-Suspends the state's constitution
-Private TV stations have been closed
-Public TV stations have troops deployed to them
-Surrounded the Supreme Court with troops, the judges have been confined to the building

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/7076670.stm
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21609019/

11/3/2007 10:45:59 AM

11/3/2007 1:45:22 PM

this should be great for mideast / asian security

11/3/2007 1:50:19 PM

I laughed my ass off this morning when I read the news.

11/3/2007 1:55:11 PM

you know the united states wants him to be president for life, right?

i am certain that unofficially, he has our full backing

11/3/2007 3:59:52 PM

looks like they need a little

11/3/2007 4:01:15 PM

overthrow him so that he can be replaced by the taliban

[Edited on November 3, 2007 at 5:11 PM. Reason : also, im pretty sure the same would happen here if we had several terrorist attacks]

11/3/2007 5:10:30 PM

Of course since the US supports him, it is all good. All those concerns (and wars) about democracy and human rights don't apply to Musharraf.

Doesn't matter that he has been fucking the country and the people for 8 years. Countless people who have spoken against him have disappeared off the face of the earth never to be seen again... but that's OK, because Cuntaleeza and Bush like him!!!!

11/4/2007 4:44:39 AM

hes better than a taliban with nukes

11/4/2007 4:53:01 AM

i disagree ^

if the taliban had nukes we could go in there and wipe them out

with musharref in there we have to act nice and let him do shit

11/4/2007 7:53:34 AM

even if we give bush the benefit of the doubt and say he would like him as president but wants democracy as they publicly state, how much of this really has to do with him (bush)? even if we didnt like it, i have yet to see the UN denounce this with anything harsher that we have. (if i am wrong then ehhh....) so it may just be out of the outside worlds control for the moment. the real test would be once everyone else says something against his move and we dont fall in step in def. of democracy.

11/4/2007 9:34:45 AM

there's a very interesting opinion piece by Bhutto on CNN.com

11/4/2007 9:23:35 PM

Any country with nukes is pretty much allowed to take care of their own shit without any outside interference. As long as they don't direct their aggression outward.

11/4/2007 11:24:31 PM

gg to joe_schmoe

Quote :

"Of course since the US supports him, it is all good. All those concerns (and wars) about democracy and human rights don't apply to Musharraf."

All things in due time.

This is bad news, and I hope he can pull it back from the brink. Not because I like Musharraf so much, but because I like him a damn sight more than the probable alternative. Here's a hint: It's not democracy.

11/5/2007 12:38:03 PM

- I like the random guy throwing a kick there
- Who hasn't wanted to kick the shit out of lawyer?

11/5/2007 11:42:31 PM

Prob a police officer in the civilian clothes there - at least NYTimes was reporting that many of the police officers involved were in civilian clothes.

11/6/2007 5:48:45 PM

would yall feel safer at night if he was in charge of the army or president of the country?

11/10/2007 11:53:59 PM

I sleep fine at night no matter who is in charge of Pakistan. I think even the dumbest people on the planet realize that a nuclear strike against the US will result in the complete and utter destruction of their nation and people as a whole. Pakistan's army poses no threat to us so why should I care who is in charge there?

11/10/2007 11:59:00 PM

i think that the us knows that pakistan wont directly fuck with the us, but the us has an interest in pakistan not blowing up india

11/11/2007 12:21:47 AM

That ain't going to happen either. I have almost no faith in humanity, but even I don't think that one nuclear power would ever use a nuke against another nuclear power. The prospect of total annihilation is not appealing to anyone. Besides, I think China and Russia are probably capable of dealing with this sort of thing in Asia.

11/11/2007 12:32:52 AM