Campaign ends in Iran's presidential race

**troung** · 27 Jun 05,, 19:22

Karimov, who is denying denying democrative rights to 30 million Uzbecks and recently committed genocide.

I don't like the word genocide for what he did. Kind of lowers the bar and gives the word less meaning. His forces murdered pro democracy protesters...

I'm a "Conservative Republican" and I'm not.

I think he was talking about the leadership and that would be true. I know very few people Dem or Rep would think backing dicators would be a thing America should morally do, but the few Dems and Reps that do happen to also have a say in what the country does. I know few people would want to support those clowns and fewer would like that their tax dollars arm, train and finanace these clowns often brutal militaries... but as shown by the Cold War and the current WoT pushing our interests often requires supporting those clowns...

I think people that make comments about reps or dems backing dicators should spent an extra few seconds to talk about elected leadership and not about average people who happen to vote for one party or another... some people that live overseas would be shocked to see how FMS handouts for dicators doesn't come up often in campaigns...

**~~rotorooter~~** · 27 Jun 05,, 21:19

Originally Posted by Leader

Also, pointing out that the US supports dictators doesn't prove that one US motive for invading Iraq wasn't to free the Iraqi people.

You don't see the irony in trying to democratize 25 million Iraqis at the cost of 150 million Pakistanis who are oppressed by Musharraf or 30 million Uzbeks who are being oppressed by Karimov.

Do the math, democratizing 25 millon at the cost of 150+30 = 180 million people?

That is why the "bringing democracy to Iraq" argument does not wash.

**Leader** · 27 Jun 05,, 21:22

Originally Posted by troung

as shown by the Cold War and the current WoT pushing our interests often requires supporting those clowns...

Sometimes it's completely unavoidable sometimes not. Like Pakistan is unavoidable. Uzbekistan is not.

**Leader** · 27 Jun 05,, 21:27

Originally Posted by rotorooter

You don't see the irony in trying to democratize 25 million Iraqis at the cost of 150 million Pakistanis who are oppressed by Musharraf or 30 million Uzbeks who are being oppressed by Karimov.

Do the math, democratizing 25 millon at the cost of 150+30 = 180 million people?

That is completely felonious reasoning. Those 180 million people wouldn’t be free if the US had not invaded Iraq.

That is why the "bringing democracy to Iraq" argument does not wash.

As I said, it doesn't wash for you. That doesn't prove anything.

**Shek** · 28 Jun 05,, 03:55

Originally Posted by rotorooter

You don't see the irony in trying to democratize 25 million Iraqis at the cost of 150 million Pakistanis who are oppressed by Musharraf or 30 million Uzbeks who are being oppressed by Karimov.

Do the math, democratizing 25 millon at the cost of 150+30 = 180 million people?

That is why the "bringing democracy to Iraq" argument does not wash.

What would happen if Musharraf left power today? For the Pakistanis on the board, please correct if I'm wrong, bit my guess is that Islamic extremists would become very active and potentially seize power. Is this your desire? If Pakistan were in a better position to absorb democratization, I'm sure the US would be pushing much harder. However, it is not. So, while you can claim irony, reality would be a much better description.

**troung** · 28 Jun 05,, 05:25

What would happen if Musharraf left power today? For the Pakistanis on the board, please correct if I'm wrong, bit my guess is that Islamic extremists would become very active and potentially seize power. Is this your desire? If Pakistan were in a better position to absorb democratization, I'm sure the US would be pushing much harder. However, it is not. So, while you can claim irony, reality would be a much better description.

Well they have had elected leaders, who got thrown out by the military...

Bhutto won after Zia... so there is nothing written in stone that the Islamists would win...

**BenRoethig** · 28 Jun 05,, 05:29

Originally Posted by shek

What would happen if Musharraf left power today? For the Pakistanis on the board, please correct if I'm wrong, bit my guess is that Islamic extremists would become very active and potentially seize power. Is this your desire? If Pakistan were in a better position to absorb democratization, I'm sure the US would be pushing much harder. However, it is not. So, while you can claim irony, reality would be a much better description.

If the extremists gain power, I can almost guarantee a nuclear war with millions dead. They see a nuclear weapon as a gift from God. Sometimes you have to forget the ideal and go with the best possible option. A semi-friendly military dictatorship is far superior to an openly hostile hardline Islamic dictatorship. Any good military officer you can reason with. A religious fanatic you cannot.

**~~Aryan~~** · 28 Jun 05,, 12:32

I really can't see islamists coming into power. Four years ago it was a different story with the US invasion of Afghanistan, a country where many in Pakistan have family there. People were very very angry with America, and Musharraf to a lesser extent. At the time, polical rallies by islamic leaders in Pakistan would get thousands of attendents. MMA, the largest Islamic party in Pakistan became the second largest party in the 2002 elections. But from there, their powerbase declined and gradually people stopped attending political rallies. Nowadays their rallies rarely attract more than hundreds, in a nation of 160 million.

If Musharraf was ever assassinated, the most likely scenario would be he would be replaced by another general with a similar outlook. It would have a massive impact on society, but since we've got a fully functional parliament and government, who are incharge of running day to day affairs, it would not be half as bad as if it had happened during the Afghan war, when it was only Mush in power.

**Shek** · 28 Jun 05,, 16:59

Originally Posted by Aryan

I really can't see islamists coming into power. Four years ago it was a different story with the US invasion of Afghanistan, a country where many in Pakistan have family there. People were very very angry with America, and Musharraf to a lesser extent. At the time, polical rallies by islamic leaders in Pakistan would get thousands of attendents. MMA, the largest Islamic party in Pakistan became the second largest party in the 2002 elections. But from there, their powerbase declined and gradually people stopped attending political rallies. Nowadays their rallies rarely attract more than hundreds, in a nation of 160 million.

If Musharraf was ever assassinated, the most likely scenario would be he would be replaced by another general with a similar outlook. It would have a massive impact on society, but since we've got a fully functional parliament and government, who are incharge of running day to day affairs, it would not be half as bad as if it had happened during the Afghan war, when it was only Mush in power.

What about the intel service? Don't they have a very pro-militant Islam bent, or is more isolated within the intel community? Any chance of someone from the intel service taking over?

**Confed999** · 02 Jul 05,, 19:53

Originally Posted by rotorooter

That is why the "bringing democracy to Iraq" argument does not wash.

So, for it to wash, the USA has to immediately go to war with every tyrant and all of their allies at the same instant? Not only is that impossible, it's a dumb idea...