Bhutto was the leading opposition force in Pakistan, and chairwoman of the People’s Party of Pakistan. The party was founded by Bhutto’s father, former Prime Minister of Pakistan. She followed in the footsteps of her father to become the first woman leader of a Muslim country by serving two separate terms. Both times she was removed from power on accusations of corruption. These were later dismissed by the Supreme Court of Pakistan which cleared her of all charges. Bhutto was finally able to return from London/Dubai were she was living in exile and come back to Pakistan in October of 2007. Two months after her return and only a month before the January elections, she was assassinated.

History lesson aside, the death of Benazir Bhutto has widespread impacts on the West. For one, she was our best hope of true democracy in Pakistan. Bhutto was also probably the most likely Pakistani presidential candidate to give the United States unlimited access into the “no man’s land” tribal areas of the country where bin Laden is rumored to be hiding. Of course, Musharraf (the current leader) would have most likely rigged the election and done everything else he could to prevent Bhutto from seizing power. Nevertheless, Bhutto was one of the few remaining forces in the region fighting for democracy and her death helps no one.

It is even bad for Musharraf who is now more likely than ever to get assassinated himself judging from the massive and violent riots by Bhutto’s supporters. Some even allege that he is the one responsible for killing her. Others wouldn’t go as far as to say that, but they point out that Musharraf should have been able to keep her safe and the fact that he didn’t speaks to the fact that he is not in control. I agree. Clearly, his government is going to come crumbling down in the near future, perhaps even before the January 8th elections. In the meantime, let’s just hope that Bhutto’s opposition does not gain power and that all those nuclear weapons Pakistan is packing are kept safe and away from the insurgents.

http://www.freerepublic.com/forum/a37af354d5081.htm

Algeria: 337,500 troops — $3 billion or 3.6% of GDP
Angola: 110,000 troops — $2 billion or 6.6% of GDP
Benin: 7,550 total troops – $100.9 million or 1.8% of GDP
Botswana: 10,500 troops — $325.5 million or 3.5% of GDP
Burkina F: 52,800 troops – $74.83 million or 1.3% of GDP
Burundi: 45,500 troops — $43.90 million or 5.9% of GDP
Cameroon: 32,100 troops — $230.1 million or 1.4% of GDP
Cape Verde: 1,200 troops — $7.18 million or 0.7% of GDP
Central AR: 2,400 troops — $16.37 million or 1.1% of GDP
Chad: 34,850 troops ——- $68.95 million or 4.6% of GDP
Comoros: ~1,000 troops — $12.87 million or 2.2% of GDP
DR Congo: 85,200 troops — $103.7 million or 2.1% of GDP
R Congo: 12,000 troops —- $85.22 million or 4.3% of GDP
Ivory Coast: 24,050 troops – $246.6 million or 4.0% of GDP
Djibouti: 11,250 troops —– $29.05 million or 4.1% of GDP
Egypt: 1,109,000 troops — $2.44 billion or 3.4% of GDP
E Guinea: 3,220 troops —- $152.2 million or 0.1% of GDP
Eritrea: 452,000 troops — $220.1 million or 7.8% of GDP
Ethiopia: 182,500 troops — $295.5 million or 3.9% of GDP
Gabon: 6,200 total troops — $253.5 million or 3.4% of GDP
Gambia: ~800 total troops – $1.55 million or 0.6% of GDP
Ghana: 7000 total troops — $83.65 million or 0.8% of GDP
Guinea: 19,300 troops —- $119.7 million or 1.8% of GDP
Guinea-B: 11,250 troops — $9.46 million or 3.1% of GDP
Kenya: 29,120 troops —– $280.5 million or 3.0% of GDP
Lesotho: 2,000 troops —– $41.1 million or 2.8% of GDP
Liberia: 13,000 troops —- $67.4 million or 1.3% of GDP
Libya: 119,000 troops —- $1.3 billion or 3.9% of GDP
Madagascar: 21,600 troops – $329 million or 1.1% of GDP
Malawi: 6,800 troops —— $15.81 million or 1.4% of GDP
Mali: 12,150 total troops — $106.3 million or 2.0% of GDP
Mauritania: 20,250 troops – $19.32 million or 6.7% of GDP
Mauritius: none troops —- $12.04 million or 0.3% of GDP
Morroco: 359,800 troops — $2.31 billion or 5.0% of GDP
Mozambique: 10,000 troops – $78.03 million or 0.9% of GDP
Namibia: 15,000 troops —- $149.5 million or 3.9% of GDP
Niger: 10,700 total troops — $44.78 million or 1.1% of GDP
Nigeria: 160,500 troops — $737.6 million or 1.6% of GDP
Rwanda: 71,000 troops —- $53.66 million or 13.3% of GDP
Sao Tome: ~500 troops —- $0.582 million or 0.8% of GDP
Senegal: 15,200 troops —- $117.3 million or 1.9% of GDP
Seychelles: 700 troops —– $14.85 million or 2.0% of GDP
Sierra Leone: 13,000 troops – $14.25 million or 2.5% of GDP
Somalia: 10,000 militia —- $22.34 million or 1.3% of GDP
S Africa: 55,750 troops —- $3.55 billion or 1.9% of GDP
Sudan: 199,500 troops —- $587 million or 3.0% of GDP
Swaziland: ~none troops — $41.6 million or 4.9% of GDP
Tanzania: 108,400 troops – $21.2 million or 1.6% of GDP
Togo: 10,200 total troops – $29.98 million or 1.6% of GDP
Tunisia: 47,000 troops —- $356 million or 1.5% of GDP
Uganda: 61,800 troops — $192.8 million or 2.4% of GDP
Zambia: 23,000 troops — $121.7 million or 2.9% of GDP
Zimbabwe: 53,800 troops – $124.7 million or 3.7% of GDP

The numbers above include the total number of troops (active, reserve, and paramilitary) for every African country. In addition, they include how much each of these countries spends to maintain their military and the percentage of their GDP (Gross Domestic Product) that is set aside for that military. Collectively you can see that African nations have more than 4,000,000 (exactly 4,008,940) total troops. That is four million people that could be paramedics rather than paramilitants. Four million people that could be educators, spreading knowledge about HIV/AIDS, malaria, etc. Four million people that can be trained to cure people of diseases and admister HIV tests instead of being trained to fight and die in another pointless war or battle for power.

Africa as a whole (perhaps with the exception of some northern African countries) doesn’t need a military force. With all the problems many African nations face, the least they can do is remain neutral in global affairs, keeping themselves out of wars and not fighting over their borders amongst each other. There is enough to worry about in Africa without any more genocides and political wars. For example, the Darfur region of Sudan has been ravaged by an endless conflict. Too many lives are wasted in such disputes, too much money is spend on them that should be used to give Africa some of the countless things it needs. Africa in its current state is like one of those small Pacific islands that are too small or insignificant or too sparsly populated in comparison to the rest of the world to really need a military (of course Africa in reality is exactly the opposime of all those things).

What do all those small islands or places that otherwise don’t need a military do? They have their defense, if it be needed, provided by other countries. The United States is already responsible for protecting a few of those sovereign nations including Palau and the Marshall Islands. It already spends billions a year on developing weapons and obtaining new equipment and if it didn’t use that money on the defense of these small nations, it would still spend the money regardless. My point is, there is no impact on our economy if our military defends others nations if they need to be defended (I can’t image any of these places needing half as much money as what Iraq is using right now). That leads to the question – what if Africa stopped spending money on military affairs and training millions of people for military duty and instead let the US be responsible for its defence?

The United States would be the only military power in Africa and it would be completely neutral. The goal of such a move would be to prevent any more violence between the nations of Africa or various rebel groups. No African nation would have an official military and all militant groups will be disassembled which would give true democracy in Africa a boost. The US would:

(1) Protect all African borders so that they stay the same

(2) Disassable militant groups (as well as any terrorist groups)

(3) Ensure that militant groups don’t get control of the govt.

(4) Free up African money to be used to fight poverty/disease.

(5) Prevent any more genocides between the different African tribes.

Oh, and exactly how much money is Africa currently using on its defence that it could instead use to fight HIV/AIDS and poverty? Exactly $18,352,482,000. Again, that is over 4,000,000 people and over $18.35 billion (with a B) that could be saved if the US provided Africa its defence, should it need any. Considering that there is nobody out there that would have any reason to attack Africa, this is a win-win for both sides. The US has greater influence and, without any extra money being spend, Africa is improved.

What do you think?

Coming Soon

This will be an article that sort of introduces the problem with the Japanese-dominated electronics industry. It is the introduction to my next article on Japanese automakers.

Coming Soon