Pakistan President declares emergency rule

Nick_oliveri

Bush supports him but thinks what he did over the weekend was very wrong.. or so Sky News tells me. I think this is bollocks tbh, then they started talking about if the Government got overthrown and the big boom weapons came out/ were in the wrong hands. Ahmedinajad and the coup leaders of Pakistan will have a nuclear orgy.:rolleyes:

Bush will be very careful now with his Dicktator friend in "teh war aginst errorism". Its all a joke. And they invaded Iraq for lies. How about stabilising another country for the truth...

Nerin

ive been tryin to follow this story for a while,it seems a powderkeg is just waiting to go off

Mr.Micro

Nick_oliveri wrote: »

Bush supports him but thinks what he did over the weekend was very wrong.. or so Sky News tells me. I think this is bollocks tbh, then they started talking about if the Government got overthrown and the big boom weapons came out/ were in the wrong hands. Ahmedinajad and the coup leaders of Pakistan will have a nuclear orgy.:rolleyes:

Bush will be very careful now with his Dicktator friend in "teh war aginst errorism". Its all a joke. And they invaded Iraq for lies. How about stabilising another country for the truth...

Bush chooses like minded friends like Musharraf.Whats Bush going to do now as another terror threat in the form of an unstable Pakistan is a possibility ? Invade ?

Nerin

its ironic how over the years people america supported in foreign countrys turn round and bite them in the ass.
was watchin the news this morning,and theyve blocked all mobile phone signal to stop the judge under house arrest giving a sppech to the lawyers...
this is gonna get nasty

Mr.Micro

I agree what has all the US meddling achieved .More chaos it appears .We are no nearer to winning the war on terror now than 5 years ago.US backed Saddam against Iran .

djpbarry

Mr.Micro wrote: »

Geographically Afghanistan is seen as an east west corridor and an oil and gas pipeline was planned to go through it So it is an important area if you had control of it .Since Afghanistan has been in a state of war for so long any such plans are on hold but when the Russians left the war started between the Mughadeen and the Taliban ,the latter as I have said supported by many in Pakistan . Since then as we know the Taliban lost to the US and Pakistan appeared to embrace the Americans post 9/11.

That says nothing about Musharraf’s plans for Afghanistan. You have reached the conclusion that he is planning an annex?

jonny72 wrote: »

80% of Pakistanis are illiterate..

51% per cent, actually.

jonny72 wrote: »

a country with nuclear weapons.. extremists.. some of the biggest illegal gun markets in the world.. a military dictator.

And your point is?

Nick_oliveri wrote: »

Bush will be very careful now with his Dicktator friend in "teh war aginst errorism".

With respect, Musharraf had little choice other than to support the US effort in the so-called war.

Mr.Micro wrote: »

Bush chooses like minded friends like Musharraf.

In fairness, Bush and Musharraf have little in common!

Mr.Micro wrote: »

Whats Bush going to do now as another terror threat in the form of an unstable Pakistan is a possibility ?

Not a very strong possibility. It’s unlikely at this point that Pakistan will become an Islamic fundamentalist state – there is not nearly enough support for such a move.

RedPlanet

Hmm, i'm wondering where o where are those posters whom are supposedly perturbed over the concept of an independent judiciary (i'm referring specifically to the Chavez thread).
Why aren't they here posting their horror and disgust at events?
Imagine if it were Chavez striking out the Constitution and arresting lawyers; we'd see pages upon pages of people fuming.
Yet barely a peep when it's Pakistan, a front line country on the "War on Terror".

It's good news i think, for the Taliban.
Check out what Amhed Rashid has to say:
http://www.dispatch.com/live/content/editorials/stories/2007/11/06/pakistan.ART_ART_11-06-07_A9_N78CNM8.html?sid=101

djpbarry

RedPlanet wrote: »

It's good news i think, for the Taliban.
Check out what Amhed Rashid has to say:
http://www.dispatch.com/live/content/editorials/stories/2007/11/06/pakistan.ART_ART_11-06-07_A9_N78CNM8.html?sid=101

A slightly less biased article from a friend of mine in Lahore:

http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/default.asp?page=2007%5C11%5C03%5Cstory_3-11-2007_pg3_2

RedPlanet

djpbarry wrote: »

A slightly less biased article from a friend of mine in Lahore:

http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/default.asp?page=2007%5C11%5C03%5Cstory_3-11-2007_pg3_2

If that's the best pro-Musharraf editorial out there, then they really are grasping at straws.

Mr.Micro

[QUOTE=djpbarry;5 Musharraf have little in common!

Not a very strong possibility. It’s unlikely at this point that Pakistan will become an Islamic fundamentalist state – there is not nearly enough support for such a move.[/QUOTE]

Pakistan has apparently received $7billion dollars in aid over the last few years .Thats common ground I think to be friends with Bush.

When I say fragmented I do not mean fundamental .There is such opposing forces in Pakistan evident by the current turmoil that it might not take a lot to start a civil war or along period of instability and volatility.

djpbarry

Mr.Micro wrote: »

Pakistan has apparently received $7billion dollars in aid over the last few years .Thats common ground I think to be friends with Bush.

But that is not what you said. You said they were "like-minded". By your logic, Fianna Fáil and the PNA are "like-minded" because Ireland has supplied Palestine with millions of euro in aid.

Mr.Micro wrote: »

There is such opposing forces in Pakistan evident by the current turmoil that it might not take a lot to start a civil war or along period of instability and volatility.

Well, that is a possibility. Hopefully any serious conflict will be avoided if Musharraf stands by his pledge to quit the military and elections are held in January.

RedPlanet

djpbarry wrote: »

A slightly less biased article from a friend of mine in Lahore:

http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/default.asp?page=2007%5C11%5C03%5Cstory_3-11-2007_pg3_2

BTW, my source: Ahmed Rashid:

a Pakistani journalist and best-selling author. Rashid attended Malvern College, England, Government College Lahore, and Cambridge University. He serves as the Pakistan, Afghanistan and Central Asia correspondent for the Far Eastern Economic Review and the Daily Telegraph. He also writes for the Wall Street Journal, The Nation, and academic journals. He appears regularly on international TV and radio networks such as CNN and BBC World.

Rashid's 2000 book, Taliban: Militant Islam, Oil and Fundamentalism in Central Asia, was a New York Times bestseller for five weeks, translated into 22 languages, and has sold 1.5 million copies since the September 11, 2001 attacks.[1] The book was used extensively by American analysts in the wake of the 9/11 attacks.

His commentary also appears in the Washington Post's PostGlobal segment.

from Wikipedia.

djpbarry's source?

Abbas Rashid is a freelance journalist and political analyst whose career has included editorial positions in various Pakistani newspapers

-taken from the bottom of the article he linked.

Enough said!

Sand

Hmm, i'm wondering where o where are those posters whom are supposedly perturbed over the concept of an independent judiciary (i'm referring specifically to the Chavez thread).
Why aren't they here posting their horror and disgust at events?
Imagine if it were Chavez striking out the Constitution and arresting lawyers; we'd see pages upon pages of people fuming.

Actually, I was waiting for pro-Chavez posters to complain of their outrage over events in Pakistan. Hey, maybe Pakistan is embarked on a brave social revolution? If that was the case, then surely all criticism about liberal democratic nicities is meaningless. Right?

Chavez is well ahead of Pakistan - the Consitution is already rewritten to his liking, even if he doesnt like it he can effectively rule by decree whenever he wishes, and hes packed the courts with his lawyers so why on earth would he arrest them? Theyre his courts now.

Gen Musharraf could trade notes with Chavez. The General passing on the tips and tricks on how to hold a successful military revolution, and Chavez advising the general on how to eliminiate any check on power once you have it.

RedPlanet

You couldn't be more wrong Sands.
Chavez holds elections after elections and wins everytime by sweeping majorities.
His rule cannot be criticized for lacking democratic credentials.
Musharraf on the other hand hasn't stood 1 single election, and appears to be afraid to hold even one.
He has absolutely no democratic credentials and took power via military coup.
But never you mind all that.
Chavez comes from the political Left. And that is enough to hang anybody in neo-con circles.

So where is Americas' spreading "democracy" to the world now huh?
Anybody think they're going to go to war against Pakistan?
Heck they already have forces in neighboring Afghanistan.

Sand

Chavez comes from the political Left. And that is enough to hang anybody in neo-con circles.

And enough to exonerate him in leftist circles.

smirkingmaurice

Chomsky predicted this upheaval in pakistan in a letter he wrote 2 years ago, forget what it was called "heres fuel to the fire" or something, he said that at that time pakistani kids could legally possess a gun at the age of nine, scaaaaryy!!

djpbarry

RedPlanet wrote: »

djpbarry's source?

-taken from the bottom of the article he linked.

Enough said!

So? I wasn’t questioning Rashid’s integrity.

smirkingmaurice wrote: »

he said that at that time pakistani kids could legally possess a gun at the age of nine, scaaaaryy!!

Absolute nonsense. Owning firearms is illegal in Pakistan. Only on rare occasions can a firearm be privately owned. Only tribal areas outside the reach of federal laws are able to bypass this restriction.

smirkingmaurice

djpbarry wrote: »

So? I wasn’t questioning Rashid’s integrity.

Absolute nonsense. Owning firearms is illegal in Pakistan. Only on rare occasions can a firearm be privately owned. Only tribal areas outside the reach of federal laws are able to bypass this restriction.

Ahh,perhaps you don't read chomsky very much and don't happen to have a friend who is living there. I suppose you are a holocaust denier as well

sovtek

Sand wrote: »

And enough to exonerate him in leftist circles.

For example?

sovtek

smirkingmaurice wrote: »

I suppose you are a holocaust denier as well

How did you logically get to that?

djpbarry

smirkingmaurice wrote: »

Ahh,perhaps you don't read chomsky very much and don't happen to have a friend who is living there.

My wife is Pakistani and most of her family live in Lahore.

oscarBravo

smirkingmaurice banned for trolling.

InFront

Few things are certain in Pakistani politics, but one of them is that Musharraff is crazy, and stupid. Bhutto is not far behind him, she just less stupid.

What's happening here is that the army is on one side trying to keep power, and on the other we have the judiciary, the Doctors, the students and basically the "ruling classes" are trying to get it. From their point of view, the cleverest thing would be to work together to keep power, because as they both know, there's one very important group watching them all fighting over the baton of power, and waiting for them to drop it.

That's the extremist group, and in the event of any insurrection whatever, they will win. Some people think that Pakistan is on a turning point between democratisation and military rule; it's not. The turning point is much more serious than that and involved radicalizing the Pakistani society much more deeply.

Mr.Micro

Yes which ever side gets or keeps the power ,the losing side will not accept it.At present its the military with Musharraf.He wants to keep his current role and to be president as well, as the latter is more powerful , as I presume he would not want another military commander ousting him as president.He has power mania and I cannot see a resolution soon unless the army, judiciary and others agree to co- operate. Musharraf cannot be in that process , he has to go ,he has had his day and is not to be trusted no more than Bhutto.

Manic Moran

Extolling Bhutto's virtues here...

http://worldblog.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2007/11/11/460715.aspx

While the Harvard- and Oxford-educated Bhutto is the leading opposition politician in Pakistan, she is still more popular in the West than at home. Bhutto’s regime is remembered for having one of the worst human rights records in Pakistan's history, and her government did not allow the media freedoms she criticizes Musharraf for crushing.

The idea of power-sharing between Musharref and Bhutto is an interesting one. If one madman or the other is going to be running the asylum, might as well be both, that way it's a bit more peaceful.

NTM

djpbarry

InFront wrote: »

Few things are certain in Pakistani politics, but one of them is that Musharraff is crazy, and stupid. Bhutto is not far behind him, she just less stupid.

I don't think either of them could be accused of stupidity, Bhutto in particular. She has pretty much the entire developed world on her side, despite the fact that she's already had two botched attempts at running the country; she obviously knows what she's doing.

Don't think it's fair to call Musharraf crazy either. The power has gone to his head, no doubt about that, but he was doing a half-decent job of turning Pakistan around before that.

Musharraf is to crazy what Bush is to ...

Manic Moran wrote: »

The idea of power-sharing between Musharref and Bhutto is an interesting one. If one madman or the other is going to be running the asylum, might as well be both, that way it's a bit more peaceful.

It is most definitely a case of the lesser of two evils, but I cannot see such an alliance lasting - too many skeletons in the wardrobe. Bhutto and Musharraf don't trust each other, and the Pakistani people (the majority, at least) don't trust either of them, Bhutto in particular.

Mr.Micro

Pakistan has hobsons choice . It need a third way possible to keep Musharraf and Bhutto in check .I stilll feel that Musharraf has crossed the line and is a liability to any democracy .

InFront

djpbarry wrote: »

I don't think either of them could be accused of stupidity, Bhutto in particular. She has pretty much the entire developed world on her side, despite the fact that she's already had two botched attempts at running the country; she obviously knows what she's doing.

I don't mean stupid in terms of "general intelligence", rather that Musharraf is neither an intelligent negotiator nor a polished nor clever nor astute politician and statesman. He's been lucky.
There are many different measures of intelligence, these things are just what Musharraf ought to be good at, but yet is where he has proven himself disastrous.
Benazir Bhutto yes is better in this line of work, that's where the comment 'less stupid' comes from.

but he was doing a half-decent job of turning Pakistan around before that.

When? When was Musharraf ever doing a good job for Pakistanis?

donaghs

InFront, what do you reckon need to be done to improve life for people in Pakistan? You seem to have first hand experience of the country. Having a general acting as a dictator is far from ideal, and a democratic election is is normally whats best for a country.

I'm no expert, but could holding election lead to even more unrest, different factions feuding with each other, etc?

InFront

donaghs wrote: »

InFront, what do you reckon need to be done to improve life for people in Pakistan? You seem to have first hand experience of the country. Having a general acting as a dictator is far from ideal, and a democratic election is is normally whats best for a country.

I'm no expert, but could holding election lead to even more unrest, different factions feuding with each other, etc?

I'm not an expert on Pakistan, in fact having first hand experience of a place is arguably more blinding than having a solid understanding of it from a neutral base.

Anyway it depends on your political perogative. Everyone has a different idea of what is best for Pakistan. I think the best approach would be for a Democratic-Islamist leadership to take control, and to establish a more federalist style of Governance, focusing on foreign policy and economics in Islamabad, and leaving responsibility for policing, justice, legislation and local Government to the regions.
Pakistan is made of numerous societies and groupings that are far older than the state itself, and such a fragmented model of Governance is necessary for self-determination, to diffuse local unrest, and prevent "agglutination" of conflicts, such as has been seen there in the past several years.
The Government of Pakistan have always tried to be all thing to all peoples, and each time they have simply ended up pleasing nobody, and being abrasive to everybody.

As for whether Pervez Musharraf or Benazir Bhutto, or Nawaz Sharif are better off leading the country, the end result is that it doesn't matter! All are basically the same. The three 'candidates' are gangsters who have demonstrated in their own ways that they are each incapable of managing Pakistan - we have seen them all in power before, and none have succeeded - nothing has changed except that the task has got harder.

All that is going on at the moment is an internal power struggle where the net outcome will be the same. Tge only reason why the opportunistic Bhutto is back in Pakistan is because she has convinced the White House that she has the ability and the support to replace Musharraf, to work with the US and to restore stability. Nawaz Sharif is up to something similar.

But what Pakistan needs is a whole new kind of power struggle where none of these men and women feature, but instead a democratic contest between politicians and leaderships who will be faithful to the original aims of Muhammad Ali Jinnah in the establishment of Pakistan sixty years ago.

For now the only possible outcome is the continuation of a Mushraff-esque regime with more bloodshed, mounting militant extremism because of an increased frsutration at the regime and its policies, and because there is no outlet for any other type of Islamism. Sympathy for Al-Qaeda will spread, Pakistan will be plunged further into violence and where exactly that will take it, is anybody's guess.