Oh, bullshit. I just caught you acknowledging that if Musharaf goes, we might get something worse, an idea that never jumps to mind when the Islamic democracy (scarequotes) at issue is Iraq.

Of course there are sides. We know this because any discussion about how to best accomplish our goals immediately turns into a question of which side you're on.

However, whatever efficiency they have is a very simple efficiency. They know how to whack those who step out of line and stay on simple messages. the problem is, shit ain't always that simple. This Plame mess is embarrassing them. And their idiot move to redo social security, however senseible it is, is politically moronic. Bush is doing an excellent job of biting off more than he can chew in every possible direction. You can't just stay "on message" and hope to sell SS reform. You have to think that shit out years in advance. You can't go trapsing off to Iraq without a strategy to get out later. Shit, all you need to do is read a few British history books to see what a fucking quagmire you'll run into trying to operate that country as one unit and one democracy.

You'll find no bigger fan of "keep it simple, stupid" than me. I loathe policy wonks and think we ought to hang every bureaucrat who can't justify his paycheck in five sentences. BUT you can't apply simple, direct, "CEO" decisions to everything. Bush needs to nuance himself out of Plame, and he's doing a terrible job of it so far. Fuck, the Press has even suddenly regained its ballsack. And thats his worst nightmare. If the Fourth estate wakes up and starts attacking Bush, instead of giving him the continued free ride he's enjoyed, he's in trouble. Scott McClellan can't take bullets forever.

Sooner or later, W has to do what Tony Blair does - stand there and take the beating from his critics in the media. I don't think he has the balls or the fast-wittedness to do it. His inability to fight on the fly is making him look secretive, and that ain't good in the midst of a scandal.

I think Pakistan is the greasy ooze that emerges when you first pop a zit. Think of the Iran/Pakistan/Iraq/Afghanistan area as a zit. China and Inida are Westernizing at warp speed. Russia is Westernising and getting cozy with China and India. And there's the US, Israel and Britain to the West, and the uber-liberal and irreligious EU to the Northwest.

You have three fingers popping a huge zit of backward Islamic Republics jammed in the middle, between Egypt, Turkey and India. My guess is the puss runs into Africa through Egypt after Mubarrak dies and no strong successor is chosen. Pakistan is just that shit that's barely worth squeezing. Its another screwed up, misbordered British colony. It'll be swallowed by India economically. The big pile of white puss... the guts of the pimple, if you will, is Iran. Once that fucker gets Westernized (and it will, given time), I think Radical Islam's last stand will be on the Arabian Peninsula and in Africa.

I don't see Pakistan as the hotbed of Islamic insanity. I think its too close to , and economically tied to, India (even if culturally they hate each other). I think the last stand of Radical Islam is going to be some screwy place in Africa, like the Sudan.

racist!

So... Democracy through Dermatology?

You know, that's just crazy enough that it might work!

As I have said many times on this board, development leads to democracy. It does not necessarily work the other way around. So if a country is growing economically it is better not to mess with it because it will turn into a democracy on its own. However, if the economy is not growing it is time for regime change. Unless of course if it is a democracy like India, then you just have to let them stew in their own incompetance. Although recently India seems to be getting the idea.

That is why we need to take out the Burmese government. The country is not growing economically so that Junta could remain in power indefinitely (same goes for North Korea). If the economic trend continues in China the communist party there does not have a snowballs chance in hell in keeping that country a one party state.

I was going to go with a Chinese Gordon reference, but I like your response better.

There you go again. No one ever said that it is not possible that we will get something worse. Just unlikely. Things were pretty bad under Saddam Hussein so things will really have to screw up badly in Iraq for things to get worse than life under Saddam. Iraq is a paradise right now compared to what it was under Saddam. Your view of how bad things are in Iraq right now are distorted, and your view of life under Saddam is distorted.

Whoa. The Club For Growth does Foreign Policy. Nice twist.

Beautiful. I loled.

When I think of Pakistan, I think of poor Bobo.

I don’t agree with a lot of what you post, but when you get through all the hyperbole and exaggerated references, you make some interesting, logical, well thought out points. That especially applies to your last two posts.

Pakistan had a democratically elected government. Now it's a military dictatorship. Where's the progress? By free market reforms, are you talking about how the market found a way for Pakistani nuclear technology to end up in the hands of North Korea?

In fairness, I think he stole this line from Indhira Ghandi:

I think Pakistan is the greasy ooze that emerges when you first pop a zit.

Seventy percent of Pakistan is illiterate so they have to put symbols or logos on the voting ballots. As you can imagine the potential for fraud there is huge. Like India, Pakistan for many years rejected the free market. They saw capitalsim as a British Imperialistic tool to control them. The result is one of the poorest countrys in the world. Unlike India, they have also not been very good at holding onto democracy.

Mushariff has instituted many economic reforms and they have been working. The economy is growing. Incomes are rising across the board. - so yes - i would say that is progress.

Well, I was talking to Hank, not you. Be that as it may, one virtue of the Hussein regime was the relative stability it brought to the area, inc. as a counterweight to Iran. Another is that Hussein was not sympathetic to Islamists. While what comes will probably be an improvement as to human rights, it could be a big step backwards on both of those fronts.