Of Rites and Rights: An Interview with Asma Jahangir

I agree. Great post.
#123 by tahmed32 on September 25, 2003 9:03am PT

So was.
#124 by rsridhar on September 25, 2003 9:03am PT
re: Mushy`s wet dreams . The mushy guy is a crazed General with dimag ghutne mein. Sab logo ko chutia bana raha hai.

=== Interact Filtered ===
view this users filtered interacts

TAhmed:

Your post is the best. So when are you inviting me for home cooked Pakistani food??

Arjun

``refusal to sell F-16s is policy,``

And it is good policy too.


``not increasing textile quotas substantially,``

And that is bad policy.

Pakistan has not been compensated enough in an economic sense. I don`t blame India for trying to screw up the deal because currently India and Pakistan operate in a zero sum environment, but I do feel the US has been insensitive towards Pakistan in helping where it can and also where the help would do much more good.

Infact the textile quotas by themselves would be more helpful then a $3 Billion loan.

I also blame Musharraf for being an idiot in the sense that he is wasting his political/diplomatic capital on points that have no chance of success (NSEERS, F 16S) rather than the one or two specifics which would have succeeded (Textile quota elimination for Pakistan, Aid tied to infrastructure building)

What leads me to disrespect the Pakistani team and Mush is they had no clue about the current thinking in the US and wasted time in asking for stuff that any sensible Pakistani American could have told them that the F 16s would not be sold or that NSEERS was not a Pakistan specific measure.

re HE # 87 and 86

I am not an Indian by any stretch. I have been to Azad Kashmir so I know a thing or two about the `overwhelming` pro-Pakistan sentiment there.

Terror apologists always use the canard that the definition of terrorism is subjective. Not quite, as the world is coming to realize now. Individuals and groups who deliberately target civilians are terrorists no matter what the cause, what the issue, and where the place. And the root cause of terrorism is terrorists, as John Howard so memorably said.

His Excellency:

``I thought democrats wanted to extricate America from international conflicts and focus on a stronger domestic policy.``

Not true. Democrats have traditionally been outward looking based on values. Republicans are outward looking in terms of national interest.

`` Over the last decade, democrats have followed pro-active domestic policies and inert foreign policies. ``

Clinton`s involvement...from what I remember..included Somalia, Kosovo, Bosnia, missile strikes in Afghanistan and Sudan, continued bombing of Iraq with sanctions etc. Only diff is that he was very careful to fight media friendly wars. Also, in neither of the above cases were American interests directly threatened or involved. Bbut, they either created problems (Somalia) or postponed them (Iraq)




``If my reading is correct, then the U.S. economy will rebound under a democratic president, ``

I don`t think the economy in general is affected by those elected to political power at the time. Regardless of whover is elected, if the Chinese economy falters and they stop their current financing of the American deficit (as they do know bu buying US Govt bonds) the Fed will be forced to raise interest rates thus threatening economic recovery regardless of whosoever is president. This is just a scenario...point is economy is affected by multiple unknown factors.

``H-1B visa quotas will expand,``

The biggest opposition to H1Bs is from unions..a democrat vote bank.

`` American involvement in Middle East will decrease and the U.S. will gradually relinquish control of Iraq. In addition, the American facilitation/shadow diplomacy in Kashmir will also end. Ultimately, this hands-off approach will benefit the Israelis and Indians. ``

The Israelis might lose out because Democrats are far more sensitive to human rights compared to Republicans who use it as a tool and not much more. OTOH, as far as Kashmir is concerned, American involvement is negligible beyond asking Pakistan to stop CBT and asking India to hold talks. That will carry on in a Democrat admin as well..

My original point was that a Dem admin will be irritating to both Indian and Pakistani establishments. The Democrats will give more headache to Musharaaf on reforms etc, making him crack down on more than he is willing to. India will face a problem in weapo acquisition and additional pressure on talks with Pakistan.

Basically, Americans wanting to do good are more dangerous for the establishments of other countries compared to Americans wanting self interest.

Do you disagree with this analysis??

=== Interact Filtered ===
view this users filtered interacts

=== Interact Filtered ===
view this users filtered interacts

Arjun

No. I am saying that India was peripheral at best. Regardless, it did try its best with the India caucus to tie in safeguards and in that it succeeded. But that should have been factored in by Pakistan even before they came to the states.

Arjun:


You are saying the same thing as me. Though Tancredo is a Republican, the push is coming from unions who would also coopt Democrats if required. I don`t discount Vote Banks though. Campaign contributions mean diddly if you alienate your base vote. Remember the ``Reagen Democrats`` ?

stuka #131 Flattery will get you far in this world (``your post is best``). You are welcome to my home anytime, with or without flattery.

Sigalph,

So what is your impression of the public opinion in ``Azad`` Kashmir ?
The Indian army surely indulges in gruesome violence in Kashmir, but
sometimes I wonder what someone like Hafez Assad would do to the Jihadis
in Kashmir, and what the official Pakistani response to that would be. I bet we
would see some sublime spin-doctoring.

ATTN temporal:
No response from your chowk addy.
Will be in Islington area Sun night. Please email if interested. youkowmyaddy@yahoo :)

plats8:

You are not Pakistani then? Your questions seem to be too uncomfortable.

..in context of the Pakistani establishment I mean. Public opinion of Pakistanis seems to be very fragmented.

tahmed,

............ i never said kashmir should be united with pakistan .......... i said kashmir should be reunited like korea and germany and taiwan .......... there is a big difference ..........

............ personally i am for peace and all the other good stuff, but that does not necessarily mean that pakis have to roll over and let the horrible hindoos have their way ........... a little pride and some self-respect is in order ..........and to tell you the truth, if i thought the paki army was capable of doing it, i would be all for marching into srinagar - but since that is not possible, there is no point in huffing and puffing about it .......... it just makes you look silly and distracts from the real issues................and who knows, in another generation people on both sides might not even care about what happens to the dang kashmiris ................in the meantime you can still keep the ``issue`` alive and fuss about it at the united nations once in a while without loosing any sleep over it ......... spain has still not given up on gibraltar but i don`t think they are about to send suicide bombers to trafalgar square .......... what i don`t like is that we seem to be consumed with the kashmir issue while the military is sticking it to us and the mullahs are about to shove god down our throats ..............

.......i just can`t wait to read another long post from romair .......... don`t you think this stuff is getting rather stale?