invade pakistan

[darkbeaver]

The Destabilization of Pakistan

By Prof. Michel Chossudovsky

Global Research, December 30, 2007

The assassination of Benazir Bhutto has created conditions which contribute to the ongoing destabilization and fragmentation of Pakistan as a Nation.
The process of US sponsored "regime change", which normally consists in the re-formation of a fresh proxy government under new leaders has been broken. Discredited in the eyes of Pakistani public opinion, General Pervez Musharaf cannot remain in the seat of political power. But at the same time, the fake elections supported by the "international community" scheduled for January 2008, even if they were to be carried out, would not be accepted as legitimate, thereby creating a political impasse.
There are indications that the assassination of Benazir Bhutto was anticipated by US officials:

"It has been known for months that the Bush-Cheney administration and its allies have been maneuvering to strengthen their political control of Pakistan, paving the way for the expansion and deepening of the “war on terrorism” across the region.
Various American destabilization plans, known for months by officials and analysts, proposed the toppling of Pakistan's military...
The assassination of Bhutto appears to have been anticipated. There were even reports of “chatter” among US officials about the possible assassinations of either Pervez Musharraf or Benazir Bhutto, well before the actual attempts took place. (Larry Chin, Global Research, 29 December 2007)
​

Political Impasse
"Regime change" with a view to ensuring continuity under military rule is no longer the main thrust of US foreign policy. The regime of Pervez Musharraf cannot prevail. Washington's foreign policy course is to actively promote the political fragmentation and balkanization of Pakistan as a nation.
A new political leadership is anticipated but in all likelihood it will take on a very different shape, in relation to previous US sponsored regimes. One can expect that Washington will push for a compliant political leadership, unoncewrned with the National Interests,, which will serve its interests, while concurrently contributing under the disguise of "decentralization" to the weakening of the central government and the fracture of Pakistan's fragile federal structure.
The political impasse is deliberate. It is part of an evolving US foreign policy agenda, which favors disruption and disarray in the structures of the Pakistani State. Indirect rule by the Pakistani military and intelligence apparatus is to be replaced by more direct forms of US interference, including an expanded US military presence inside Pakistan.

Thi

 

[darkbeaver]

The plan to topple Pakistan's military?

By Ahmed Quraishi

Global Research, December 30, 2007
The New Nation, Pakistan - 2007-12-12

Editor's note

The following article in the Asian Times and New Nation, Pakistan was published several weeks prior to the assassination of Benzir Bhutto.

Islamabad - On the evening of September 26, 2006, Pakistani strongman Pervez Musharraf walked into the studio of Comedy Central's Daily Show with Jon Stewart, the first sitting president anywhere to dare do this political satire show.

Stewart offered his guest some tea and cookies and played the perfect host by asking, "Is it good?" before springing a surprise: "Where's Osama bin Laden?"

"I don't know," Musharraf replied, as the audience enjoyed the rare sight of a strong leader apparently cornered. "You know where he is?" Musharraf snapped back, "You lead on, we'll follow you."

What General Musharraf didn't know then is that he really was being cornered. Some of the smiles that greeted him in Washington and back home gave no hint of the betrayal that awaited him.

As he completed the remaining part of his US visit, his allies in Washington and elsewhere, as all evidence suggests now, were plotting his downfall. They had decided to take a page from the book of successful "color revolutions" where Western governments covertly used money, private media, student unions, NGOs and international pressure to stage coups, basically overthrowing individuals not fitting well with Washington's agenda.

 

[gopher]

Violence breaks out because of rigged elections in Kenya.

When are the right wingers going to say,

INVADE KENYA!!

 

[jimshort19]

Gopher, 'INVAKE KENYA!"

I had been ignoring this thread as an infeasible military proposition - but now we have arrived at something more pragmatic. Thank goodness for good reason. My office is always ready to serve you. This week, on special, obsolete SAMs, $20,000.00!!

 

[gopher]

uh, what does ''invake' mean??

 

[jimshort19]

Gopher, Gopher, Gopher. You are such a...

To 'INVAKE' is to invoke on the one hand, and with the third hand to infake. While the second hand is doing something else. You haven't been to West Point, have you. You are forgiven.

 

[gopher]

``You haven't been to West Point, have you.``


HAHAHAHA!!!!

I only lived an hour away from it and never went there.

Besides, I'm a military draft reject so I should be forgiven!

:lol::lol::lol::lol::lol:

 

[gopher]

Gee, this forum's many Republicans and Republican wannabees never called for an invasion of Pakistan and the hanging of Musharraf.

What great integrity.

:roll:


Not!

 

[gopher]

``Pakistan's Musharraf rejects UN inquiry on Bhutto``


http://wiredispatch.com/news/?id=1990

```Pakistan President Pervez Musharraf ruled out a U.N. inquiry into the assassination of opposition leader Benazir Bhutto, as demanded by her party, saying that Pakistan should not be compared to Lebanon.
"It is not possible. Is another country involved?" he said in an interview with Le Figaro newspaper published on its website on Friday. "Pakistan is not Lebanon."```



While considered a great democrat and lover of truth + justice by Republican Bush, Musharraf is a proven fascist who deserves the hangman's noose.

WHY HAVEN'T THIS FORUM'S REPUBLICANS DEMANDED AN INVASION OF PAKISTAN???

 

[Zzarchov]

They explain it, you ignore it, then you ask again.

Let the thread die and stop beating a dead horse. You don't like the answer, stop asking the question.

 

[gerryh]

While considered a great democrat and lover of truth + justice by Republican Bush, Musharraf is a proven fascist who deserves the hangman's noose.[/SIZE]

and that would be because there's not enough blood shed over there already....right?

 

[darkbeaver]

I'm afraid Pakistan will be destabilized in the next few months, the American troops are on the way and Canadians will be involved all 450 of our boots on the ground and the armour will be involved, we will realy start to spend soldiers then. You see Balochistan must be saved from Islamic fundementalists and parts of Iran Pakistan and Afghanistan must be jammed together to make Democratic Balouchistan. Uncle Sam just can't rest till the whole world is safe for business and somethin else but I foget what it was eer oh ya safe from The Eyerainian Fascist Islamic Terrorist Republic and thier threatening nuckular speedboats.

 

[gopher]

Balochistan extends from Pakistan, to Afghanistan, and to Iran. Balochi tribes are of Iranian origin and Bush would love to invade that region as it would cause further provocation of Teheran. It would add to the region's instability, ''justify'' more war, and lead to more war profits.

 

[gopher]

They explain it, you ignore it, then you ask again.

Let the thread die and stop beating a dead horse. You don't like the answer, stop asking the question.

What explanation? :lol:

 

[MikeyDB]

Hey Gopher how's it goin eh..?

No one without the approval of the United States of Complete Dementia would launch an invaison of any kind. If the nation of "Freedom" and "Democracy" the last bastion of moral certitude on this planet won't militarily interfere in the terrorist state of Israel or Pakistan, what on Earth do you think they'd do if anyone decided that Pakistan needed to have its military dictatorship...its American supported puppet regime brought into order...

As long as the United States of Duplicitous Amorality swings the biggest club in the jungle, Pakistan and every other terrorist state sanctioned by the nabobs on Pennsylvania Avenue will flourish. Americans will continue to have a failing education system, a health-care system that's a joke, an infrastructure that's falling apart and multi-billion dollar trade agreements with China and conditions in Pakistan will be reduced to a budget line-item that satisfies the military industrial complex that's in charge of the Whitehouse.

America is beyond reason and Pakistan is merely the logical extension of every oppressive government and "system" established by America across the face of this planet.

The terrorist with the biggest stick wins....

 

[gopher]

`` The terrorist with the biggest stick wins....``


Yup, you're correct, Mikey! And that terrorist is Bush!!

 

[jimshort19]

Gopher, "It would add to the region's instability, ''justify'' more war, and lead to more war profits."

Gopher, the United States promotes stability everywhere there is a reasonable example of it, and often tries to make a silk purse out of a sow's ear where there is none. Because the intellect can predict in a stable environment, it can invest and build and profit. Americans are very well endowed in the modern intellect. The majority of Americans have nothing to do with war but paying taxes. They favour stable energy prices, for example. Americans favour stability from the beginning of the day until the end, wherever they trade first, where they want to trade second, and the world over third.

Who told you that Americans seek instability? You cannot prove this when the opposite is in the news every day. Saddam was stability at one time.

 

[gopher]

I suppose Bush's support of the Northern Alliance in Afghanistan did not constitute a form of imposed instability that justified further intervention from his forces.

 

[jimshort19]

Gopher, "I suppose Bush's support of the Northern Alliance in Afghanistan did not constitute a form of imposed instability that justified further intervention from his forces."

You are right.

 

[Zzarchov]

I suppose Bush's support of the Northern Alliance in Afghanistan did not constitute a form of imposed instability that justified further intervention from his forces.

Considering the remnants of the last official government were part of the Northern Alliance, no, it did not.

Powerful or not, the Taleban were not the legitimate government of the region.