Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

"Nuclear-armed Pakistan is handing itself over to the Taliban"

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU
 
babylonsister Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Feb-17-09 09:24 AM
Original message
"Nuclear-armed Pakistan is handing itself over to the Taliban"
http://www.vetvoice.com/showDiary.do?diaryId=2468

Pakistan Begins Process of Surrendering to Taliban
by: Brandon Friedman
Mon Feb 16, 2009 at 13:58:58 PM EST


Oh look. Nuclear-armed Pakistan is handing itself over to the Taliban.

Pakistan agreed Monday to suspend military offensives and impose Islamic law in part of the restive northwest, making a gesture it hopes will help calm the Taliban insurgency while rejecting Washington's call for tougher measures against militants.

A U.S. defense official called the deal "a negative development," and some Pakistani experts expressed skepticism the truce would decrease violence. One human rights activist said the accord was "a great surrender" to militants.

Monday's peace agreement applies to the Malakand region, which includes the former tourist destination of the Swat Valley, where extremists have gained sway by beheading people, burning girls schools and attacking security forces since a similar agreement broke down in August.


This is another one from the "No One Could've Ever Predicted" files. It's hard to see how this ends well.

I did happen to catch former CIA officer Bob Baer on MSNBC this afternoon talking about how the Taliban were infiltrating into Pakistani cities now. As much as no one wants to talk about it, the Taliban can't be allowed to take over Pakistan, regardless of what that implies.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
acmavm Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Feb-17-09 09:27 AM
Response to Original message
1. True, we can't afford the Taliban to have nukes. Too bad that
Edited on Tue Feb-17-09 09:29 AM by acmavm
nobody in the bush** admin listened when they were told that Mushie was not their BFF.

edit: Oh hell, we wouldn't have interferred. Cheney would have found a way for the sale of nuclear technology and weaponry no matter what.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SpiralHawk Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Feb-17-09 09:30 AM
Response to Reply #1
2. "Smirk - Sneer." - xCommander AWOL & xVP Dickie 'Five Military Deferments' Cheney
Edited on Tue Feb-17-09 09:31 AM by SpiralHawk
"We don't do facts or truth. We are Republicons. Smirk. Sneer."

- xCommander AWOL & xVP Dickie 'Five Military Deferments' Cheney (R)

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
NNN0LHI Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Feb-17-09 09:30 AM
Response to Original message
3. What do you suggest? Going in and killing anyone we suspect are Taliban sympathizers?
The way houses in neighborhoods are getting flattened by US drones on a regular basis I can understand why the Taliban is becoming so popular in Pakistan.

Don
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
babylonsister Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Feb-17-09 09:37 AM
Response to Reply #3
4. I wish I knew. The Taliban being in charge scares the
bejeezus out of me. So does endless war.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
NNN0LHI Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Feb-17-09 09:42 AM
Response to Reply #4
6. Well we have been killing Taliban by the thousands since 2001
The Taliban we are killing now were probably little kids in 2001. They were maybe 10 or 11 years-old.

I don't know what the answer is either but I think we need to start thinking outside the box on this one.

For our own good.

Don
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bigtree Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Feb-17-09 09:40 AM
Response to Original message
5. this is an exaggerated take on the report
The 'concessions' to the Taliban are conditional on them disarming - something which has been tried before and failed. The Taliban members say the government has to make the concession first - the government says the opposite.

The main thing is, though, that this negotiation is restricted to the violent Swat region where there is potential for destabilizing conflict. It doesn't look to be the wholesale concession of Pakistan to the Taliban that the headline suggests; certainly not regarding the nukes.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Fri Apr 26th 2024, 03:37 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC