Pakistan institutes a State of Emergency. It could happen here too!

News item: Pakistan's Musharraf declares emergency. As I saw this on Yahoo News, I wondered why as there didn't appear to be any violence in the streets unless I missed something in the past day or two. It didn't seem justified. Here's a shortened version of the article on Pakistan:

Pakistan's Musharraf declares emergency
By MATTHEW PENNINGTON, Associated Press Writer

ISLAMABAD, Pakistan - President Gen. Pervez Musharraf declared a state of emergency in Pakistan on Saturday ahead of a crucial Supreme Court decision on whether to overturn his recent election win and amid rising Islamic militant violence.

Eight Supreme Court judges immediately rejected the emergency, which suspended the current constitution. The government blocked transmissions of private news channels in several cities and telephone services in the capital, Islamabad, were cut.

"The chief of army staff has proclaimed a state of emergency and issued a provisional constitutional order," a newscaster on state Pakistan TV said, adding that Musharraf, who took power in 1999 coup, would address the nation later Saturday.

This came as a total surprise to me and caught many off guard. Consider the following, this could happen here while we are sleeping or while our "consciousness" is asleep. The Bush/Cheney Administration has "secret" plans to install a new government should a state of emergency ever be needed for reasons I will leave to your imagination. Musharraf has learned from Bush well. He sees what we citizens allow in our, so called, democracy and beats Bush to the punch.

We have no moral ground to ask Musharraf to do something we wouldn't do, to stand down. Remember as Senator Joe Biden said in the last debate which now appears prophetic, Paraphrasing the good Senator, he said that he was worried more about Pakistan than about Iran. Iran is trying to make 2 Kilo's of enriched nuclear material, Pakistan has made thousands upon thousand of Kilo's of this material and they sit atop Missiles pointed at India and Israel. That's what we should keep our eye on, said Senator Biden. But no, President Bush and Vice President Cheney are still rattling their saber at Iran instead of worrying about Nuclear weapons falling into the hands of Al-Qaeda. We took our eye of the war on terrorists for this war in Iraq and we may yet pay the ultimate price as a nation for doing so.

General Abizaid on Iran pursuing Nuclear weapons

Today, General Abizaid is quoted saying, "the world could live with a nuclear-armed regime in Tehran." He goes on to say, "Iran is not a suicide nation," then adds, "I mean, they may have some people in charge that don't appear to be rational, but I doubt that the Iranians intend to attack us with a nuclear weapon."

The Iranians are aware, he said, that the United States has a far superior military capability.

"I believe that we have the power to deter Iran, should it become nuclear," he said, referring to the theory that Iran would not risk a catastrophic retaliatory strike by using a nuclear weapon against the United States.

"There are ways to live with a nuclear Iran," Abizaid said in remarks at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, a think tank. "Let's face it, we lived with a nuclear Soviet Union, we've lived with a nuclear China, and we're living with (other) nuclear powers as well."

(For the rest of the article click here.

Back in August 26, 2006 I wrote the following post titled, "Iran's Nuclear ambitions: What's all the fuss?" and I took a little heat for it. Here's a reprint of my post then and an anonymous comment from a reader:

"So Iran wants to have Nuclear technology, maybe even a few Nuclear bombs. What's all the fuss about? We have thousands of Nuclear bombs and stood successfully against a powerful Soviet Union in the Cold war. If you can remember back that far, it was the strategy of "Mutual Assured Destruction" that kept the weapons in check. Seems to me the same strategy would work here. So let's stop all the huffing and puffing and falling into the neocons mind trap that has been baited lately to get all of us scared and willing to consider a first strike option on their facilities. Don't be fooled by the scare tactics. It didn't work in the Cold war and it won't work here either. Preemptive strikes are now going to be a thing of the past. As Iran and others get the bomb, we are going to have to use diplomacy to work with the world and that means that Israel will have to change its approaches too. It will take a different mindset than the arrogant one we have displayed during the Bush/Cheney years, which by the way should be considered the worst Presidency in the history of our great nation. Looking back, the "Silent Majority" fell asleep during these past 6 years and are just awakening in time for the mid term November Congressional elections. Can't wait to hear their first yawn! Goodbye neocons. :)

Comments:

Anonymous said...
Iran has been -rather openly- supplying Hezbollah for years, and you think it's no big deal that Iran gets a few nukes?

You really think that the same kind of deterrence that worked with the Soviets will work with terrorists and their suppliers in an asymmetrical environment? If a nuke from Iran goes off in Central Park, who do we retaliate against? Tehran? Should we nuke that city and kill a million innocent people? Or burn off southern Lebanon, and kill thousands of other innocents to get the Hez we want?

8:26 PM
Charles Amico said...

My friend, the type of Bombs Iran is pursuing would be delievered by Missile. That is why they are also developing Long Range Missiles capable of reaching the U.S. You may be confusing "suitcase bombs" with the ones Iraq is wanting to develop. And suitcase bombs can be made now with any nuclear material available in our own country, if terrorists stole the material. That is why it is so important to focus our attention on securing our own borders and all chemical, biological and nuclear materials that could be used to cause great damage within our borders.

I rest my earlier case and site General Abizaid's comments in defense of my earlier post.