Fraudia Bhaijaan, yeah achi rahi, jawab aik nahin dia or sawaal hazar pooch liyay.
The Dems will be better in both best and worst case scenarios (actually Green party will be even better) because they are running a campaign against pre-emptive war. They are running a campaign where they are stressing the need for UN and involving other nations when making global decisions. On the contrary, even if Bush takes the same stand, his own actions in the past few years shows his true colors of foreign policy issues.
If the Dems put sanctions on Iraq, Bush senior attacked it. If Clinton authorized to fire some missile in Afghanistan, Bush Jr. invaded it. And as long as we are on the history path, what about Dems helping Muslim in Bosnia? And lets not forget it was Carter who tried to resolve the Iran hostage crisis through negotiations and then lost to Ragan his presidential bid. Had it been to war mongers like Cheney & Rumsfeld, we would have had a totally different situation on our hands.
And as far as situation in Pakistan is concerned, we have to start from somewhere. You can not give democracy a few years and expect it to work. It is a very gradual process which takes centuries to perfect. If we continue to embrace dictators because we are to afraid of losing grounds then we will stay at the same position while our neighbors and world will move on. It's a very conservative approach and certainly not in favor of Pakistan which needs progressives who have ideals not short term goals.
Now, I hope you will make some statements, for example, why you think Bush or GOP will be better off in the best and worst case scenarios for Pakistan, rather than keep asking questions. What in their history makes you believe that they won’t come to Pakistan’s throat if they had the chance?