'Disagreement over what to do' it is, but there are some positions that are simply unacceptable, such as foreign military intervention, overt or covert, in Pakistan.
I have agreed with that the moment I understood you definition of the question.
Why give up so quickly? How long did it take to move from 'slavery to segregation to legal freedom and acceptance' in the US?
That process is till on going actually, and I am not really sure I understand your analogy here. I have said it before and I will say it again: Thinking that IK's rise to power will somehow improve the situation is simply unjustified, and will be borne out by the results. I do not say this becasue I have anything against IK personally. I say this becasue his rise to power will be the result of the same process that has ensured its survival for the last so many decades.
The problem is the lack of statements on your part taking a consistently clear position against drone strikes (if unsanctioned by the Pakistani authorities, secretly or otherwise), releasing Raymond Davis, limiting US intelligence and military personnel, Abbotabad raid and others like it etc.
It is not always necessary to express opposition to every injustice, because quite often it can be more effective to work silently. How do you think Indians and Israelis work for benefiting their homelands? We need to emulate their success by adopting their proven recipes for success, but to benefit Pakistan for a change.
The current situation hardly allows for constitutional processes to be applied. That said, the bombings, covert US military operations and threats to do so only make the process of normalization in FATA that much harder, and therefore Asim's point is correct that US actions and policies in FATA and Afghanistan are exacerbating the situation, not improving it.
Agreed. What is your point? My point was that it is not just FATA, the whole of the country is slowly falling prey to the same lawlessness that history shows us precedes outright civil war.
The FATA crowd will fight for what is theirs against a foreign foe - that is their right. The US has no moral or legal right to be doing anything in response so long as it continues Afghan occupation and military strikes in FATA.
Agreed. However, please note that international geopolitics do not go by concepts of morality or legality. There is no need to get angry at me for saying that, because by saying it, I do not condone it; I merely want it to be taken note of while formulating a cohesive strategy of responding in a way that might actually succeed.
And if Pakistanis want the Mullahs to rule Pakistan, that too is their choice and their right. Western paranoia and intolerance cannot be used as preemptive justification for attacking Pakistan to enable 'regime change' in such a situation.
Agreed. Pakistanis have every right to chose who governs them, and no matter who it is, there is no justification for engineering regime changes by anyone. Having said that, the system entrenched in Pakistan is no cause for any hope that the genuine aspirations of Pakistanis will ever be heeded to unless something drastic changes.
The perceived threat of a few hundred being killed in some potential terrorist attack is not justification for the deaths of hundreds of thousands, as we have seen the US do/cause in Iraq, Afghanistan and Pakistan.
Agreed. It is no justification, but it is the very real response of a nation that can be ruthless.
As clarified to VCheng, the discussion was in the context of Pakistan, and not a hypothetical discussion about military interventions in general.
I have accepted that before, and do it again now.
D
