RoR: Forum

Post 0

Thursday, December 27, 2007 - 6:03am

Link

Edit

Just watching the news, Benazir Bhutto, former Prime Minister of Pakistan was assassinated. Oil and Futures dropped significantly. Here is an article

http://www.abcnews.go.com/International/story?id=4055506&page=1

I guess I knew this was coming, but I wonder what will happen in Pakistan now.

Post 1

Thursday, December 27, 2007 - 8:43am

Link

Edit

Oh, Jesus.

I have a friend whose father knew the Bhuttos and the Sharifs (as in ex PM Nawaz) His mother just passed away, and he is in Pakistan. He said Bhutto and Sharif were corrupt, and that Musharraf was simply a little less corrupt. At least she stood somewhat for secularism.

Ted Keer

Post 2

Thursday, December 27, 2007 - 10:20am

Link

Edit

Are you in communication with your friend? She is an intriguing figure, no doubt. It was amazing watching the stock report on CNBC this am. Just a low hum, not the usual ruckus.
-dumping snow in Colorado, two days after it snowed 7 inches. A winter wonderland.

.

Post 3

Thursday, December 27, 2007 - 12:14pm

Link

Edit

Audrey, you should submit this yourself as a news link under the add your own content button.

The friend is the co-owner of a private pharmacy I use. He is usually ahead of the news on Pakistan. He considers all the politicians corrupt, and would not endorse Musharraf, Sharif, Bhutto or any of the others. He says Bhutto played up to the islamists when it suited her. He says that Musharraf had been the best of the recent rulers, and Sharif the worst. He considered Bhutto an opportunist, and said that party politics are about patronage and sectarianism. I hope he has already returned from Pakistan, but I don't know. I will probably stop by the pharmacy around 7PM eastern tonight.

Ted Keer

Post 4

Thursday, December 27, 2007 - 12:40pm

Link

Edit

I missed this Topic on the RoR Forum and accidently posted a short remark here.

Post 5

Thursday, December 27, 2007 - 5:54pm

Link

Edit

I found out that my friend was "unable to get to his flight" out of Pakistan.

WWI, the Anschluss and 9/11 were all presaged by political assassinations. Meanwhile Putin announces he is going to provide Iran with anti-missile technology. We are acting weaker than Chamberlain in 1938.

This is no time for pussyfooting. I hope Bush lets Musharraf know quietly that he can redeem himself by producing Bin Laden. Otherwise, why exactly do we consider his regime our ally?

Ted Keer

Post 6

Thursday, December 27, 2007 - 6:36pm

Link

Edit

Well, when we have "Dhimmitude" Rice as Sec'y of State, am not surprised.....
(Edited by robert malcom on 12/27, 6:46pm)

Post 7

Thursday, December 27, 2007 - 6:41pm

Link

Edit

It was broadcast on the news that all flights in and out of Pakistan are canceled. Naturally, riots have broken out and the military has been called in.

Post 8

Thursday, December 27, 2007 - 6:45pm

Link

Edit

The real danger is that if the wrong people gain control after a civil war, then India will be spooked into a preemptive nuclear strike.

Post 9

Thursday, December 27, 2007 - 6:47pm

Link

Edit

Robert, did you mean dhimmitude, or Demi-tude? Also has anyone noticed that it is hard not to find nude pictures of Ms. Moore by googling her? I was going to post a tasteful one here, but settled for this head shot. Those who wish to see the nude can follow this link.

Ted

PS Okay, so Robert has retroactively editted his spelling of Demmitude, but I refuse to take down her picture!

(Edited by Ted Keer on 12/27, 8:53pm)

Post 10

Thursday, December 27, 2007 - 7:53pm

Link

Edit

In a Galaxy Far, Far Away?

What Phil fears in post 8 is exactly what I was contemplating on the subway home tonight. India might find the cost of a pre-emptive strike seeming less and less. Frankly, if we need an object lesson in the nature of nuclear war, I'd prefer it occur as far away from the US mainland as possible. So far as the Democrats, and most of the press and the populace are concerned, 9/11 is something that happened long ago and far away. Remember that poll "which would happen first?" I think 1,000,000 dead in a terrorist (at least related) strike is frighteningly possible. Rice needs to be on a non-stop to Islamabad with an otherwise empty briefcase with just one document, right and one photo, below.

Ted Keer

Post 11

Thursday, December 27, 2007 - 8:35pm

Link

Edit

In the crazy world we inhabit, almost anything is possible, of course. But, people are so irrationally frightened of nuclear weapons -- even those who possess them and have access to the trigger -- that the odds of any State using one (other than, say, one like Iran who would do so only through a proxy jihadist group), is extremely slim.

(Note for those who might conclude that I was causal about the use of nuclear weapons: Yes, they are highly destructive and do leave radiation behind. But there are many, still nastier, forms of killing people, such as a virus in the water supply, properly weaponized, etc.

There is no particular moral reason that nuclear weapons are to be regarded as somehow in a separate and especially scary category. As we've seen, a couple of jet airplanes can do one hell of a lot of damage, employed by minimal numbers with a little training.

Still, they wouldn't be something I'd advise deploying lightly.)

Post 12

Thursday, December 27, 2007 - 8:50pm

Link

Edit

Rorschach Diplomacy

Jeff, my point in having Rice produce the picture of a nuclear blast for Musharraf would be for its psychological effect on him. She neeed simply show him the photo without comment. He would think, Is she threatening me? Is this a warning about India? Is this a warning about the vengeance my own people might bring down upon themselves? His own internal demons would work on him. If he's a good guy, he'd take it as a friendly warning. If he's a secret enemy, he'd take it as a threat. Pictures actually are arguments, and of the most effective kind, as they provide their own premises which your own pysche evokes upon seeing them. Musharraf broke out in a sweat when he held a press conference after declaring his most recent state of emerency in November. There's no arguing with your own demons.

Ted Keer

PS, It's easy for you to talk, Jeff, about irrational fears, holed up there in Idaho. Try working on the 16th floor of a building that was pierced by the falling broadcast antenna of the WTC on 9/11 and in an office that directly overlooks the pit where 3,000 people were murdered. It's funny, but I always end up giving visiting British tourists directions to Ground Zero. Maybe for them it's like the Blitz. I think for most Americans (no aspersion on you intended) 9/11 is like a Bruckheimer movie and the War on Terror is a video game.

(Edited by Ted Keer on 12/27, 9:22pm)

Post 13

Thursday, December 27, 2007 - 10:18pm

Link

Edit

I posted information from the Federation of American Scientists about the nuclear arsenals of India and Pakistan in another assassination thread. Click here.

Demi Moore has nice teeth and thanks for the link to the Hungarian "Innuendo" website.

Being holed up in Idaho is a rational choice. Living in NYC is riskier, though more profitable as long as those risks are just probabilities, not actualities. Myself, I stay stocked with seaweed -- same as KI.

Post 14

Friday, December 28, 2007 - 7:02am

Link

Edit

"It's easy for you to talk, Jeff, about irrational fears, holed up there in Idaho." Ted

Ted,

Don't misunderstand, please. I meant people have an irrational fear of deploying nuclear weapons. It's perfectly reasonable for those living in New York, DC, London, and other major cities to fear being subjected to one. Given the jihadists nature and actions one would be irrational not to fear that very real possibility.

Jeff

Post 15

Sunday, December 30, 2007 - 3:14pm

Link

Edit

A problem with nukes is that the damage is not limited to the target in either time or space. The relatively tiny nukes used on Japan probably did not spread their fallout all that far. A more modern weapon of several megatons will surely put a whole lot of long-term highly toxic radioactive junk into the high stratosphere, where it will circulate and spread for thousands of miles, easilly detectable accross the globe within weeks and resulting in increased rates of cancer for the next hundred and probably the next ten thousand or more years. A single such nuke could cause a million man-lifetimes collateral loss in addition to the target damage.

Post 16

Sunday, December 30, 2007 - 3:29pm

Link

Edit

Jeff, I did misunderstand you. The ultimate proof of the rationality in certain circumstances of the use of nukes is the history of Japan since 1945. Truman was a great hero who saved many American and Japanese lives by his actions.

Mike, you mean Potassium Iodide? I fear that might not help those of us closer to the blast radius.

Ted Keer

Post 17

Sunday, December 30, 2007 - 4:10pm

Link

Edit

Phil,

I'm not an expert on the details of nuclear weapons, but if what you say is so why aren't many more dead or diseased from cancer due to above ground tests from the 50s? Were those significantly smaller bombs (not from what I gather) than contemporary ones, or was there in fact already the "million man-lifetimes collateral loss" to which you refer?

I don't know the answers to those questions. Perhaps you could supply a reliable source on the subject.

In any case, that's not generally the reason given for not deploying them -- fear of injuring the launcher or innocent bystanders in far away countries -- is it?

Respectfully,
Jeff

(Edited by Jeff Perren on 12/30, 4:20pm)

Post 18

Sunday, December 30, 2007 - 4:26pm

Link

Edit

What was the innocent-to-intended death ratio in the 2001 Anthrax attacks? (Anyone remember them?)

If human civilization exists in 100 years, I believe it will be a hardened bunker-defended balkanized world somewhat like the one depicted in Heinlein's Friday. The tools of mass murder become easier to acquire daily, while we show no general human moral evolution to match our technological development.

Ted Keer

Post 19

Sunday, December 30, 2007 - 5:04pm

Link

Edit

Very difficult to make a case either way, of course, but I doubt yours.

The world as a whole, in many ways, is a much more civilized place than it was 100 years ago. On the other hand, a large segment of the Victorian British and 19th century Americans were light-years ahead in terms of civility and reasonableness.

Hard to balance all the factors to arrive at an overall judgment.

Assassination of Bhutto...