SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: RetiredNow who wrote (237023)6/13/2005 8:48:58 PM
From: tejek  Read Replies (2) | Respond to of 1576890
 
I understand the need to be pragmatic, though. For instance, in a war against terrorism, we would get very far if we didn't have Musharraf helping us. He happens to be a benign dictator, but he's a dictator nonetheless. So do we withdraw our support from him and then lose a wealth of intelligence data he provides us and the blind eye he turns when we do covert ops near his border and within his country?

What about the more important ally, Saudi Arabia? If we declared war on Saudi Arabia, or at the least, stopped our support for them, I wonder what would happen. Maybe $100 oil, as they get back at us. I don't know.

Those are tough choices our Presidents have made. I would like to say that I would not support any dictator at all. But when faced with a desire to bring someone like Osama to justice, I think I might enlist as many allies as possible in the region to get him first. Then pressure those allies to reform afterwards.


I see it differently than you. During the 1960s, for the first time in its history, the US had to begin importing some of its oil. During the 1970s and after the Arabs turned off the oil spigot, the US began currying the favor of the Saudis........the country with the largest oil reserves in the world. On the surface, that seems pretty logical. However, there was another approach we could have taken. We could have taken serious steps to reduce our oil dependency, eventually eliminating it. Now that would have been the much harder road to plow but think of what would have followed had we made a real commitment to going down that road.

There would have been less behind-the-scenes US involvement in the ME.......less need to support Saddam in an effort to offset the Iranians. Less need to come to Kuwait's defense against Saddam. Less need to set up bases in Saudi Arabia. A lower profile in the ME and probably Osama would have ignored us. After all, Osama's goal is not to bring down the US but rather Saudi Arabia. There wouldn't have been the UN's oil for food program and Bush II would not have been plotting to attack Iraq. In fact, the neocon movement probably would still be in its infancy.

You say we need questionable friends like Musharraf. I say we need them because we weren't willing to take the harder road back in the 1970s. And that we are paying for our lack of diligence and discipline and will continue to pay on into the future. Now we want to mess up a place like ANWR. Where will it all end?

ted



To: RetiredNow who wrote (237023)6/14/2005 7:44:28 AM
From: Road Walker  Read Replies (2) | Respond to of 1576890
 
re: For instance, in a war against terrorism, we would get very far if we didn't have Musharraf helping us. He happens to be a benign dictator...

Raped, Kidnapped and Silenced
By NICHOLAS D. KRISTOF
No wonder the Pakistan government can't catch Osama bin Laden. It is too busy harassing, detaining - and now kidnapping - a gang-rape victim for daring to protest and for planning a visit to the United States.

Last fall I wrote about Mukhtaran Bibi, a woman who was sentenced by a tribal council in Pakistan to be gang-raped because of an infraction supposedly committed by her brother. Four men raped Ms. Mukhtaran, then village leaders forced her to walk home nearly naked in front of a jeering crowd of 300.

Ms. Mukhtaran was supposed to have committed suicide. Instead, with the backing of a local Islamic leader, she fought back and testified against her persecutors. Six were convicted.

Then Ms. Mukhtaran, who believed that the best way to overcome such abuses was through better education, used her compensation money to start two schools in her village, one for boys and the other for girls. She went out of her way to enroll the children of her attackers in the schools, showing that she bore no grudges.

Readers of my column sent in more than $133,000 for her. Mercy Corps, a U.S. aid organization, has helped her administer the money, and she has expanded the schools, started a shelter for abused women and bought a van that is used as an ambulance for the area. She has also emerged as a ferocious spokeswoman against honor killings, rapes and acid attacks on women. (If you want to help her, please don't send checks to me but to Mercy Corps, with "Mukhtaran Bibi" in the memo line: 3015 S.W. First, Portland, Ore. 97201.)

A group of Pakistani-Americans invited Ms. Mukhtaran to visit the U.S. starting this Saturday (see www.4anaa.org). Then a few days ago, the Pakistani government went berserk.

On Thursday, the authorities put Ms. Mukhtaran under house arrest - to stop her from speaking out. In phone conversations in the last few days, she said that when she tried to step outside, police pointed their guns at her. To silence her, the police cut off her land line.

After she had been detained, a court ordered her attackers released, putting her life in jeopardy. That happened on a Friday afternoon, when the courts do not normally operate, and apparently was a warning to Ms. Mukhtaran to shut up. Instead, Ms. Mukhtaran continued her protests by cellphone. But at dawn yesterday the police bustled her off, and there's been no word from her since. Her cellphone doesn't answer.

Asma Jahangir, a Pakistani lawyer who is head of the Human Rights Commission of Pakistan, said she had learned that Ms. Mukhtaran was taken to Islamabad, furiously berated and told that President Pervez Musharraf was very angry with her. She was led sobbing to detention at a secret location. She is barred from contacting anyone, including her lawyer.

"She's in their custody, in illegal custody," Ms. Jahangir said. "They have gone completely crazy."

Even if Ms. Mukhtaran were released, airports have been alerted to bar her from leaving the country. According to Dawn, a Karachi newspaper, the government took this step, "fearing that she might malign Pakistan's image."

Excuse me, but Ms. Mukhtaran, a symbol of courage and altruism, is the best hope for Pakistan's image. The threat to Pakistan's image comes from President Musharraf for all this thuggish behavior.

I've been sympathetic to Mr. Musharraf till now, despite his nuclear negligence, partly because he's cooperated in the war on terrorism and partly because he has done a good job nurturing Pakistan's economic growth, which in the long run is probably the best way to fight fundamentalism. So even when Mr. Musharraf denied me visas all this year, to block me from visiting Ms. Mukhtaran again and writing a follow-up column, I bit my tongue.

But now President Musharraf has gone nuts.

"This is all because they think they have the support of the U.S. and can get away with murder," Ms. Jahangir said. Indeed, on Friday, just as all this was happening, President Bush received Pakistan's foreign minister in the White House and praised President Musharraf's "bold leadership."

So, Mr. Bush, how about asking Mr. Musharraf to focus on finding Osama, instead of kidnapping rape victims who speak out? And invite Ms. Mukhtaran to the Oval Office - to show that Americans stand not only with generals who seize power, but also with ordinary people of extraordinary courage.

E-mail: nicholas@nytimes.com