why is it that the us gov, supports a military  rule in Pakistan, but rejects elected officers in Palestine?
375092
I agree, it's totally inconsistent.  We make a big noise about democracy in the Middle East but then when the Palestinians freely elect a government we don't like, then we try to boycott it.
753386
UN has no power over what is going on in the Middle East.As long as US has the right to veto in the UN security Council Israeli soldiers will keep killing Palestinians...knowing that no matter what US is going to save them...So US says to UN what it's UN's policy in the Middle East...
111783
Three reasons.  Political, economic and religious.  \nPolitically, the US government tend to support governments that are democratic or have a semblance of democracy.  Amidst the totalitarian governments in the middle east, Israel gives the US an opportunity to "put its foot in the door" so to speak, for the advancement of democracy in that region. Once a democratized middle east emerges, wouldn't it be much easier to deal with friendlier middle eastern countries for oil?  Hence the political purpose also leads to the economic purpose.  Oil is the lifeblood of the entire world. It determines where one's fate, economically, goes more significantly than other factors.\nThe religious purpose is hinged on the fact that the US is predominantly a Christian nation or at least the leaders in its government past and present.  Christians adhere to the Bible and you would be surprised how important it is for Christians to protect God's chosen people.  In short, America has taken it upon itself to play the role of God's right hand.\nThe US does not hate to deal with the Palestinian Government, it hates to deal with Hamas, which is a political faction that is sworn to destroy Israel.  Hamas, recently has been given an opportunity to form a new Palestinian government, due to the favorable outcome of recently held elections.  This troubles the US and are waiting to see how this "new" Palestinian government turns out.
653993
Girl..im proud of you! and for the person down below about not a wearing a viel in afghanistan and women voting...all these aspects are becasue of the EXTREMIST GOVERNMENTS in these countries and not because of Islam...Why dont you look at UAE. UAE is a muslim country with Churches, Temples and muslims arent FORCED to wear a Viel either. There are women in government positions eg Sheikha Lubna. The things happening in Pakistan like honour killing are not justifiable by Islam and are Wrong!!! Islam does not encourage this kind of behaviour.
885855
Pakistan has a long way to go to upset history. Personally if that happened, they had a superpower like the US to help them pull that off.\n\nDon't see the US   doing that, period!\n\nPeople who can lie, cheat, and kill to try to move ahead don't do very well at the end of any matter.\n\njust an observation
628970
Pakistan’s recent past is a numbing rush of political scandals and upheavals -- an environment in which a leader’s clothing decisions would seem hardly worth attention. Pakistani President General Pervez Musharraf’s insistence on wearing his army uniform is a telling one, however, which has caught attention beyond his own country’s borders. In an age of Democracy and political correctness, his strident march towards militarism seems backwards, but in the case of Pakistan it may be right. \n\nMusharraf’s domestic support is a concern for the United States because of his cooperation with international efforts to contain global terrorism, end the narcotics trade, and maintain a balance of power in Central Asia. This has become particularly true with the rise of religious extremism in opposition to secular authoritarianism in Pakistan. Several opposition parties have demanded that Musharraf step down as Chief of Army Staff by the end of 2004, but he has hinted that he may not follow through. Since he is also President, opponents contend that democracy has no chance “under the shadow of uniform.” \n\nGeneral Musharraf’s army uniform further polarizes Pakistan’s already fractured political scene. In a recent interview with ARY TV, he said that 96 percent of the nation would support him if he wished to stay as both President and COAS. Outspoken support from the Punjabi Provincial Chief Minister, although his domestic backing is smaller, attests to the deep regional and ethnic schisms in the nation. Pakistani Prime Minister Shaukat Aziz has noted that the matter will be decided in “accordance to the Constitution and in the best interest of Pakistan.” This precise point worries the opposition. Musharraf may justify keeping both of the posts using his Legal Framework Order, which gives him precedence over Parliament. A Supreme Court Bar Association leader noted this would be beyond the limits of the Order. He would be “prolonging his tenure at gunpoint” unless he could make another constitutional amendment. \n\nGeneral Musharraf’s reluctance to give up his uniform has broader significance. It is a clear statement that in Pakistani society, the military holds authority and not the government. Like General Zia-ul-Haq 22 years ago, Musharraf assumed national leadership in a military coup under the premise of reforming a discredited democratic government. Since 1999, he suspended the Constitution for three years, extended his regime several times, and dismissed two Prime Ministers within two years -- actions not akin to democracy. His regime also received over $1 billion in foreign aid, doubled developmental spending, and engineered a profound economic recovery. For a nation in which more than half of the population is illiterate and one-third is in poverty, this is enough of an improvement over previous democratic governments to overshadow his authoritarian bent. Regardless, the effect of Musharraf’s decision to keep his uniform involves a far more complex set of competing interests than just those of a government that is democratic versus one that produces results. \n\nIt is clear that the “benevolent authoritarianism” that Musharraf practices with the broad financial support of the Bush administration is facing incredible internal challenges in the form of Islamic fundamentalism, political rivalry, and regional and ethnic differences. Mosque bombings and subsequent Sunni-Shia rioting in Karachi, Quetta, Sialkot, and Multan have shaken the nation in the past year. Separatist movements have been supported by deep tribal alliances with extremist groups involved in Al-Qaeda. Ironically, radicalism became an entrenched phenomenon when another U.S.-supported dictator, Zia-ul-Haq, sought to “Islamicize” Pakistani society. Propped up by funding and weapons from the Americans and Saudis for use during the Afghan War (a proxy of the Cold War), groups created in that period, like the mujahadeen, form the founda
643878
it's simple, other people in the world see the U.S. sending troops into places to take them over and control them.  They resent the kind of power that represents, and the unilateral way in which it is applied.
636359
nobody "punished" pakistan for having nukes. so your argument is completely false. Its just that no-one wants the wakco iran to have nukes because the president of that country wants to use the nukes on other countries as soon as possible. its not anti-muslim, or anti-arab.. its a problem with iran and its leader.
708941
They are a legitimate political group whose ideas are not aligned with the us governments therefore they are classified by terrorists in the US. Only three other countries classify them as a terrorist organization and that is the militant arm of Hamas, I believe only one other country besides the US considers the entire group terrorists and that may be Israel. I am not entirely sure because it has been at least a year since I watched something about them.\n They were elected into power because the previous ruling party in Palestine was corrupt.
419474
USA doesn't accept because Israel don't and they think that Ham mas will encourage Palestinian to resist the Israel occupation so they didn't accept it cause they ant them to stop fighting and to give their land to Israel.cause there is no Justice in this world
897885
Simplistic to the extreme...Osama is pretty much out of the picture. He can't do much from a cave in the wilds of Pakistan. Sending orders by Carrier pigeon doesn't work in this era. \nWe are fighting a losing war because we are *far* to worried about world and leftist US opinion. We should take the gloves off and not be bothered about civilian deaths or a blown up Mosque or 50.
312801
Kashmir is a funny issue. It was an independent state with a Hindu ruler and a largely Muslim population. During the partition, the ruler decided to stay independent of both, India and Pakistan. When Pakistan illegally tried invading the State, the ruler signed the instrument with assession to India. He was legally empowered to do so and so legally, Kashmir is Indian territory. To be fair, if the subjects were given a choice, they just may have chosen Pakistan... but now that is hypothetical.\nEver since, much blood has been spilt needlessly over Kashmir. Since neither side will back down, the only solution now is to maintain status quo and convert the Line of Control (the de facto current border) as the official International Border.
304146
Because Hamas wants to destroy Israel.  America wants to support democracy because democracies usually don't support terrorism.  The Palestinians proved to be the exception here.  Just because Hamas wants to destroy Israel does not mean that the United States has to give Hamas money to do so.
857801
No. I guess u got the wrong info. Let me give u some facts on India / Pak regarding Kashmir since 1947. Its long but i hope u read it. Read especially the part about partition, and the states having a choice whom to join.\n\n\nPakistan claims that Kashmir should be a part of Pakistan bcoz majority population is Muslim (mainly after terrorizing and driving out 600,000 Hindus). The Pak army just wants to use Kashmir as a base for a larger agenda of destroying and talibanizing India and converting it into a Islamic theocracy. And India's claim is based on the treaty signed by the then king of Kashmir (same treaty was signed by other princely states for accession to India) and secularism.\n\nUN Security Council resolutions 38-40, and particularly the resolution of August 13, 1948, said that Pakistan had attacked Kashmir, and ordered Pakistan to withdraw its forces and its tribals (those were disguised as tribals but they were pak army men). Pakistan has yet to obey UN Security Council and withdraw from lands (now called POK, Pak Occupied Kashmir) controlled illegally.\nRecently released documents reveal that in 1948, the then US Secretary of State Gen. George C. Marshall told the pro-Pak British that Kashmirs accession with India was legal and final as far as US was concerned.\nIn 1952, the Kashmir legislature, elected in elections recognized by observers as free and fair, with 100% of the legislators Muslim, voted to ratify Kashmirs accession with India. And the elections after that too were similar. Compare POK with Indian Kashmir.\n\nPakistan gave away a large part of the POK to China, which now claims those lands as its own.\n\nIn April 1993, then CIA director James Woosley at an open Senate hearing said, Pakistan, while not yet on the State Department's list of state sponsors of terrorism, but is Aon the brink. (in 1993, now its worse).\nIn December 1999, the Director of CIA George Tenet and State Department Coordinator for Counterterrorism Michael Sheen testified before a Senate subcommittee that US has evidence that Pakistan is a state-sponsor of terrorism against India.\nIn 2000, State Departments report on terrorism described Pakistans official involvement in terrorism against India, but fell short of adding Pakistan to list of countries sponsoring terrorism because that would have automatically triggered severe sanctions against an old cold-war ally.\nIn 2000, a bipartisan Congressional commission on terrorism recommended to the State Department that sanctions be imposed on Pakistan for its role in terrorism, but this report was ignored.\n\nThe British government in Spring 2001 put several Pakistan-supported organizations openly engaged in terrorism on the official list of terrorist organizations, to be followed later by the US.\nMajor political parties in Pakistan and Pak media have repeatedly asked Pak governments over the years to break bonds with terrorists and get out of the Kashmir issue, because supporting terrorists has resulted only in increasing Talibanization of Pakistan.\nBenazir Bhutto, ex-Pak Prime Minister, has said that ISI (Pakistani governments intelligence service) is a force onto itself, and she had no knowledge of what ISI was doing when she was PM.\nOn 11-21-01, the Hon. Mr. Robert D. Blackwell, US Ambassador to India, told the press that Pakistan-supported individuals involved in killings in Kashmir are terrorists and that They are not freedom fighters. No country will be permitted to provide sanctuaries to terrorists. He made similar comments again on 2-27-02\n\nPak Governments direct and obvious involvement in terrorism against India over decades has resulted in 50,000 HINDUS being amongst 70,000 innocent civilians KILLED and 500,000 TO 600,000 HINDUS FLED KASHMIR IN TERROR; world has been silent about this ethnic cleansing of Hindus from Kashmir.\n\nPakistan, which created, nurtured and protected Taliban, has claimed that Taliban is not terrorist.\nPakistan press reported in Dec. 2001 th
200285
not sure what you mean. Are there terrorists in Pakistan? Yes. Do the govermenet supports them? not officialy.\nIs it in the list of terrorist countries? no\nDo we consider it an ally on the war on terror? yes\nIs Osama hiding there? who knows.
757761
North korea and china are danger for usa so usa wants a strong support in that region against them.\nIndia is the only country who is able to be a superpower.\nUSA now is no more interested in pakistan. Pakistan is not supporting usa now any more.\nSo according to the changed conditions, USA sees their benefit in the alignment with india only.
388919
Because the feel they can push everybody about, they have one rule for themselves and another for the rest of the world. Their troops ill treat people in the line of duty and nothing is done. The support military rulers whom they like and dislike any govt that stands -up up to them. They go into Iraq, the Administrator blows billions of dollars that up till today he can not account for.Yet, nobody is asking questions where all the money went to. A UK TV station did a documentary of the US involvement in the Iraq war, what we discover from the investigation, my US friends that watched it with was speechless. SO THESE ARE THE REASONS PEOPLE HATE USA. The government is not fear to its own people and the outside world.