I Support Imran Khan’s Ongoing Movement Against The Government: Pervez Musharraf!

[Proudpakistaniguy]

As much as I used to dislike Nawaz, after reading in detail of the developments he started recently and laws he is passing...hes not doing a bad job.

As much as I used to like imran khan...he is only delaying further projects by Nawaz.

Same here. There was time when i convinced family members to vote for pti candidate then time came after election when i felt imran is just like any other politician who is selling dream and now its time when i started hating this guy and think he is worse than all..immature, confuse and stubborn guy who has no clue what he say and keep changing plans and statement like girgut and damaging pakistan for his lust for PM

 

[FaujHistorian]

But in kpk imran khan has coalition with mullahs

Please do not confuse past with present.

Thank you.

 

[TankMan]

@FaujHistorian aik to yeh 'anarchy' le ke baith gaye hai humein. Hukoomat jitne marzi qatal kar le, jitni marzi corruption kar le, jitni marzi dhandli kare, humein bas chup kar ke bethe rehna chahiye kyoon ke protest se 'anarchy' nikal aye gi. Iss se behter hai kissi chhat se chalang maar lo saare, kabr me koi anarchy nahi hoti.

Civilians loose

So you're saying there should be a conflict or competition between civilians and the military? The military does what it has to to protect the country (usually from the corrupt mouths of corrupt politicians like NS) - it's not trying to make the civilians 'loose'.

 

[FaujHistorian]

Anarchy is the result of failure of doing elections probe Blame the reason not the messenger

IK can go to SK and get probed.

Noone stops him.

Elections and voting has a process in place and things are moving at their regular pace.

IK cannot become PM by spreading anarchy.

 

[Norwegian]

IK can go to SK and get probed.

Noone stops him.

Elections and voting has a process in place and things are moving at their regular pace.

IK cannot become PM by spreading anarchy.

Cases are still pending for 2008 elections in tribunals as such they become no longer relevant. This stupidity and nonsense is going to change

 

[FaujHistorian]

@FaujHistorian aik to yeh 'anarchy' le ke baith gaye hai humein. Hukoomat jitne marzi qatal kar le, jitni marzi corruption kar le, jitni marzi dhandli kare, humein bas chup kar ke bethe rehna chahiye kyoon ke protest se 'anarchy' nikal aye gi. Iss se behter hai kissi chhat se chalang maar lo saare, kabr me koi anarchy nahi hoti.


So you're saying there should be a conflict or competition between civilians and the military? The military does what it has to to protect the country (usually from the corrupt mouths of corrupt politicians like NS) - it's not trying to make the civilians 'loose'.

Corruption happens in military rule too. It just remains hidden.

They come from teh same society as politicians. Not some angel seeds.

 

[Norwegian]

Corruption happens in military rule too. It just remains hidden.

They come from teh same society as politicians. Not some angel seeds.

PakArmy is the most reputed Pakistani institution. Sure they are corrupt but atleast they are binding force of Pakistan

 

[FaujHistorian]

Cases are still pending for 2008 elections in tribunals as such they become no longer relevant. This stupidity and nonsense is going to change

Ours is one of the worst litigant society. Number of cases does not mean even 80% of them are valid.

 

[TankMan]

Corruption happens in military rule too. It just remains hidden.

They come from teh same society as politicians. Not some angel seeds.

The military doesn't have steel mills, sugar mills or other forms of business interests - people don't join the army to earn money, they join because their only interest is the protection of the country.
The Army is a lot more disciplined, a lot. There is no way they're even close to the corruption level of our usual politicians.

 

[FaujHistorian]

PakArmy is the most reputed Pakistani institution. Sure they are corrupt but atleast they are binding force of Pakistan

Do not confuse between generals who command army

vs.

Generals who rule the country.

The two can behave differently. very differently.

Absolute power corrupts, even generals.

The military doesn't have steel mills, sugar mills or other forms of business interests - people don't join the army to earn money, they join because their only interest is the protection of the country.
The Army is a lot more disciplined, a lot. There is no way they're even close to the corruption level of our usual politicians.

They do.

Chanda Ji.

you tend not to study your subject.

 

[TankMan]

Do not confuse between generals who command army

vs.

Generals who rule the country.

The two can behave differently. very differently.

Absolute power corrupts, even generals.




They do.

Chanda Ji.

you tend not to study your subject.

The Generals who rule countries are the same generals who commanded armies. They can behave differently but they won't just suddenly turn into corrupt maniacs like most of Pakistan's politicians.
Rising in the ranks of the military requires a lot of dedication, hard work and integrity. That process easily filters out the likes of Zardari or Nawaz Sharif.
Members of the military may have their own business interests but the military itself, as an institution, does not. When combined together, all these factors massively reduce the corruption in the military.
One general can be corrupt but under no circumstances will you ever have an entire parliament-load of corrupt people and their entire families working together to loot the country like we have in today's 'democracy'.
I have studied my subject more than enough.

 

[Norwegian]

The Generals who rule countries are the same generals who commanded armies. They can behave differently but they won't just suddenly turn into corrupt maniacs like most of Pakistan's politicians.
Rising in the ranks of the military requires a lot of dedication, hard work and integrity. That process easily filters out the likes of Zardari or Nawaz Sharif.
Members of the military may have their own business interests but the military itself, as an institution, does not. When combined together, all these factors massively reduce the corruption in the military.
One general can be corrupt but under no circumstances will you ever have an entire parliament-load of corrupt people and their entire families working together to loot the country like we have in today's 'democracy'.
I have studied my subject more than enough.

Although I do understand your pro-General stance here but I would still not recommend a military man to govern civilians. They are good for temporary emergency measures, the rest must be settled by experienced statesmen!

 

[FaujHistorian]

The Generals who rule countries are the same generals who commanded armies. .

chanda jaaan


commanding army = one type of job
Ruling country = totally different job

Any general who wants to be ruler must leave army, participate in elections, form majority, become PM.

Like Gen. Eisenhower.


No back door entry for a general to rule the country .

unless you are used to allowing people do the backdooor entry in personal situations as well.

Although I do understand your pro-General stance here but I would still not recommend a military man to govern civilians. They are good for temporary emergency measures, the rest must be settled by experienced statesmen!

Well said my bro.

Well said.

 

[Norwegian]

Well said my bro.

Well said.

And by experienced statesmen I didn't mean Noora-Zardari-Maulana axis of evil

 

[FaujHistorian]

And by experienced statesmen I didn't mean Noora-Zardari-Maulana axis of evil

I knew that bro. I knew it.

By the same token even IK won't fit the bill if you look at him in an unbiased way.

He is no statesman.

And his experience in ruling is worse than or no more than zero.