Thursday, January 31, 2008
Saturday, January 26, 2008
A perfect example of what's wrong
The other day I was on my way to work in the morning and stopped into a convenient store to pick up a cup of coffee. As I made my way to the coffee in the back corner I overheard another customer talking to the store clerk who is Pakistani. The customer told the clerk that he had heard the U.S. might put some troops into Pakistan if the Pakistani army requested help. He then told the clerk that it would be a good thing. Some people might not have read a whole lot into that little conversation but it wrung very loud in my ears.
It is usually the assumption that if the U.S. is sending troops somewhere they are helping another government fight of "evil doers". I think there are some aspects of a troop deployment that must be taken into consideration that are generally not thought of by people who just casually accept that we are putting troops into another country to fight AL-Queda.
There has been a lot of turmoil in Pakistan lately. With a declaration of martial law (which has been lifted) and the assassination of the former prime minister Bhutto, Pakistan is walking a thin line between peace within itself and civil unrest. Much of this unrest results from the fact that the current President Musharraf acquired power through a military coup. This coup de tat occurred in 1999 when he ousted the democratically elected Prime Minister Sharif. This effectively make Musharraf a dictator.
If U.S. troops were to be deployed into Pakistan at the request of Musharraf the situation would be viewed in two completely lights. From the view points of American citizens this would be another leg in the war on terror just as my friend in the convenient store pointed out. Americans feel justified in sending troops anywhere to root out AL Queda and this is very understandable given the events of 9/11. This is as far as it goes from the view points of Americans. It is as simple as "They flew planes into our buildings and killed innocent women and children". The problem arises when you view the other side of this conversation. I can't personally speak for Pakistani citizens however I will attempt to use basic logic to surmise what the outcome will be.
I think it would be safe to assume that if the U.S. put troops into Pakistan that an average Pakistani would connect the U.S. with Musharraf. I believe that from the Pakistani point of view they would see the U.S. as hypocrites. On the one hand the U.S. says that they support democracy and freedom but in the Pakistani situation they are sending aid and supporting a dictator who took over by force and suspended the constitution. How could this be? Because support is dwindling and the U.S. is viewed as allied with Musharraf by the regular citizens of Pakistan, when he does lose power either through force or elections (if they are allowed) the U.S. might be in an awkward position. Why would any normal citizen of Pakistan support the U.S.? They have seen their constitution suspended twice and a Prime Minister who was ELECTED thrown out of office by the head of the military. This is exactly the kind of situation that creates hatred towards the U.S. abroad in the first place.
Because Americans tend not to view themselves from the viewpoint of other people they would not realize that they are viewed as being allied with a military dictator therefore creating resentment among the citizens of Pakistan.
It is usually the assumption that if the U.S. is sending troops somewhere they are helping another government fight of "evil doers". I think there are some aspects of a troop deployment that must be taken into consideration that are generally not thought of by people who just casually accept that we are putting troops into another country to fight AL-Queda.
There has been a lot of turmoil in Pakistan lately. With a declaration of martial law (which has been lifted) and the assassination of the former prime minister Bhutto, Pakistan is walking a thin line between peace within itself and civil unrest. Much of this unrest results from the fact that the current President Musharraf acquired power through a military coup. This coup de tat occurred in 1999 when he ousted the democratically elected Prime Minister Sharif. This effectively make Musharraf a dictator.
If U.S. troops were to be deployed into Pakistan at the request of Musharraf the situation would be viewed in two completely lights. From the view points of American citizens this would be another leg in the war on terror just as my friend in the convenient store pointed out. Americans feel justified in sending troops anywhere to root out AL Queda and this is very understandable given the events of 9/11. This is as far as it goes from the view points of Americans. It is as simple as "They flew planes into our buildings and killed innocent women and children". The problem arises when you view the other side of this conversation. I can't personally speak for Pakistani citizens however I will attempt to use basic logic to surmise what the outcome will be.
I think it would be safe to assume that if the U.S. put troops into Pakistan that an average Pakistani would connect the U.S. with Musharraf. I believe that from the Pakistani point of view they would see the U.S. as hypocrites. On the one hand the U.S. says that they support democracy and freedom but in the Pakistani situation they are sending aid and supporting a dictator who took over by force and suspended the constitution. How could this be? Because support is dwindling and the U.S. is viewed as allied with Musharraf by the regular citizens of Pakistan, when he does lose power either through force or elections (if they are allowed) the U.S. might be in an awkward position. Why would any normal citizen of Pakistan support the U.S.? They have seen their constitution suspended twice and a Prime Minister who was ELECTED thrown out of office by the head of the military. This is exactly the kind of situation that creates hatred towards the U.S. abroad in the first place.
Because Americans tend not to view themselves from the viewpoint of other people they would not realize that they are viewed as being allied with a military dictator therefore creating resentment among the citizens of Pakistan.
Sunday, January 20, 2008
Is This the Way it Was Supposed to Be?
What were the intentions of our founding fathers? Could they possible have envisioned the government they started turning into a behemoth of a bureaucracy? No one can say for sure how they would react to the current situation plaguing our government, but we could probably assume how they would react to a number of programs that the federal government is involved in. If the politicians are truly working because they say that they love the country and owe the public service, why do they keep raping and pillaging the very document that they are swearing to uphold? We the public need to stop buying into all the crap and start asking some serious questions. Here is a link to a video that shows one politician asking some questions and sharing some ideas that not so long ago would have been mainstream.
Friday, January 18, 2008
Unbelievable
In a surprising twist the Governor of Illinois (Rod Blagojevich) after the legislator passed a bill to bail out CTA buses and trains in Chicago, slapped on a provision allowing all senior citizens free fare. Should a train system that is fundamentally flawed and broke be giving out free rides? It just doesn't make any sense.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
