[merged]Bhutto dead

[Stixxman]

I think its come to the point where western nations need to focus on preserving our way of life within our own borders. Let the other countries do what they will. Maintain an intellegence capability and defense force of course but rechannel the rest of the defense budget into the country. Let the ones who can't get their act together go the way nature intended it. I know people will say we should help the less fortunate but maybe its better that this happens. Anyone we save now will just be another casualty when we finally reach the breaking point in a few years.

[Stardrive]

well excuse me. but India's name need not be brought into the situation. As far as mr monkey goes, living in Israel he should know the value of protection against unstable neighbors. If India gives up its nukes so should israel. Although I doubt, that's up for debate.

I agree, India's name should not be brought into the situation, nor should America's. But as is evident, some people have a bad case of the can't help it's.

I also agree that India, nor Pakistan for that matter, should give up it's nuclear capabilities. Besides, I'd like to know how someone would be able disarm a country with nukes.

"Ok, hand over your nukes."

"Sure, here ya go. Carefull though, it's got a hair trigger."

"Thanks!.... hey this one is counting down"

"I told you it had a hair trigger"

[Stixxman]

or rather "are you sure this is all of them?"

"sure thats all of them look at the number on the sheet we provided it clearly states we only have 100 warheads"

"your not hiding any are you?

"Oh no sir we would never do that"

[trickyhomunculi]

lol. so true. i couldnt believe it when it was brought up.

You cant just go around asking countries to give up their nuclear programs, especially the ones who already have weapons developed.

whats next, ask china to give it up also? maybe russia next.

Edited December 28, 2007 by clover

[Stixxman]

unless everyone gives them up like everyone gave up using balefire, then no one should hand over theirs. Every country has the right to possess weapons for their defense.

[trickyhomunculi]

It's not mainly about the weapons, its the nuclear energy which brings umpteen amounts of resources. weapons is just secuity added on.

[MissMelsWell]

she vowed to go after the taliban and alqaeda; unlike musharaf who lets them exist...

There's some truth in that. I don't know that Musharrif is necessarily a bad buy, but like ALL politicians he's corrupt in some ways. His problem is that he's trying to hold a country together that's been on the verge of another civil war for a long time. He's trying not to tick anyone off... he doesn't want to step on the extremists toes like the MMA for example. (the MMA hasnt' even been brought up here, they're a huge problem in Pakistan and that's where I'd probably be looking for responsibility first in Buttho's assisnation)

He's in an uneviable position, but at the same time, he's a wet rag... which the US loves because when you're that much of a wet rag, you're malleable and GW, while he's an idiot, isn't blind... Musharrif doesn't do anything about groups like the MMA. Why? That's another question entirely... but I have my guesses, and it's probably not for the reasons most people would guess at.

And for those who are saying take nukes away from India and Pakistan... good luck, it's never going to happen. Get over it.

The western world has made way too many friendly economic investments in India and southern Pakistan to create any political waves on that front.

[stevewinn]

Bhutto death comes as no surprise, people could see this event coming a mile away, but, ok, can someone please expalin to me why the British Flag above Bradford town hall is at half mast, and then later replaced by the Pakistani flag? its funny how the town hall flies the flag at half mast for a **** politician yet, doesnt do it for its own soldiers who have paid the ultimate price, ****ing pile of plop.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/shared/spl/hi/pop_...5468/html/1.stm

[InHuman]

Musharraff is willing to cooperate/negotiate with the hardliners. Some of these groups are classified as "terrorists" by america and such.

Same with the afghan goverment, they offered the taliban a legit political party in the goverment..it seemed like a good idea but MOST of the taliban declined the offer as long as NATO is in the country...

Bhutto on the other hand was dead set on driving them out of the country, she was a dreamer.

[MissMelsWell]

Musharraff is willing to cooperate/negotiate with the hardliners. Some of these groups are classified as "terrorists" by america and such.

Same with the afghan goverment, they offered the taliban a legit political party in the goverment..it seemed like a good idea but MOST of the taliban declined the offer as long as NATO is in the country...

Bhutto on the other hand was dead set on driving them out of the country, she was a dreamer.

There's some truth in that.

I don't know that "dreamer" is quite the word... unrealistic is probably a better word.

Pakistan is unstable as a society in a lot of ways. Rampant poverty, rampant class divisions, the illiteracy rate is remarkable, they have few natural resources, they suffer catacysmic natural disasters year after year...

Pakistans poor will look for whatever will give them hope and possibly fill their bellies and keep them warm at night... it's rarely the government that steps in to give them that relief... but corrupt religious leaders are happy to step in and do just that. What's a better target for them than a broken, hungry, illiterate population? Mushariff would be wise to deal with THAT issue. But, he doesn't because the MMA and other radical islamic groups have a foothold already with those populations.