Meet your new thread, same as the old thread.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Another interesting post about Pakistan.

[Diane_Keaton]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
Another interesting post about Pakistan.

Because it blames George Bush for the situation in Pakistan? Not exactly interesting. More interesting is that a piece about Pakistan could discuss problems there without mentioning Kashmir, Bangladesh, India, corruption and looting by Bhutto and her family and the country's dumb ass decision to test nukes. I also like how an article on Pakistan's "power puzzle" doesn't mention China.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally posted by Diane_Keaton
Because it blames George Bush for the situation in Pakistan? Not exactly interesting. More interesting is that a piece about Pakistan could discuss problems there without mentioning Kashmir, Bangladesh, India, corruption and looting by Bhutto and her family and the country's dumb ass decision to test nukes. I also like how an article on Pakistan's "power puzzle" doesn't mention China.

If you're going to insist that every post be this thorough, you probably should also insist that there be some discussion of Britain's role during partition.

It is an interesting post, and doesn't excessively dwell on Bush (or the US in general). It is hard for Americans to understand the role of the military in Pakistan, because it is a role that really relates to the military as a separate, deeply entrenched and hereditary institution. There is nothing like it here. But during partition the country was really constructed around the military, which the British had made the most central and privileged local institution and which they counted on, post-independence, as a bulwark against Russia. Just as the American elites have multi-generational ties to Harvard or Yale, the Pakistani elites have multi-generational ties to a particular military unit. What unit your grandfather served in is more important to a Pakistani than what public school their family is associated with is to a City Barrister.

But because it's hard for Americans to understand the role of the military and what Bhutto represents (a family not tied to the military for its prestige - a family that breaks traditional molds in a very modern and non-Pakistani way), when Americans meddle in Pakistani politics, the law of unintended consequences applies. But as the only remaining superpower, they will meddle. The article did a decent job of highlighting how that played into the battle between the Bhuttos of the world and the traditional forces. And Musharif is just as much a part of the traditional landscape as the Islamicists.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Diane_Keaton
Because it blames George Bush for the situation in Pakistan?

Not what I got out of it, but thanks for playing.

[Diane_Keaton]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
Not what I got out of it, but thanks for playing.

You mean the game of posting cites to articles saying they are "interesting" in lieu of saying anything original (or anything at all)? You win that game, dear.

[Diane_Keaton]

Originally posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy
The article did a decent job of highlighting how that played into the battle between the Bhuttos of the world and the traditional forces.

"Bhuttos of the World"? You mean the ones who prey upon the trust of their countrymen so as to steal upwards of 2 Billion and then show up again when things are so bad in the country that even a thief starts looking good and "the answer" to all the mayhem?

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally posted by Diane_Keaton
You mean the game of posting cites to articles saying they are "interesting" in lieu of saying anything original (or anything at all)? You win that game, dear.

We would take a cite to an interesting article from you.

That would, at least, be something.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Diane_Keaton
You mean the game of posting cites to articles saying they are "interesting" in lieu of saying anything original (or anything at all)? You win that game, dear.

At least I gave you something to read. I didn't claim originality, and I called the articles "interesting" so that I could link to them without necessarily agreeing with them in full.

I think that Bhutto was seen in the West primarily through the lens of her having gone to Harvard and Oxford, and that as such we had little sense of what she meant in Pakistan. George W. Bush is no more guilty of this than anyone else, and probably less so. OTOH, he seems to place great significance on personal relationships with foreign leaders like Musharref, and can be faulted for the extent to which our policy towards Pakistan has focused around personalities like those two.

[SlaveNoMore]

Diane_Keaton
"Bhuttos of the World"? You mean the ones who prey upon the trust of their countrymen so as to steal upwards of 2 Billion and then show up again when things are so bad in the country that even a thief starts looking good and "the answer" to all the mayhem?

Sounds quite a lot like Hillary, when you put it that way.

[Happy New Year, all]

[SlaveNoMore]

Tyrone Slothrop
At least I gave you something to read.

Thank you.

In the spirit of the season, here's my return gift - the folks at Powerline fisked the [laughable] NYT closing op-ed of the year - regarding, of course, W the Tyrant.

It's rather lengthy, so i'm linking instead of posting

http://www.powerlineblog.com/archive.../01/019422.php

Originally posted by SlaveNoMore
Thank you.

In the spirit of the season, here's my return gift - the folks at Powerline fisked the [laughable] NYT closing op-ed of the year - regarding, of course, W the Tyrant.

It's rather lengthy, so i'm linking instead of posting

http://www.powerlineblog.com/archive.../01/019422.php

Torture is illegal, and there is no evidence that any executive agency has authorized the use of torture. Waterboarding is the most intense interrogation method that has been authorized, with respect to as few as two high-level terrorists. While opinions differ, I think it is obvious that waterboarding is not torture.

I got about this far. I forgot where you came out on this - is waterboarding torture or not?

And I like the use of "as few as" and, earlier in the piece, "one would think." As in, "we might have tortured as few as 2 but as many as ____, because who the fuck knows, right?" and "one would think the NYT is putting up a big fat straw man argument for us to knock down." I love blogs.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by ironweed
I love blogs.

notice how slave posted it as an opinion, instead of as factual support for something?

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
notice how slave posted it as an opinion, instead of as factual support for something?

While opinions differ, I think it is obvious that you are an assclown.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

• If you don't want to lose your spare lithium batteries for your camera, notebook or cell phone, you might want to pack carefully for your next flight.
  
  New rules from the Transportation and Security Administration that take effect on January 1 ban travelers from carrying loose lithium batteries in checked baggage. Passengers are allowed to pack two spare batteries in their carry-on bag, as long as they're in clear plastic baggies.
  
  Fortunately, you don't have to worry about the batteries that are already installed in the devices you're bringing. The TSA has said it's safe to check in items like a laptop or iPhone that already have the batteries in place.
  
  The agency said that loose lithium batteries not installed in devices pose a fire risk to passenger planes.

link

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by ironweed
I got about this far.

if you had been reading it when you jumped out a WTC window on 9/11/01 you wouldn't have gotten that far.

The NYT is the paper that published the bank supeona information, which it even had to admit was a fuck up, and directly did more damage to each of us, than any and all alleged reduction of our rights combined.

Yet the NYt can't understand why the CIA wouldn't want tapes floating around that would out its agents? I thought you guys get all angry about outing CIA agents, or do you think this time the NYT would decide not to publish?

dim fuck.