It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

The Problem With a Democratic Pakistan..

page: 1
2

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 16 2007 @ 10:21 AM
link   
So I've been keeping up with the emergency situation in Pakistan, complete with the martial law, the protests, the events taking place, and any arrests/deaths being reported. Today, an interim "Caretaker" Government was hand picked and appointed by President Musharraf. He even had the nerve to say in his speech during the ceremony that "this is democracy".

Anyway, I was giving it some thought because John Negroponte will soon be sent to Pakistan by the USA to convey how strongly the USA wishes to see free and fair elections, and an end to martial law/emergency state. Nevermind the fact that Negroponte translates roughly into Black horse, a free and fair Pakistan could be scary!!

Think about it. What if the majority of the voters were pro-islamic fundamentalist? If any a country would have a majority of these, it would be Pakistan. And so I could see the same thing that happened in the Palestinian Territories happen to Pakistan; A free and fair democratic election is held, and a radical group is VOTED into office (Hamas for example).

Now what happens when Islamic Fundamentalists are voted into office in Pakistan, who is nuclear armed to the teeth? The very thought scares the &%$% daylights out of me. What's worse is, I'm sure that the U.S. Administration knows how bad that would be, and if radicals were democratically elected, the USA would have to make quick war with them to disable / seize / occupy all nuclear sites. And even then you can't get them ALL .. and it only takes 1 missile to start an "end of the world" missile exchange of mutual destruction.

The more I think about it, the more I think a free and fair democratic election in Pakistan might lead to disaster. On the other hand, if the majority of the population aren't Islamic Fundamentalists, and a Benazir Bhuto Govrnment was voted in, this could be nice.. aside from the suicide bombings and assassination attempts that would continue to be carried out.

I suppose the first election would just have to be watched extremely closely from all over the world. If it turned out good, great! If radicals got it, have the jets & troops on stand-by for rapid deployment.. heh




posted on Nov, 16 2007 @ 10:35 AM
link   
are you serious? pakistan should have a free and fair election as long as it goes the way you want it to.

as practically anyone will tell you, the biggest danger with democracy is that some fundamentalist nut-job will get into power and trapse around the world starting stupid un-winnable wars and dragging the rest of us down with him, but hey, thats american democracy for you.

give a whole heap of un-educated boobs that have never left their own locality a vote and they do incredibly stupid things, if the rest of us have to put up with it then so should you.



posted on Nov, 16 2007 @ 10:56 AM
link   
I can certainly see where you are coming from. I personally don't think it's ever going to happen over there and given the scenario you just layed out, quite honestly, I, like you, hope it doesn't.



posted on Nov, 16 2007 @ 11:31 AM
link   
Oh, I understand the problem it presents us with. Yes, we prefer a democratic political government because it puts the people of the country in charge of themselves.

But, a truely democratic government means popular vote and there are some popular funamentalists who WE may not think are safe for the positions.

We're in a bit of a pickle, Dick.

Cuhail



posted on Nov, 16 2007 @ 11:43 AM
link   
reply to post by runetang
 


So what do you propose? If democracy only works for you if you get the elected official that you want, then what do you suggest happens? Provide military support for the candidate that you want? Have the CIA rig the elections? These types of things would never happen though, right?

Maybe if a candidate wins that we don't like, we can just go to war with them and say that the world can't afford a Nuclear Pakistan... anymore.



posted on Nov, 16 2007 @ 11:46 AM
link   
I honestly think this is all a moot point. I don't think Pakistan is ever going to be anymore democratic than it currently is. I may be wrong, but that is just my suspicion.

I think Runetang's fears are warranted, but, what can anyone do...
I mean, if some radical gains office in a democratic country, all you can do is keep a close eye on them. I mean, I really don't know what else to say.

[edit on 16-11-2007 by SpeakerofTruth]



posted on Nov, 16 2007 @ 03:38 PM
link   
For example .. this is a really bad example, but it works:

Let's say that Ayman Al-Zawahiiri runs a Presidential Campaign from hiding, putting all his statements and speeches out on tapes, and having representatives of his meet delegations and sit into meetings etc.

And lets say that Pakistan people want him in! I know, stupid and unlikely, but lets just play along. So Zawahiiri becomes President of Nuclear Armed Pakistan.

How long do you think India would remain in existence? And what of the rest of the world? They'd probably nuke India for their polytheist tendencies, then issue a statement essentially demanding all nations adopt sharia law and islam or else they get nuked. Lol. That would be terrible ..

edit: Or, alternatively, they could play the whole subterfuge game and blow up nukes in smaller sizes on suicide bombers across the world.

[edit on 11/16/2007 by runetang]



posted on Nov, 18 2007 @ 03:50 AM
link   
real, fair, democratic elections directly after martial law may put somebody very dangerous into power. if that happens our boys in afghanistan are in danger because of a stronger, more well equipped taliban. there is alot of danger coming to a head in the middle east area, one must wonder, is this a direct result of a crappy foregin policy? Is the rise and seemingly growing popularity of terrorist or militant groups the result of foreign policy, or is foreign policy the result of growing terrorists? Chicken and the egg i suppose.



posted on Nov, 18 2007 @ 04:04 AM
link   
Good post, I get what your saying.
I wonder what the requirements are to be able to vote in pakistan?
Can the tribal people come down from the mountains and vote?

I dont think it will immediatley surface as bad as you say, but all the islamic fundamentalists need is a voice, one seat
Over time more and more will turn and vote for them, so maybe after a few elections, yes the wrong man gets elected.

So whats the solution?
I dont know,
But Sure as sugar we need to stop killing, isolating and accusing muslims/arabs of every crime under the sun in Iraq and terrorism.
Lets b honest, we took this battle to the next level, when we didnt have to.



new topics

top topics



 
2

log in

join