[Miyazaki]

Taken from BBC News:

"Mr Bush said he told Gen Musharraf it was not right to continue as both president and head of the military."

Isn't George Bush both President and Commander In Chief?

I might be wrong, but I thought Bush was the head of the American Military?

[JohnG]

No I think he's just a thick

[Steven]

According to 24 you are correct

[Ed Selley]

Originally Posted by Games Guru

Taken from BBC News:

"Mr Bush said he told Gen Musharraf it was not right to continue as both president and head of the military."

Isn't George Bush both President and Commander In Chief?

I might be wrong, but I thought Bush was the head of the American Military?

In theory yes. In much the same way that Queenie technically commands ours. Bush holds no military rank though- he can instruct the military in his wishes but cannot really issue a direct order. General Musharraf does hold military rank and could issue a direct order to a military unit.

[krish]

... and just like GM, he wasn't democratically elected either

[dakara]

Bush is not only a hypocrite, but also a megalomaniac with delusions of grandeur, who wants to rule the World. Hopefully, he will be out of office by the end of next year, but in the meantime, pray that nothing happens to him, otherwise he will automatically be replaced as President by that "Straight-Shooter????" Dick Cheney, who would be Ten times worse.

Whether or not Musharraf remains tituiar head of the Pakistan Armed forces makes no difference whatsoever, since as President, he would control them anyway. A cosmetic change that would be just papering over the cracks.
He must be removed as President by People-Power of Pakistan, not by US President Bush.

[Steven]

What I find interesting is that if you go solely off BBC coverage, you would never know that Pakistan has a dictatorship. Venezuela on the other hand...

[dBrowne]

I was only lending it half an ear, but an American talking head on Radio 4 yesterday morning mentioned, that under questioning from some Senate committee, that the administration admits to keeping close tabs on Pakistan's nukes and that it did have a contingency plan should events go pear-shaped. What that was, it wouldn't be drawn on.

[Singh400]

Originally Posted by JohnG

No I think he's just a thick

Ditto

Originally Posted by krish

... and just like GM, he wasn't democratically elected either

Yeah, heard about that.

[geomuss]

Originally Posted by dBrowne

I was only lending it half an ear, but an American talking head on Radio 4 yesterday morning mentioned, that under questioning from some Senate committee, that the administration admits to keeping close tabs on Pakistan's nukes and that it did have a contingency plan should events go pear-shaped. What that was, it wouldn't be drawn on.

because you will probably find that the US control the weapons!

George Bush has got to be the biggest puppet in goverment since .... Ronald Regan.

The man does not have a clue about anything. Its hard to believe that a man so god damn inept, has the power to destory, half the world at the touch of a button.

One good thing at least he cant get elected again!

[mason]

Originally Posted by dBrowne

I was only lending it half an ear, but an American talking head on Radio 4 yesterday morning mentioned, that under questioning from some Senate committee, that the administration admits to keeping close tabs on Pakistan's nukes and that it did have a contingency plan should events go pear-shaped. What that was, it wouldn't be drawn on.

they just cant stay out of it can they?

just let them sort ot out for themselves.... its got all to do with america or anyone else for that matter.

its a sure thing that if america have a contingency plan for this, then we will follow suit and charge on also.

I know that the 'nuke' thing is frightening and if in the wrong dictators hands things could all go severly wrong but it wouldnt be about the weapons that america would try to step in over.... they see an opportunity to charge their white horse in and save the day by bringing down another leader and instaling the peoples favourite. its all about trying to use their muscle and attempting to be the hero!

[Miyazaki]

I thought Pakistan was one dictatorship that the US was in favour of anyway?

[mason]

Originally Posted by Games Guru

I thought Pakistan was one dictatorship that the US was in favour of anyway?

america could be best pals with you one minute and then see something brewing and want to chargein and clear you out .... all to make themselves look good.

they wouldnt care less who it was... they think they are bigger and better than everyone else... and its their way or nothing!

[overkill]

Originally Posted by mason

america could be best pals with you one minute and then see something brewing and want to chargein and clear you out .... all to make themselves look good.

they wouldnt care less who it was... they think they are bigger and better than everyone else... and its their way or nothing!

Sounds about right. I mean look at Saddam? One minute best buddies with the US and being given a 'nod and a wink' over Kuwait, next minute, when someone at the Whitehouse mentioned that that would give Iraq too much oil clout, their worst enemy! No wonder the guy looked confused when the US urged the UN to allow them to launch 'Desert Storm'.

Ditto Pakistan, Burma etc, all the US's pals (in private) until someone rattles on their cage and the US then goes all 'humanitarian'. Until it all dies down and they can go back to being buddies again that is.

Agree totally Mason, the US's view is 'our way or no way'. The Bush regime has painted anyone who even dares to cross them as 'axis of evil' or the old chestnut 'commies', on one side, or 'weak on terrorism' on the other. I notice all the French rhetoric has dried up now that nasty little Hungarian is sucking up to Bush.

[dBrowne]

I would hope the Americans wouldn't be foolhardy enough to invade Pakistan, especially as they are already pinched for the military assets to credibly threaten Iran in their ongoing little game of nuclear chicken. More likely an incapacitating strike at the facilities I'd have thought.

For all their other sins, I don't think Burma can be laid at the door of the Americans. That's more within China's sphere of influence.

[overkill]

Originally Posted by dBrowne

I would hope the Americans wouldn't be foolhardy enough to invade Pakistan, especially as they are already pinched for the military assets to credibly threaten Iran in their ongoing little game of nuclear chicken. More likely an incapacitating strike at the facilities I'd have thought.

For all their other sins, I don't think Burma can be laid at the door of the Americans. That's more within China's sphere of influence.

Both the UK and US have strong links with Burma's Military rulers, including long standing arms deals that were heavily criticised by both Amnesty international, and the UN. It was one of the first 'fudges' on New Labours 'ethical foreign policy' when they were asked to suspend said deals, many of which had been running for years.

[dBrowne]

I am struggling to find links that corroborate strong ties between the US and the Burmese junta. Could you please provide some? Amnesty's site seems to lay the lion's share of the blame for arms dealing at China's and India's door.

http://web.amnesty.org/library/Index/ENGASA160142007
Myanmar: Myanmar needs a comprehensive international arms embargo - Amnesty International

The US State Department's report on the trade embargo on Burma doesn't come across as particularly friendly.

http://www.state.gov/p/eap/rls/rpt/32106.htm
Report on U.S. Trade Sanctions Against Burma

I have hardly done an exhaustive search, but even that great source of misinformation, wikipedia, doesn't hint at any past nefarious connection. I'd appreciate any help you can give me here. Thanks.

[Wild Weasel]

^ Please don't spoil a cheap excuse for anti-Americanism with facts. This thread was like reading The Independent until you posted that.

[overkill]

Originally Posted by dBrowne

I am struggling to find links that corroborate strong ties between the US and the Burmese junta. Could you please provide some? Amnesty's site seems to lay the lion's share of the blame for arms dealing at China's and India's door.

http://web.amnesty.org/library/Index/ENGASA160142007
Myanmar: Myanmar needs a comprehensive international arms embargo - Amnesty International

The US State Department's report on the trade embargo on Burma doesn't come across as particularly friendly.

http://www.state.gov/p/eap/rls/rpt/32106.htm
Report on U.S. Trade Sanctions Against Burma

I have hardly done an exhaustive search, but even that great source of misinformation, wikipedia, doesn't hint at any past nefarious connection. I'd appreciate any help you can give me here. Thanks.

Yup. Give me some time, and I'll get the stuff I had. Unfortunately, it was printed material. I don't give a toss whats on the web, as most of it is unsound. Will still try though, as it was genuine (ie not 'Daily Star' crap).

I agree totally though, Burma is backed by the Chinese, and Amnesty do indeed point the finger at them. Quite rightly.

On the trade embargo, that's pretty meaningless. Both the UK and US govt's and companies circumvent those by using 'non 'existent nationals'. That fact came out of a relative working for a British missile guidance system producer. The country in question was SA.