Gen Ayub, Zia, Musharaf, whose policies were better

[manglasiva]

to me all the 3 are self serving dictators without any concern for the country !! they messed up with a beautiful country, made people feeling that they're living in a failed state with daily bomb blasts

 

[Silent observer]

to me all the 3 are self serving dictators without any concern for the country !! they messed up with a beautiful country, made people feeling that they're living in a failed state with daily bomb blasts

my friend, we all know that they were dictators and no one is favoring dictatorship here. the simple point is whose policies are better for the country.

cant it be possible, one was better than the others in terms of policies?

i hope you get my point

anyways thanks for your participation.

 

[manglasiva]

cant it be possible, one was better than the others in terms of policies?

the question should've put like "who was the worst among the 3.
better forget the past dear, therz no need to waste time on this ***** topic..DREAM abt the future..

 

[FreekiN]

ayub khan was he best among the three, i would rank zia second

musharraf US relation was like a master and a servent

"We'll bomb you back to the stone-age"

"Either your with us or your against us"

So, did he have a choice?

 

[manglasiva]

"We'll bomb you back to the stone-age"

"Either your with us or your against us"

So, did he have a choice?

where was ur all weather friend CHINA doing during those difficult times...they did not bother to help pak or r ditched them ?

 

[Icarus]

where was ur all weather friend CHINA doing during those difficult times...they did not bother to help pak or r ditched them ?

China is our friend not body guard, they could have given us diplomatic support if we had gone in favour of the Al-Qaeda rather than US but nothing more, that is because it is not their compulsion to come help us whenever we need it.
Remember "two countries never have friendship between them, they have mutual interests"

 

[Silent observer]

the question should've put like "who was the worst among the 3.
better forget the past dear, therz no need to waste time on this ***** topic..DREAM abt the future..

ok you can vote for the least worse out of the 3. it is like twisting the question but if it satisfy you it is okay with me.

regards

 

[ice_man]

well under Ayub most of our infrastructural developments took place such as dam constructions and setting up of Islamabad as our captial!

Under zia we got the F16s & stingers! besides this we got 5 million Afghan refugees & the rise of MQM (a terrorist organization evidence 12th may 2007)! so under zia besides his foreign handling of india & US his domestic policies made pakistan suffer & we r taking out the crap he brought in guns & drugs!

under Muhsarraf we again got the lack of electrcity the rise of taliban & increased inflation & again the rise of MQM!

so yes ayub was the lesser of the 3 evils!

 

[pak-yes]

Zia was the worst.He layed the foundation of the extremism in the whole world and Pakistan in Particular which resulted today in our suffering.

He introduced Kalashnikov culture in our society completely changed it from the roots.He introduced the Heroin culture in our youth destroying it completely from the root again.

And worst of all he all did this using the Trade Mark of Islam and thus introduced
a new thing you do a Bad thing or a crime and say that you are using it for the good of Islam.He is the one of the worst dictator of all times.

And although all dictators are bad i think Ayub was the best of all.Developing Infrastructure and bringing stability only bad thing about him was the chance we lost to regain Kashmir.

 

[SekrutYakhni]

First of all i do not support any dictator!

BUT

It is stupid, irrational, bewakoof, whatnot to say that

Worst democracy is better than the best dictatorship.

The yankees have achieved a lot! It is completely FOOLISH, BLIND PATRIOTISM to say that United States of America has a democratic government! Democracy is not just giving rights to the people.
West gave certain rights to their people. Their courts for people like us are free....but there is a difference between "giving rights" and "democracy"

What is a true democracy?
The one west tells us or the one "people" want!

Let me tell you something!
If there was a true democracy in U.S. than there "wouldnt" be any reason for the U.S. to go on 10's of wars including covert operations in past 100 years. In a true democracy people like to interact making less chances of wars but unfortunately we always say that...ohh politicians/army generals are very smart etc!
but we fail to understand that they are not smart in fact we are bunch of stupid people....

If a dictatorship like Hitler (his economic view) is considered..I believe his dictatorship was 1000 times better than democratic governments like U.S., Pakistan, India etc

Don't you see the track records of the dictators in Pakistan's history?

Very simple...
Is it a coincidence??

Ayub came (first native Army Chief)>>> 1965 war
Zia (appointed as army chief when other senior generals was left alone) >>> 1971 war
Musharaf (same story..other senior generals were left alone) >>> kargal, WOT etc

The part "other senior general were left alone"...Is it a coincidence that we fought every war when other generals were left alone and U.S. was an ally.... when the generals marched towards Islamabad saying we will fight against Kafirs..but their biggest supporters were Mushriks...

Best/achieving/ethical dictatorship is 1000 times better than the BEST democracy.

 

[SekrutYakhni]

"We'll bomb you back to the stone-age"

"Either your with us or your against us"

So, did he have a choice?

So what did we achieve with them?

Schools were destroyed, suicide attacks, no electricity, very few jobs, corruption, etc

It is another version of stone age..

It was better and could represented a dignified nation who chose to be bombed in a day rather than getting bombed every day...

BUT

if we look from present scenario...the decision was right!
Why?
because than we would not achieve things which you will see in 3-4 years time period..

Musharaf had to say "Yes" sir....It was in Taqdeer....the results will show up in some years...than we will know his decision was right or wrong....




Making of Taliban by the U.S. and than bombing them...It might be a very smart attack by the U.S.
X men of the U.S. might be very happy about this...
but care to go in the future?

Read the history of the empires..how were they destroyed?
It was in U.S.'s taqdeer that they had to go to Afghanistan...so they could see the consequences than people would start the song of "karma"....in fact nothing was karma..Afghansitan had to be bombed....it was bombed...

U.S. was like a soul in a human who was used to destroy Afghanistan or in other words souls are used to make people live or die...than we blame on diseases...or in other words people


key word: "used"

Don't think policy makers are smart..and I am dead sure they think they are smart...

Everything is done the way it is planned by HIM.
and people get happy when they defeat other countries...considering a very smart strategic move..

who is more stupid?

Point to ponder!

 

[qsaark]

It is stupid, irrational, bewakoof, whatnot to say that

Worst democracy is better than the best dictatorship

No, worst kind of democracy is indeed better than the best dictatorship not because it (bad democracy) is good or bad, but because it is sustainable whereas dictatorship is not. Those were different days when countries could be run by autocratic form of governments, not because they were the best, but because they were the norm. In today’s world, the only acceptable form of government is a democratic government run by the civilians.

You don’t need to go far away to get the proof of this principal. India is a living example of worst democracy where people like Modi and Jay Lalitha, and Laloo Parsad Yadav reach to the assemblies and even become the Chief Ministers. However, albeit of all the shortcomings, India is doing far better than Pakistan in just every respect. They did not achieve this overnight; it took them good fifty or so years to reach to this point, and it was made possible because of the continuation of good or bad democracy.

Graphican has put it in nice words, and with his permission, I would like to re-post them here “doctor can run a bank and no banker can be a dentist. Why the heck you think a warrior is the best governor of a country? He is NOT and it has been proven times an again”.

In Urdu we have a proverb, “Jis ka kaam usi ko saajhey, aur karey to thenga baajey”.

 

[SSGPA1]

You don’t need to go far away to get the proof of this principal. India is a living example of worst democracy where people like Modi and Jay Lalitha, and Laloo Parsad Yadav reach to the assemblies and even become the Chief Ministers. However, albeit of all the shortcomings, India is doing far better than Pakistan in just every respect. They did not achieve this overnight; it took them good fifty or so years to reach to this point, and it was made possible because of the continuation of good or bad democracy.

My freind, This thread is about whose policies were better but your feedback was valueable as usual.

Please don' compare Pakistan to India because they have always had good allies, even though those allies were socialists.

Our main ally always supported PA more than our politicians. Above all Pakistanis supported PA more than the politicians.

Who came out to support Bhutto or NS when they were thrown out??

 

[SekrutYakhni]

I did not say dictatorship as in an army ruler.
Dictatorship can be in any form.
By seeing Pakistan and her problems one can't ignore the fact that we don't need many people to run our country. We need few morally correct people with more powers. Take the example of China..They have few people who can decide but they have achieved a lot. Their society has many cons but again every society has many cons.

If this forum i.e. PDF (country) was run by corrupt people and had so much trolling (referred to suicide attacks), PDF mods got illegal commissions from the advertisements, people were banned (killed) etc..

Which steps you think we should take to make this forum (country) a nice place?
In my opinion I would have taken Web Master as a president, Asim as a Defence Minister, educated mods....few people but with good ethics!

When people like Mao Zedong, Jinnah, Khamini etc could start the car of their country than why not a single person in Pakistan?
Leader is always one...he has friends (cabinet) and people who support him!

Dictator is not referred to an army person instead it was referred to a morally correct person with an exceptional small cabinet...and support of the people..
the more the people the more the problems >> we already have so much problems

There should be a dictator level government like this!
Pure communism in the Marxian sense refers to a classless, stateless and oppression-free society where decisions on what to produce and what policies to pursue are made democratically, allowing every member of society to participate in the decision-making process in both the political and economic spheres of life.
Islam also says that...

Few people run the system and support of the people is involved!

 

[qsaark]

Please don' compare Pakistan to India because they have always had good allies, even though those allies were socialists.

Irony is, most of the regimes that were supported by the former USSR were dictatorial except for India and perhaps China. So I don’t think allies had a role (or a strong role) in dictating India or Pakistan on the type of the government they wanted.

Our main ally always supported PA more than our politicians. Above all Pakistanis supported PA more than the politicians.

Our main ally (if you want to call USA an ally “howey tum dost jis key, dushman uska asmaN kyoN ho) supported dictatorial regimes because it was easier to do business with one person or institution who was answerable to no one. People of Pakistan never supported dictators and demonstrations during the time of successive dictators are an example. However, the military dictators made the Pakistanis to support them on the gun point. What explanation you have for the ‘ghunda gardi’ of Captain Gouhar Ayub during the presidential elections of 1965 between Ayub and Mohtarma Fatia Jinnah? Or the reluctance of Yahya to invite the majority party leader, Mr. Mujib to form the government in 1971? Or imposition of Martial Law by Zia when the negotiations between Bhutto and the PNA were successful? This ‘ghunda gardi’ was only possible because one party had the power of the gun while the other was unarmed.

Who came out to support Bhutto or NS when they were thrown out??

Who came out to support when the dictators were disgraced and thrown out?