)

    Comment


      #3
      ahh, so now based on what you have read, who do you think is better for pakistan.

      Lieberman had the most realstic long term approach to solve issues in middle east, but he is out- good smart person but just not electable.

      Braun did not have anything significant to add, she is out, no real loss.

      Dean had an interesting view about the struggle between teh radical elements and normal folks in muslim countries, but did not have a real solution

      Kerry seems to just be going at the exact opposite of what W is doing.



      so now, u heard Kerry..you gonna vote for him or W?
      The greatest trick the devil ever pulled was convincing the world he did not exist. And like that... he is gone.

      Comment


        #4
        For the ABB's (Anyone But Bush) this is quite a knot. All dems want to stake a position different from Bush. So, if Bush supports Pakistan/Musharraf they'd want to bash us. So, what if Bush is good for Pakistan and bad for muslims, and the other one wants to reverse it?
        "Let your friends underestimate your virtues. Let your enemies overestimate your faults." - Godfather.

        Comment


          #5
          do you really think that the dems will do something very diff? remember clinton's years in the office and how disliked albright was? Kerry supported all that took place then, so if you were not in favour of sanctions or missle attacks here and there..u know kerry was.

          so that aspect is not going to change..

          question now is, who is better for Pakistan..
          The greatest trick the devil ever pulled was convincing the world he did not exist. And like that... he is gone.

          Comment


            #6
            Re: the devil and deep blue inconsequential sea

            Originally posted by ravage:

            Ms. BRAUN: Senator Kerry is exactly right. When Benazir Bhutto was president....
            Jeez.

            Comment


              #7
              the more i listen to him the more I like that Kucinich.. no wonder corporate media doesn't give him the time of day..
              JaddoN kaddya jaloos ghareeba tay shehr ich choatalee lug gayee

              Comment


                #8
                If Bush is good for Pakistan means supporting a military regime in Pakistan as long as it serves their purpose than I would much rather be an ABB.
                I know that you believe that you understood what you think I said, but I am not sure you realize that what you heard is not what I meant.
                - Robert McCloskey

                Comment


                  #9
                  "the more i listen to him the more I like that Kucinich.. "

                  That's because Shirley McLain gives him advice from the great beyond when he sits under his pyramid with his crystals.....


                  hahahahahahahah
                  Boycott Venezuelas State owned Citgo.

                  Buy Royal Dutch Shell gasoline!

                  Comment


                    #10
                    Originally posted by ahmadjee:
                    If Bush is good for Pakistan means supporting a military regime in Pakistan as long as it serves their purpose than I would much rather be an ABB.
                    so you think that anyone else who takes office would not act in the interests of the US? who would you rather have them support? mullahs? PPP/PPPP/PPPPPPP or whatever that group's name is now? PML (groups a-z)?

                    the point is whether it is the military that is under pressure from abroad or a civilian government, does it really make a difference.

                    questions remains... who is better for Pakistan. From listenign to all this, I think Bush is, cuz Lieberman and kucinich are no longer in the race.

                    P.S. who cares what mosley braun has to say, i have heard her interviews before and for all that internatioanl experience she touts, she cant even name the people properly or their positions.. case in point as malik pointed out benazir bhutto as president
                    The greatest trick the devil ever pulled was convincing the world he did not exist. And like that... he is gone.

                    Comment


                      #11
                      So, if it comes to a choice between someone who supports Pakistan but is harmful to muslims .... or .... someone who hates Pakistan but won't do harm to muslims

                      which one will you vote for?

                      ps. Just assume this is true.
                      "Let your friends underestimate your virtues. Let your enemies overestimate your faults." - Godfather.

                      Comment


                        #12
                        I'm not surprised at all. Republicans have a history of being somewhat more pro-Pakistan than the Democrats. Democrats are in my mind no doubt pro-India. Faisal ji, to answer your question I would go with the admin. who is more pro-Pakistan.
                        Unity, Faith & Discipline....
                        --Jinnah

                        Comment


                          #13
                          Originally posted by Faisal:
                          So, if it comes to a choice between someone who supports Pakistan but is harmful to muslims .... or .... someone who hates Pakistan but won't do harm to muslims

                          which one will you vote for?
                          zactly.

                          Do harm to 'muslims'? Arent we Muslims too? State it better: does harm to other muslim countries.

                          And considering that nobody else gives about Pakistan I dont know if we should give a rat's behind about them.

                          That said, I cant really be excited about Bush winning the elections. So I give up on this.
                          Din-e-Mullah fee sabeelillah fasad (Allama Iqbal)

                          Comment


                            #14
                            It's wishful thinking that Republicans are in favor of Pakistan. Most conservative (Republican) policy makers do not have a very broad or ideal world view. They are concerned with American interests and that's how far their ideological horizon extends. That is the reason when Bush ran in 2000 his ideas about globalization and "telling people what to do and how to live" were very different from his notions in his recent few speeches.

                            Republicans will not care if you are good for your country, elected official, hereditary king or a military dictator.. They are on your side if it suits them and they will shoot you down if you become too hard to manage.

                            Dems on the other hand are more idealists in their approach, in principle anyway. Their leaning towards India is not for some hidden favoritism but because India claims to be a democracy and even though just for lip service still hold that ideal in public life. If Pakistan transforms itself to be half as good democracy as India, Pakistan's perception in the eyes of Foreign policy pundits of US will change dramatically.

                            Pir Jee, I will answer your question if you tell me what you understand of the term "good for Pakistan"?
                            I know that you believe that you understood what you think I said, but I am not sure you realize that what you heard is not what I meant.
                            - Robert McCloskey

                            Comment


                              #15
                              Originally posted by ahmadjee:
                              Dems on the other hand are more idealists in their approach, in principle anyway. Their leaning towards India is not for some hidden favoritism but because India claims to be a democracy and even though just for lip service still hold that ideal in public life. If Pakistan transforms itself to be half as good democracy as India, Pakistan's perception in the eyes of Foreign policy pundits of US will change dramatically.
                              Ahmedjee, I absolutely agree with you, on the issue of idealistic approach of the democrats. However, the hypocrisy I see is that while the whole world(Democrats specially) is busy at bashing the Land of Pure for not embracing democracy, the same people close their eyes when it comes to countries like Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Qatar and the list goes on and on. Where is the idealistic approach? Care to explain?
                              Unity, Faith & Discipline....
                              --Jinnah

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X