Amazon.com Widgets

Should the U.S. continue to back President Pervez Musharraf of Pakistan in the wake of Benazir Bhutto's assassination?

  • This is not the time to change political alliances in Pakistan.

    The Benazir Bhutto assassination shocked the world in 2007, and it was a shame to lose such a bright and brilliant mind. With that said, the United States is not in a position to start changing its alliances in the Middle East. A change as large as that would lead to a great amount of turmoil. If the United States interfered with the political leadership structure in Pakistan, the Middle Eastern country would destabilize and set the stage for a destructive civilian uprising or civil war. Every civil war is tragic, because it turns a country against itself. But, Pakistan possesses nuclear weapons, and that could lead to a worldwide nuclear crisis. An already unstable relationship with India would turn sour, and the work in Afghanistan could be undone. The Bhutto assassination was terrible, but a change in U.S. policy, at this point, would only create more turmoil.

    Posted by: AmbitiousMohammad
  • Yes, the US should continue to support the Pakistani government.

    I believe that the US has always wanted to get involved when it had a chance to benefit. This is probably why the US has a reputation of unpopularity in certain Eastern countries. If the US pledges to help a country, it should follow it through. If an agreement was made but not followed, then back out. The US is a powerful nation and it should us its power to benefit others that are less fortunate.

    Posted by: StripperMor
  • The U.S. should back and protect anyone who needs it, because it is what we stand for.

    The U.S. should back and protect anyone who needs it. The U.S. stands as a place of safety, and it should project this feeling onto any other country or person who asks for it. We should never turn our back out of fear of someone else being killed. Everyone deserves to feel safe.

    Posted by: grenzickle
  • No, because by continuing to support Pervez Musharraf, the U.S. is backing a regime that has been unable to diminish terrorism

    Since the Benzir Bhutto assassination, Pakistan has become even more unstable. There are bombings every other day. We, the people of the United States, would like to see an end to terrorism and a stable, democratic Pakistan put into place. Pervez Musharraf apparently wants to remain the potentate in charge. It is time to let him go, and bring home our troops.

    Posted by: SmgKeem
  • I believe we should continue to support President Pervez Musharraf to help preserve stability in the Middle East.

    I believe that we should continue to support President Pervez Musharraf of Pakistan for a number of reasons. First, I believe that supporting President Musharraf is essential for the continued stability of Pakistan. Also, there is not direct evidence that President Musharraf had any kind of involvement in the assassination of Benazir Bhutto, which leads to no clear reason to not support him.

    Posted by: TasticBran
  • The U.S. should not back Pakistan at all, because Pakistan has not shown any improvement in terms of security and stability

    The U.S. supporting Pakistan is a bad idea, because Pakistan is increasingly becoming less stable, with numerous suicide bombs and other forms of threat, which seem to occur almost every fortnight. The situation has become very bad, and with the assassination of Bhutto, it has become even worse. When Pakistan is not able to protect one of their most important leaders, it shows the country is on a path to a big disaster and just waiting to explode. It is time the U.S. withdrew support and brought our troops back home!

    Posted by: N4rrGet
  • No, the U.S. should destroy Pakistan with India's help, rather than back anyone in power in Pakistan.

    Pakistan should be destroyed with weapons of mass destruction and then occupied by Indian troops because it sponsors terrorists who kill Americans. No matter who is currently president of Pakistan, the military and intelligence leadership will continue to train and protect groups that kill Americans. The U.S. should drop atom bombs on Pakistan until it is devoid of human life.

    Posted by: 54mP5KryPto
  • No, because assassination is not an acceptable activity.

    Americans have witnessed a fair share of assassinations in our own country. With Lincoln, Kennedy, and even the attempt on Reagan, we have never accepted it from our own people, so how can we possibly condone it in the leader of a foreign nation? We need to send him a clear message that we will not tolerate that behavior, and then it will be his choice as to whether or not our support means anything to him.

    Posted by: DebonairJeramy28
  • I do not believe we should continue to support President Musharraf in Pakistan, because we spend too much time trying to police the world, and not enough time minding our own business.

    America's habit of interfering with situations in other countries has garnered us a reputation for being too controlling. So much interference on our part builds animosity and negative feelings from other countries. While it is important to protect our own freedoms and to stop atrocities like the holocaust, it is not necessary for us to butt in every time another country suffers some growing pains.

    Posted by: QuarrelsomeAlbert70
  • No, the U.S. should stay out of any foreign affairs.

    By backing him, we will only justify any other wrong-doing in the Middle East. In the long run, we hurt ourselves here in the States by funding unnecessary wars. We should stay completely away from anything that goes on in that region, because it is none of our business and we just use it as an excuse to go to war. We should allocate all that money to helping people in our country.

    Posted by: JoyousDennis
  • Musharraf is a dictator and a fugitive who is no longer in power, and who should be brought to justice for his crimes.

    While there might have been "realpolitik" issues in the past, with regards to supporting Musharraf, now that he is no longer President of Pakistan (and in charge of an arsenal of nuclear weapons), there is no real reason why the U.S. should continue to support the ex-President, especially given that he is hiding in exile in the UK, and refuses to even try and clear his name. There is no benefit to the U.S. supporting him, or even taking sides in this case.

    Posted by: MagicalRodrigo30
  • No, because the U.S. needs to stay out of government issues in other countries.

    The United States has a history of stepping in to civil matters with other countries. While the intention may be good initially, no good comes from our involvement. The United States should step down from backing President Musharraf in Pakistan, and let the country make its own decisions. Pakistan will come to terms with the assassination and do what is right for the country, without hand-holding from the U.S.

    Posted by: TedieDelight
  • No, because America should not mess around in foreign politics at all, because we need to maintain neutrality.

    In this highly agitated time, the United States needs to remain neutral. We are having enough issues on our own soil, without having to worry about other countries' problems. I believe that most citizens of the United States would agree that we are not the world police.

    Posted by: GabriBal
  • No, The USA should not get involved in foreign affairs.

    Although the United States in some sense should help the world gain freedom, we currently agree that we are not ruling the world. We should take a neutral stance towards what happens in other countries.

    Posted by: 5h4bbyCorr

Leave a comment...
(Maximum 900 words)
No comments yet.