| Submit your comments on this article |
| India-Pakistan |
| Bush doubts Sharif's commitment to war on terror |
| 2007-11-29 |
| US President George W. Bush has said that Sharif's relations with religious parties raised doubts about his commitment to the war on terror. "I don't know him well enough," Bush said in an interview to a foreign news agency when asked to comment on Sharif's return. Bush noted that Sharif had good relations with Pakistan's religious parties, which raised doubts about his commitment to battling the Taliban and al Qaeda. "I would be very concerned if there is any leader in Pakistan that didn't understand the nature of the world in which we live today," Bush said. The comments prompted the US media, which had already been expressing similar doubts about Sharif since his return to Pakistan. Several mainstream US newspapers - Wall Street Journal, New York Times, Herald Tribune, San Francisco Chronicle - quoted senior US officials as saying that they worry Sharif's potential role in any new Pakistan Government. The officials further said that Sharif's role in the new government could undermine efforts to hunt down al Qaeda and Taliban militants, as well as hinder broader initiatives to modernise Pakistan's economy and society. They cite Sharif's political alliance with Islamist parties and his past weaknesses in coordinating counter terrorism actions with the US when he served as prime Minister in the late 1990s. "Sharif's agenda is different. His agenda is to walk away from advances" made in Pakistan targeting the promotion of women and civil society, a senior US official told the Wall Street Journal. Sharif and his supporters have repeatedly denied US charges that he was soft on terrorism. Some officials blamed Sharif for 'condoning the nuclear proliferation efforts' of Dr A.Q. Khan, 'which aided the nuclear weapons programmes of North Korea, Libya and Iran," the San Francisco Chronicle pointed out. It was also Sharif who strongly supported the Taliban, sponsors of Osama bin Laden in securing power in Afghanistan, the Chronicle added. Other newspapers noted that Sharif's return complicates the Bush administration's support for Benazir Bhutto whom Washington has favoured as a more secular politician. |
| Posted by:anonymous5089 |
| #6 Fear not, Zhang Fei, your point was perfectly clear. If the question is between supporting a nation who has contributed more—on a per capita basis—towards the advancement of science and knowledge than the entire Muslim world put together, you can guess what choice I'll make. I do agree that Israel had better stop antagonizing America through the sale of military hardware to our enemies. However, neither of us can know just how much intelligence sharing is going on about our Islamic foes. In the long run, it is far better to have opposed those who seek genocide. What's more, China will carry forward a historical legacy of supporting and arming the worst enemy the civilized world has know in over half a century, aside from the communist Chinese themselves. Europe has yet to pay the piper as well. Their butcher's bill looks to be monumental and the continent's collective conscience will likely bear another tremendous scar once all is said and done. Overall, I believe that America is doing the right thing about Israel. As the old saying goes about all that is necessary for evil to succeed ... |
| Posted by: Zenster 2007-11-29 17:36 |
| #5 Z: I would call that "A Badge of Honor". Islam can gobble Chinese clank. I'm just tossing China out as an extreme example. China has tortured and killed thousands of Muslims for separatist leanings over the years (or simply being too religious), but you don't hear of too many anti-Chinese murmurs among the ummah. Europe is pretty anti-Israel, and the ummah pretty much lets Europe alone. My point is that Uncle Sam pays a price in terms of anti-Americanism, terrorism and economic boycotts for supporting Israel, and the only gratitude we usually get from Israel is for them to point out that we're selling weapons to Israel's neighbors - weapons that European countries would be delighted to provide and are providing. The benefit to Israel of Uncle Sam providing Arabs their weaponry - apart from defraying the cost of our multi-billion dollar subsidy to Israel - is that we can shut off that supply (of munitions and spare parts) in the event of them attacking Israel. Will the Europeans stop supplying the Arabs if they attack Israel? Thanks to recent Arab decisions, Israel is getting its wish - Europe may soon replace the US as the Arab world's principal weapons supplier. I have to wonder if that thought will comfort them when Europe is airlifting spare parts and munitions to the Arabs the next time they attack Israel. What would be the thought process - "At least they're not attacking us with US weaponry?" |
| Posted by: Zhang Fei 2007-11-29 16:12 |
| #4 Israel is a real negative for US relations with the Muslim world. I would call that "A Badge of Honor". Islam can gobble Chinese clank. |
| Posted by: Zenster 2007-11-29 14:23 |
| #3 But happily gives the duplicity of Abbas a pass where there's even the microscopic chance of sniffing out a Nobel Prize for his Legacy™. I think he's just throwing out a few crumbs in the general direction of the ummah. Like it or not, Israel is a real negative for US relations with the Muslim world. China is probably more secular than we are and they treat their domestic Muslims like crap, but they have great relations with Muslim countries - because they don't have good relations with Israel, and they sure as heck don't subsidize it. |
| Posted by: Zhang Fei 2007-11-29 14:02 |
| #2 I doubt he wants a Noble. It has become synonymous with an "Idiot of the Year" award. |
| Posted by: Whomong Guelph4611 2007-11-29 13:28 |
| #1 Bush doubts Sharif's commitment to war on terror But happily gives the duplicity of Abbas a pass where there's even the microscopic chance of sniffing out a Nobel Prize for his Legacy™. |
| Posted by: Zenster 2007-11-29 12:49 |