Pakistan is lucky to have a democratically elected leader. Though given his history Zardari has been given to corruption, he still is obviously preferrable to the alternative. Enough with the rigthwing Pakistani military dictators.

Build bigger fences.

Good fences make good neighbors.

I think that's how the saying goes.

If the Pakistani military ever gives Zardari a fair chance, he might turn out to be a truly great leader. Unfortunately, to many rightwing Pakistanis, a la Tosser, will never give him that chance.

are you kidding me???

zardari is straight up mafioso

i've been hearing about his criminal behavior since bhutto was leader years ago.

He may be imperfect, but he was democratically elected. Which is so much more than can be said for Mushi Zia Haq. In short, he is legitimate.

He may be imperfect, but he was democratically elected.

Prime Ministers are "democratically elected" by me voting for them, you buffoon.

Presidents get "elected" by an electoral college... not by my vote.

In fact, even though I might have a good idea who'll be Prime Minister, the voting takes place for the party.

How many seats can a party win in Parliament?

The party with the most seats, is invited by the President to choose a Prime Minister and form a Govt.

Get it?

Oh.. and what Klifferd said.

Ditto.

Tosser, will never give him that chance.

Well, Tosser-kind won.

Two weeks ago Zardari-Kutta was forced to give up his authority and control over nuclear weapons.

That is a SERIOUS loss of power, even if symbolically.

Now he's going to be forced to take his pants off.

He will be reduced to a President who is nothing but a figure-head.

Even after that, the many enemies he and his wife made, will keep coming after him, until he goes back to the gutters he came out of.

If your point is that the fascists such as yourself may "win", that may be the case. Pakistani democracy may be stripped bare. But Pakistan as a whole loses if that happens. (But being a rightwinger that doesn't matter to you, - so long as you can you can claim to "win".)

that may be the case.

That is the case.

Pakistani democracy may be stripped bare. But Pakistan as a whole loses if that happens.

Pakistani democracy is reverting back to it's original Constitution (before Mushi mucked it up) in which the President is a nobody and the Prime Minister is all-powerful.

That is a good thing and more democratic.

And all we have to do for that to happen, is step on this cockroach hard.

And Ambulance-chaser.... don't try to confuse Parliamentary democracy with your simplistic Presidential system. They are light-years apart.

"the true end game"....Indian soverignty over the entire region.

.Indian soverignty over the entire region.

Known as "Akhand Bharat". LOL

The only ones who pulled it off were the British and they left with their tails between their legs in 1947.

Twice in recent history America abandoned its democratic values to support dictators and manipulate and exploit us.

Whoever wrote this letter for Zardari, hats off to them.

And I take a couple of words of abuse back from the NY Times for publishing this serious, emotionally charged and honest sentence.

Pakistani democracy is reverting back to it's original Constitution

I agree with Tosser, and say a prayer that it proceeds smoothly.

before Mushi mucked it up

Actually bro, Zia would be the proper constitution-botherer when we are referring to the 1973 constitution.

Ayub Khan also tried to be presidential on the American model but it was a different constitution and frame of mind then.

Actually, for the picture to be accurate, it would show the U.S. holding a cannon and Pakistan trying to manipulate a pea shooter.

U.S. holding a cannon

Not with the bases you have at your disposal in the region.

Pakistan trying to manipulate a pea shooter.

Actually a knife on a hostage's throat would be better.

90,000 hostages.

You are not really dumb enough to believe that, are you? If Pakistan even though of confronting us militarily we would wipe the floor with them just as we have done with every other third shithole which has dared to challenge us. And with no long distance delivery systems, Paki nukes would be meaningless.

Pakistan even though of confronting us militarily

When did we do that?

You're the one flying into a verbal rage, I'm just responding.

90,000 US hostages in Afghanistan are the card we'll have to deal with if we're faced with something like the US trying to take over all of the NWFP or FATA.

which has dared to challenge us

Nobody's challenging you, I'm just telling you a very dirty and simple option that would be considered if the US tried direct occupation on a part of Pakistan.

I'm not in a rage. I am pointing out though that given America's vast military superiority over Pakistan, if the picture were reflective of reality, it would depict the USA with a cannon, and the Pakistani with a pea shooter. Get it?

were reflective of reality

The thing is, by the time you lug your cannon to our neck of the woods it becomes a rifle.

Short of nukes, I believe your two greatest military assets are the entire USAF and the US Naval Air Arm.

What bases are available to the US that are not within range of Iranian or Pakistani retaliation, even of an unconventional sort. And as for the poor US Naval Air Arm, it's a straight bowling ball alley from the Indian Ocean into Pakistan, and then from the Pakistani coast back to those Indian, sorry American Aircraft Carriers.

So to save for time, you would bring a rifle or a pistol, and we'ld have a revolver ready as well.

You are so wrong. A full on strike from a U.S. aircraft carrier could reduce any major Pakistani city to ashes in minutes. And there is NOTHING Pakistan could do about it.

the US trying to take over all of the NWFP or FATA

Why the hell would we have anything to do with those places? Bombing them with drones (which Tosser will claim are actually your drones) is one thing, but I gather you're talking about something more serious than that.

The US already has its hands full in Afghanistan. A foray in the FATA is pretty much the last thing anyone here would consider. Well, I won't say that. It's the last thing any sane person here would consider.

How much do you know about the history of the Vietnam war, YS? You know what they say about history repeating itself...

A full on strike from a U.S. aircraft carrier could reduce any major Pakistani city to ashes in minutes.

Why?

For that matter, why is everybody so pissy all of the sudden?

If the Pakistani military ever gives Zardari a fair chance...

Oh, wait. That's probably what got the ball rolling. Carry on.

And there is NOTHING Pakistan could do about it

And the irony is that military strong man Mushi realized this better than anyone. That is why he was humiliated into agreeing to going along with what the US demanded in the first place. Same as is still going on with the current Pakistani leadership. Paki politicians know it. American politicians know it. Paki military leaders know it. American military leaders know it. The Paki military can't even defend itself against India. What chance would they have against the U.S.?

How much do you know about the history of the Vietnam war, YS?

I got my A in Cold War History between that and the initiation of the Cold War itself.

You know what they say about history repeating itself...

Santayanna...first as tragedy...then as farce....

the US trying to take over all of the NWFP or FATA

People who are close to Centcom were talking about that around the time of Bhutto's assasination. It set off some alarm bells.

Well, I won't say that. It's the last thing any sane person here would consider.

Thats whats going through people's minds in both Tehran and Islamabad. We're all thinking if there are people who will keep their heads in Washington, and for Tehran, Tel Aviv, and for Islamabad, New Delhi.

I think what got on Moder8's nerve was when I said that if somebody tried a partial occupation of Pk, people in Pakistan would have 90,000 US hostages in Afghanistan.

My guess is that the knife on the throat metaphor got to him.

The thing is every body's reserves are nearly tapped out; US and Pakistani.

The Paki military can't even defend itself against India

It's called deterrence baby

And the Pak military can't, Ameri-cunt but we're all talking about us being attacked first - that would mean taking on the entire population of Pakistan, not just the military.

Moder8, please come at me with some other line of attack better than aircraft carriers. The Inidans have never deployed their aircraft carrier against the current Pakistani coast in any war ever.

All your blustering bullshit aside, President Zardari makes many valid points. Hopefully the majority of Pakistani people have the wisdom to follow his leadership. Hopefully the anti-democratic rightwingers don't tie his hands as he tries to promote freedom and democracy in Pakistan.

if there are people who will keep their heads in Washington

One can hope.

I think you have to lose it before you make the choice to get into politics, though.

And the whole pissiness thing started with this picture

Is it a book cover or something?

YS, you and tosser talk about Pakistan going back to their original constitution. How was it changed or violated?

Is it a book cover or something

Actually it is; I've got it right with me.

All your blustering bullshit

Its not my blustering bullshit; I'm serious. Back in Deceber 2007, through January 2008, into February 2008 and then again when Musharraf resigned in August 2008, there were calls from this mo-fo on the Weekly Standard who WE KNOW is on very close terms with CENTCOM was calling for the occupation of NWFP and FATA. I could smell the ignorance of his posts and was disgusted the US military would let someone that stupid near their propaganda dissemination unit. He's changed his tune now though.

More seriously, (and here I speak as a non-Nato Ally of the United States) after sending these 30,000 extra US soldiers into Afghanistan, for your collective sakes you better hope I'm wrong, but all the US might have left to deal with any emergency that comes up in terms of the regular army is either 30,000 or 60,000 troops.

This is serious for you.

talk about Pakistan going back to their original constitution.

Yep bro.

How was it changed or violated

If you remember the system of goevernment that the United Kingdom, that's exactly what we are supposed to have. Our system of government system though, would hav no king or queen as the head of state, rather a president as the head of state.

The parliament is directly elected and then the Prime Minister is selected from the members of Parliament it self. The President is never directly elected, but rather elected by the Parliament or appointed Prime Minister.

Our current constitution was changed by both Mushi and Zia to make the President all powerful and especially has the power to throw out the parliament if he so wishes. Zardari still has this power. We're trying to strip him of this.

Zia also added some very disgusting anti-woman and anti-non-Muslim rules. We used a combination of cutting out those parts and tying the remaining parts in enough red tape to prevent them from working.

Its only the ability to kick out a parlaiment that Mushi kept and strengthened. Thats what we need to cut out.

"President Zardari makes many valid points"

he claims excellent points... ys_1 and tosser would both agree.

the problem is he is talking to you guys, not the pakistani people. (all bush jokes aside) you can't fool people twice.

he's playing his, well known in pakistan, con game.

as far as what is good for pakistan.. you'd have to refer to my expert friends toss and ys

And with no long distance delivery systems, Paki nukes would be meaningless.

LOL....

Ambulance-Chaser.... at the very least, you are going to be hit by 30 nukes from stealth submarines that could be anywhere. They are equipped with nuclear cruise missiles.

Plus, Pakistan does have a full ICBM which is informally known as "Tipu". It has not been tested because of political reasons. But we know the targeting system is spot-on and the engines work.

Pakistan's best solid fuel missile that you can look up on the internet is the Shaheen. If you add another stage to that missile (easy to do) it exceeds 5,000kms. That is what you need to get escape velocity and with some minor engineering it turns into an ICBM.

But then, you should understand, only fools fight power against power.

We have far more effective ways to deal with you. LOL

YS has explained.

You touch Pakistan, you can kiss 90,000 Americans in Afghanistan, goodbye.

I doubt if a single one will make it out alive.

We control and maintain your supply lines don't we? LOL

How was it changed or violated?

As YS explained in more detail, Pakistan is built on a British model of democracy.

People like Zia and Mushi tried to make it into a Presidential kind of democracy.. more American.... which turned it into a political minefield.

Presidential system doesn't suit Pakistan. Most countries with such systems are nobodies. So the more Pakistan moves back to it's roots, the better.

I believe the US could've been ten times stronger and more prosperous if it had used British style Parliamentary system for governance.

Hopefully the majority of Pakistani people have the wisdom to follow his leadership.

We have the wisdom to step on Cockroach before Cockroach can grow wings.

That is why he was humiliated into agreeing to going along with what the US demanded in the first place.

Pakistan was humiliated and embarrassed by the Taliban... not by the US.

There was no way we could continue supporting them after 9-11.

Now, however, the US has trapped itself in Afghanistan... and Pakistan has increased it's firepower by a thousand percent. LOL

The Paki military can't even defend itself against India.

But Pakistan is not at war against India! LOL

"more American...."

yea but both failed to make it anything like the usa system

it was more like a hybrid between the british and american systems and thats why it isn't working.

as far as the usa having the british system.. in that i disagree.

the usa system is far superior.. for the usa that is.

we don't have the problem of every ethnic group having its own political party like the parlimentary system causes.

being that the usa has every single race and religion on earth in vast numbers, the british system would lead to 100 different political parties where nothing would ever get done.

the british system would lead to 100 different political parties ....

Out of which maybe a dozen or so will have any influence in Parliament and will be forced to form coalitions and work together.

Having just two parties, Liberals and Assholes, leads to stagnation and sterility.

technically speaking

both the british and american systems are antiquated and both lead to stagnation and sterility in the modern age :)

This is a cynical answer, you might not agree with, but I believe that as long as the people in Govt. are forced to work on their own problems... building coalitions, playing politics with themselves, setting up useless committees.... they will leave the rest of us alone.

In the Parliamentary system, the politicians have to work a lot harder or else they roll off a cliff never to return.

This way they are far too busy worrying about themselves to create headaches for the rest of us.

both the british and american systems are antiquated and both lead to stagnation and sterility in the modern age :)

Probably.

I like the Chinese system best (it gets results!) but it takes a lot of guts ... and history... to make it work.

In the end, Presidential or Parliamentary.... the people who run it are rejects of society, not good for anything except shooting their mouths off.

That is the only skill "law makers" have. Bla bla bla.. that's it.

These people are not employable as engineers, doctors, scientists or in any sort of world-changing field.

So they if they are poor, they work as janitors. If their daddies stole enough money, they go into politics to steal more.

If a politician can't steal your money, he will make sure you can't make any either.

Jealous, small people with lots of power.

It's all a scam in the end.

One of the biggest flaws in the American Presidential system is that it turns a gutter-snipe into a rock-star.

Americans are in love with their Presidents, which is really kinda stupid, seeing he's only a lousy politician.

In the Parliamentary system, we know they are worms, and they know that we know. Less pretense.

But like I said, I would say the hell with both if someone gives me the Chinese system.

"the Chinese system."

the chinese system also has huge flaws as well

there isn't one system on earth really ready for the 21st century and beyond.

the chinese system also has huge flaws as well

Maybe, but like I said, they are the ones who keep getting results.

They are a great success. So it would benefit us if we learn from them as much as we can.

there isn't one system on earth really ready for the 21st century and beyond.

Not to worry, I will invent one in the next few decades.

It's in Pakistan's best interest to fight their jihadist problem and even so we have to bribe them to do it. We don't need to be friends and are never going to be.

It's in Pakistan's best interest to fight their jihadist problem

We are fighting our problem in such a way, they are going to be your problem. (pushing them across the border)

It's an art. LOL

We don't need to be friends and are never going to be.

Hey, infidel is catching on!

"We are fighting our problem in such a way, they are going to be your problem. (pushing them across the border)"

Our problem is our president's insistence on staying in Afghanistan despite thousands of years of history that prove how foolish that is.

"Hey, infidel is catching on!"

Infidel is a compliment in the US. Obama's opponents weren't going around trying to claim he's an Infidel. LOL.

Pakistan is lucky to have a great man like Zardari. Hopefully the rightwing militarists won't cut him off at the knees.

Obama's opponents weren't going around trying to claim he's an Infidel.

They were trying to claim that he was a Muslim, as if religion is something remotely pertinent to someone's qualifications to be president. It was a blatant exploitation of redneck bigotry by Republicans.

I wish Obama had called them out on it more severely. When asked the question "Are you a muslim?" he should have replied "so what if I were?". Of course, that's not politically very smart. It would have demonstrated some cojones, though.

"as if religion is something remotely pertinent to someone's qualifications to be president."

Of course it is. I think you are confused by the fact that most of our politicians only pretend to be religous. Spend two seconds thinking about it: People who truely believe in crazy shit can do crazy things.

I wouldn't want a hardcore end-timer Christian who literally believes The Rapture is on its way in office becuase he's likely to just throw up his hands and wait for God to come if shit got too bad.

If we're being attacked by Muslims, I wouldn't want a Muslim president whose religious beliefs would not allow us to hit back (not saying all Muslims would think this way but some definitely do believe that they can kill infidels all day long but they can't harm another Muslim).

I wouldn't want a president with completely pacifist religious beliefs at all.

I wouldn't want a Jewish guy who thinks Jews have a religious claim to land that other people currently own (again, not saying the entire group but this is one interpretation).

I wouldn't want someone who believes Bob down the street is God and that we should all cut off our penises and wait for the alien spaceship hiding behind the comet to come and bring us to Heaven.

There are thousands of examples like this.

Spend two seconds thinking about it: People who truely believe in crazy shit can do crazy things.

Yes, but then the question becomes "is the candidate a fanatic?" not "what religion does the candidate follow?"

Christian, Jew, Muslim, Hindu, atheist, whatever... they would all make good presidents as long as they're not fanatics.

"Yes, but then the question becomes "is the candidate a fanatic?" not "what religion does the candidate follow?"

Christian, Jew, Muslim, Hindu, atheist, whatever... they would all make good presidents as long as they're not fanatics."

Agreed but alot of times you have to ask the first question and a few follow ups in order to find out the answer to the second. Even raving lunatics don't describe themselves as fanatics.