When we have a friend, and we love him, is very difficult for us to think bad about him. So, the first time he makes some mistake, we will find excuses for him.
It just happens to anyone, nobody makes no mistakes, right?
When he makes a mistake again, we forgive him one more time since he is our friend. We say: probably he did not understand something. This happens too.
Third time he makes the same mistake, we are tempted to say something bad, but as he is our friend , we tend to say "OK, he is not evil, he has his own character".
Fourth time he does the same, if we are patient we say "OK, he is not evil, he is just not the smartest guy I seen".
Fifth time, we are sick and tired and we say: "He is a stupid, period!".
In the beginning of XX century, some nations gave money to Mussolini and Hitler in order them to take the power. This does not mean they wanted fascists uprising. But surely they helped in it. Their reason was: Hitler and Mussolini would stop the
Communism spreading in Europe.
About 15 years after, the same nations were invaded or attacked by their former "political instruments".
In the following years, they helped the regime of Shah Reza Ciro in Iran. As a result, they got another enemy, as Reza Ciro was a tyrant and hurt the belief of his population forcing a Westernization they did not want.
To fight that enemy, they helped to Saddam Hussein. They used their influence in the NATO to make countries sell weapons to Saddam. Then they used the influence on Saddam
to make Iraq start the war against Iran. Ronald Reagan was the best ally of Saddam Hussein. (Who remembers the Contras connection?)
As a result, Iraq became their enemy and Iran is still their enemy. Shining.
When the USSR invaded Afghanistan, they financed and trained Muslim fractions that fight Communists. They sold "stinger" missiles to them, they sent CIA people to train whoever wanted to fight Russians in Afghanistan.
Result: the same people attacked them and became their worst enemy.
It seems our friend's problem is a strange difficulty to look ahead further than 4 years.
And this is natural, as their president is in office for 4 years. The problem is, their tactics became very poor in long-term perspective. They were never able to choose their allies. And about all their enemies are their former allies, or former "political instruments".
It seems they do what they need at that moment, without asking themselves HOW the situation will evolve within the middle or long period.
Now they seem to make another of their mistakes. In order to destroy the Taliban regime,they needed some allies in that area. Whom they chose?
They chose Parveez Musharraf.
This choice is the same error they made with the Iranian Shah:
sure Musharraf is Western-friendly, but his population feels hurt by that. Parveez Musharraf is notreally democratic: we know if there were HONEST polls in Pakistan, Islamists would take the power and and dismiss Musharraf will pissed out the power. The Musharraf 's regime is stable for just a few years, and only while someonehelps him to get stable. Oh, sure, our friend helped Musharraf canceling his debt too. So, Pakistan will became stronger and stronger. Oh, sure now they need Musharraf, so he can build nuclear weapons and that is GOOD!
How much time we'll need to wait?
We all know someday Musharraf will fall and fundamentalist opponents will take the power. We know the average belief of Pakistani people is negative reagarding the West. When (not "if") Musharraf falls, we know Pakistan will be the next enemy. This time the same mistake will be VERY dangerous.
Pakistan is not as weak as Iraq.
It is not stable-thinking as Iran. It is a nuclear powered country. They don't need to hijack airlines in order to destroy
two buildings. They can simply wipe out entire cities by nuking them.
Were there other choices? Yes.
India. India is a real democratic country. It is stable and the belief of Indians is not (by now) about hating the West. They have the same idea of progress we have: to fight misery, to get people go to school, to get people have hospitals and have work. They were born in the hand of Gandhi, one of the most good-reasoning men and biggest pacifists of XX century. India asked th US to be accepted as a real partner by decades ago.
India has its own ancient culture which is quite difficult to destabilize or influence.
It seems to me that if someone REALLY wants to "export democracy" in that area, India should be the natural ally. It is the most powerful base we can dream. (If we REALLY want to export democracy, of couse).
Surely, you can't immediately bang the Talibans with the help of India, but in the middle and long term this choice would be the best. More importantly, it is less dangerous: they have nuclear power too, but they demonstrated that they are a thinking nation and they don't use them if they can. They are the perfect partner in that area in order to export democracy and progress to all.
However, our friend allied himselfwith Pakistan dictatorship!
Sure, their President has the need to shoot and shoot and shoot again from some great gun in order to impression their voters. So, they don't ask themselves how the situation with Pakistan could evolve.
Even the same error.
First time it could be they were wrong. Second time, they could misunderstood something. Third, "they had their own character". Fourth , "they aren't very smart". Now, I feel like thinking that they are simply stupid.
I hope I am wrong and Musharraf is some kind of Democrat and moderate guy, and the Pakistani people has nothing to do with Islamic fundamentalism, and I get hallucinated when I see Pakistani people burning the US flag. I hope that I get hallucinated too when I see Pakistani people slaughtering Christians because they are "infidels", destroying churches and killing people while praying.
I really hope I am wrong, because this mistake could be a nuclear one!
This means the price will not be limited as the fall of two buildings.
Now, just a question: suppose if I am right, who wants to be allied with someone so stupid?
With friends like that, who needs enemies?
Ivan Nikola Guerra
The Russian Defence Ministry acknowledged that the Americans treat Russian military men in Syria with respect. The Americans always warn Russia accordingly, but not Israel
After the incident with the shootdown of the Ilyushin Il-20 reconnaissance aircraft over the Mediterranean Sea, Russia will supply an S-300 anti-aircraft missile system to Syria
Indeed, how dare they run US-independent policy? They should have followed the example of the European Union that turned independent states of the Old World into US-ditto entities