Yet, a lack of support for him could result in a coup, placing someone
even worse in power. That's not supporting democracy, it's
encouraging chaos.
I completely fail to understand that. It's exactly as if you were
speaking to me using metaphors only the Swahili would know. Today,
right now, this very moment, General Musharraf is imprisoning his
opposition, killing his own citizenry, shutting down all organs of
disagreement with him personally. This isn't a theoretical
possibility, it's actually happening. In the name of suppressing
radicalism, we are paying the man to radicalize thousands if not
millions of people who would probably not bother to vote if they had a
genuine choice. But by taking that choice away, he is fomenting
violence -- the very thing we are purportedly trying to reduce.
That's not stability, is it? Isn't paying him actually, this moment,
causing chaos? It's not like he's really in control over there, who
uses the army on their own people when things are under control?
Supporting this behavior is actually causing chaos, violence and
fueling the radicals. Dropping support for him makes it possible for
someone worse to take over, sure. Without a name, that's more
hypothetical than the probability that Mrs Bhutto will take over when
General Musharraf is gone.
I honestly can't see how continued support for a dictator is a
stabilizing influence on anything at all.
--buck
