|
Initial World View | Discussion Threads -- Read and/or Post | News Items | |
| Membership | What Is A Moral Group? | Direct Media Thread | Media News |
[Karl Note: The New York Times, as reported in India, is claiming (article below) that the US should not rely for help on "Terror-Tainted" Pakistan. Since most Indians detest Pakistan, this is very welcome news, indeed, in India. It should not be. India still doesn't have the power (willingness ?) to control their own enemies, and thus get help even from an enemy. The US has that power, and is using it, much to the disdain of those who lack such power, or more accurately, lack the will to use what they have.
The actual NYT editorial is also HERE.
Fighting terrorism effectively requires allies untainted by terror. (source)
India should recognize that because of its unwillingness to use the power it has, it is ineffectual in world affairs.
I am of the school that says that a bad man can hardly ever do anything good -- if he is truly bad his every action will be designed, often covertly, to bring about bad. The New York Times has easily fallen into that category of "bad man," with so much proof of "badness" that you must, in all logic, START with an assumption that anything they say has some hidden destructive agenda. When you start with that, you easily find that agenda.
One of the most difficult of all accurate observations is to detect evil.
Oh, I also think a bad man can change, and be good, but this is not a conversion that takes place without some externalcontrol and technology. Bad just keeps getting "badder" unless the good guy comes along and enters in some control over the situation.
There is no God making man good. There is a God who invites man to choose his own path. Man must solve the problems of man, since Man, not God, created them.
On the other hand, Pakistan, itself, has a well-deserved reputation of "badness" so should we not paint them with the same brush? Can we expect anything good to come out of Pakistan?
The answer lies in control.
Sometimes that "control" lies in the use of force. Fortunately, this is not always the case, but control is the essential factor without which the bad never becomes good.
There is a dividing line for people. Below this dividing line man is trying to bring about destruction and needs this external control to get him back up on the other side of the line. On the upper side of the line man is seeking to accomplish constructive goals. The NYT is well below that line, and there is no control to nudge them back above the line.
Pakistan is also below that line, but there is enough control over their activities by the US that we can accept the good we can get from them, even though they would prefer to not give it, and hope that our control will get them up over that line of morality.
The Saudis are, as all are, a special case. We have less control over them because they have plenty of money -- which the Pakistanis don't have. Money is one of the easiest of "control factors" on the planet just now -- because there seems to be such a shortage of it. But, the Saudis have not been able to defend themselves from enemies, so we still have a lever there.
The worst of all characters, the moral pervert, murderer, etc., can still be counted on to "do the right thing" if his every muscle-movement is controlled. He, understand, supplies some willingness, if only to be controlled. His activity, under such tight control may not be what he wants to do, but it is what he DOES.
Given to their own fully free preferences, many Saudis and many Pakistani Government figures (and certainly Iran) would, probably, be more than willing to go against the civilized world and establish an Islamic State, usually nominally Theocratic, but actually, always, a dictatorship. Once a man gets that taste for power it is hard to give it up.
The New York Times has little control being exercised to put any stop to its disgraceful performance as a public news service. The First Amendment puts the responsibility on the public, the reader, to avoid bad news, avoid the likes of the Times. The fact that the Times is still prosperous is much more a sign of the low level to which society has fallen than to the truth of their views.
One thinks of the Biblical injunction: Let he who is without sin cast the first stone!
The Times editorial says: Fighting terrorism effectively requires allies untainted by terror.
Are there any?
Even a man with a pile of past sins can be counted on to throw a stone (helpfully) if his arm is fully controlled.
The Times, as it always does, is trying to bring more destruction into the world by urging the US to avoid its use of the power it has to control and direct the actions of even a bad man. That is not a surprise.
It's a shame that no one of the Democratic hopefuls seems to be helping us arrive at the right level of control over our enemies -- but to cave in to them! The Times is an enemy, as it has been for decades.
akistan
was not directly involved in the events of 9/11, but its international standing
and the reputation of its leader, Gen. Pervez Musharraf, were thoroughly
transformed in the wake of the terrorist attacks two years ago. By abruptly
switching sides in Afghanistan and letting Washington use Pakistani bases to
fight the Taliban, General Musharraf managed, in weeks, to lift Pakistan's
status in Washington from pariah to strategic partner.
Yet beneath the surface of Washington's new closeness with Islamabad, mutual suspicions continue to fester. Neither country has fully delivered what the other expected, though America's shortcomings and Pakistan's are scarcely equivalent. The Bush administration has withheld trade benefits Pakistan deserves. General Musharraf has failed to sever all links with international terrorism.
During the cold war, Pakistan's geography and anti-Communism made it an American favorite. After that, relations began to sour. Washington grew increasingly unhappy over Pakistan's strong support for the Taliban, links with Kashmiri terrorists and covert development of nuclear weapons. Then, in 1999, General Musharraf overthrew a democratically elected government.
For a brief time after General Musharraf's switch on Afghanistan, there seemed a chance for a healthier relationship. In breaking with the Taliban, the general stood up to some of the most troubling forces in Pakistani society, including military intelligence leaders and Islamic fundamentalists. He promised a timely return to democracy and announced he would expel foreign fundamentalists. His actions fell short of his words.
In return for his help in Afghanistan, General Musharraf hoped that Washington would grant broad relief from the protectionist American import quotas that stifle Pakistan's textile and apparel industry, the country's largest industrial employer and main exporter to the United States. Instead, only selective bonuses have been offered, many for products Pakistan does not produce in large quantities. Unlike the military aid Washington has offered, freer trade in textiles would benefit Pakistan's weak economy and struggling factory workers.
Meanwhile, Pakistan's behavior has fallen well short of what Americans are entitled to expect from an ally in the war on terrorism. Although it has cooperated in the arrest of some leaders of Al Qaeda, Pakistan has never adequately sealed the Afghan border. That made it possible for key Qaeda fugitives to escape and now allows Pakistani recruits to join a reviving Taliban. Pakistan still provides Kashmiri terrorists with sanctuary and access to areas bordering Indian-ruled territory. Wresting Kashmir away from India remains an open goal of Pakistani policy, with violence considered a legitimate tool.
Pakistan has behaved extremely irresponsibly with respect to nuclear weapons. American experts believe it may have helped both North Korea and Iran develop nuclear weapons technology. Pakistan's own nuclear weapons are thought to be under General Musharraf's control, but in a country whose history has been scarred by repeated military coups, that is not totally reassuring. Democracy remains a distant mirage.
Pakistan's help in Afghanistan, though less than ideal, is still needed. Now Washington is hoping General Musharraf will contribute Pakistani peacekeeping troops to Iraq. If that can be done under a United Nations flag, it makes sense. Otherwise, America must look for ways to reduce its dependence on General Musharraf. Fighting terrorism effectively requires allies untainted by terror.
| Home Page | Table Of Contents | Discussion Threads | Membership | Copyright Notice |