Thread: Pakistan

I've been trying to figure out this Pakistan thing and can't.

First, Bush says we need to promote Democracy in the world as the cure-all for terrorism. But then he supports Musharraf, who came to power in a coup, and even helps him with his nuclear weapons program, in exchanged for his supposed assistance in fighting the war on terror in Afghanistan.

Then we openly encourage this Bhutto woman and the opposition party there. Leading (I think I've got this right) to the contested election and the situation going on there now.

Today on Washington Journal some guy was saying the lawyers who protested yesterday were pro-Taliban.

In my confusion over who's side we're on and what we are supposed to stand for in all this, I got to wondering.....

Is this an example of how foreign policy gets turned on it's head once a county gets nuclear weapons? Does nuclear capability of a nation completely change what the US foreign policy toward that nation would be otherwise?

No to be blunt. When the Soviet Union gained nuclear capability our policy towards them (containing communism) was not changed. The reason we are so wishy-washy is due to the fact that we are operating a perverted scence of realpolitic where we are trying to keep our allies namely india and pakistan in the region so we can "fight terrorism." The bottom line is that
1. India and pakistan hate each other and are nuclear so we don't want to piss of India by giving Pakistan a good reason to invade or nuck them and cause the nuclear, international and foreign policy in the region and in the US (two allies lost in a single blow).
2. We need the Pakistanie athority in the region so blatently critisising Musharref would make him pull out of the "War on Terror" a foreign policy disaster for the US
3. Finally we need to one extent or another as many "friendly" powers in the region to "legitimise" our occupations in the Middle East
So to put it plainly were damned if we do damned if we don't critisies Packistan.

Originally Posted by The Realist

No to be blunt. When the Soviet Union gained nuclear capability our policy towards them (containing communism) was not changed. The reason we are so wishy-washy is due to the fact that we are operating a perverted scence of realpolitic where we are trying to keep our allies namely india and pakistan in the region so we can "fight terrorism." The bottom line is that
1. India and pakistan hate each other and are nuclear so we don't want to piss of India by giving Pakistan a good reason to invade or nuck them and cause the nuclear, international and foreign policy in the region and in the US (two allies lost in a single blow).
2. We need the Pakistanie athority in the region so blatently critisising Musharref would make him pull out of the "War on Terror" a foreign policy disaster for the US
3. Finally we need to one extent or another as many "friendly" powers in the region to "legitimise" our occupations in the Middle East
So to put it plainly were damned if we do damned if we don't critisies Packistan.

I guess what I'm wondering about is how much our level of interference changes once a nation has nukes. And if our policy (not the rhetoric, which remains the same) changes from "we support and encourage Democracy" to "better a dictator than what the people might vote for if given the chance".

For example, if Iran were to actually get nukes, would we support a dictatorship that was US friendly as opposed to an elected government that wasn't?

US foreign policy does not run the world.

Originally Posted by sectionOne

US foreign policy does not run the world.

It seems to think it does. Or did you mean to say "ruin"?

Originally Posted by Blueneck

It seems to think it does. Or did you mean to say "ruin"?

heh. no typo.
US foreign policy is pretty tame compared to some other countries foreign policies.
and Bush isn't the king of the world either. just sayin.

Originally Posted by Blueneck

I guess what I'm wondering about is how much our level of interference changes once a nation has nukes. And if our policy (not the rhetoric, which remains the same) changes from "we support and encourage Democracy" to "better a dictator than what the people might vote for if given the chance".

For example, if Iran were to actually get nukes, would we support a dictatorship that was US friendly as opposed to an elected government that wasn't?

It dosn't change it just takes a new stage for instance the US interfered in the russian revolution years later when they got nukes all we did was attempt to stifle their chances of operating succesfully on the global stage.
One way stops them from operating by destroying an uprising.
the other stops them from having political power to operate.