Musharraf era was much better as compared to present rule: Rashid Qureshi

[Awesome]

American rule is always there ... Nawaz Sharif's rule is no different ...

Back in Kargil days, I was in the US and only Indian channels were available ... then one fine day, during the most tense days, Nawaz Sharif visited Clinton.

Clinton was standing in a door waiting for Nawaz Sharif who slightly bent his back and shook Clinton's hand with his both hands.

It was a disgusting moment for me because this was shown on Indian channels.

Imagine Pakistani PM doing a half ruku in front of Clinton. After that Pakistan withdrew from Kargil.

yeah... so?

 

[Jihad]

I usually think of Mushy as the most treacherous and devious leader Pakistan has ever had. Am I wrong? Is this what Pakistanis expect and desire from their leaders?

Hold your horses, where did you get such an impression?
Musharraf is my leader, because he is an honest and upright person and handled in Pakistan's favor.
I know he loves his country as much as I love it aswell, and therefor, I do not doubt his credibility or his leadership abilities.
Also, I would like to say, I do agree that we should give our current government some time to settle and take control of things if they can and want, however, how long must this timespan be? 5 years? What if they don't succeed? That means that our country has wasted 5 years of precious economic growth, stability and prosperity, and India will most likely only be leaving us behind.
I don't know about this, but I want to see positive signs as soon as possible or else this government can pack it's bags, I hope the Pakistani people realize this too.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

I usually think of Mushy as the most treacherous and devious leader Pakistan has ever had. Am I wrong? Is this what Pakistanis expect and desire from their leaders?

He was neither treacherous nor devious.

 

[Solomon2]

How can Musharraf not be considered treacherous? He staged a coup against his own president, rather than be sacked.

And how can he not be considered devious, he himself was the COS who planned the Kargil Conflict, trying to make it look like something carried out by "stateless" combatants.

 

[Patriot]

How can Musharraf not be considered treacherous? He staged a coup against his own president, rather than be sacked.

And how can he not be considered devious, he himself was the COS who planned the Kargil Conflict, trying to make it look like something carried out by "stateless" combatants.

Erm it was not exactly a coup.Nawaz already staged a coup when he decided to sack him while he was in air and then divert his plane.Musharraf just responded..

 

[tamir]

How can Musharraf not be considered treacherous? He staged a coup against his own president, rather than be sacked.

And how can he not be considered devious, he himself was the COS who planned the Kargil Conflict, trying to make it look like something carried out by "stateless" combatants.

I had friends on the same flight as Pres Musharraf. The plane was not allowed to land at Karachi... also keep in mind that it was running out fuel. So really there was no option for the Army but to take over. Also treacherous are the "democratically" elected public servants that eat away at the national treasury and forget that after all they are accountable to the people.

Do you even have an idea what a distorted point of view the US media paints in regards to Pakistan. Go to Pakistan, see the people, talk to them and you'll get the other side of the coin.

 

[SSGPA1]

yeah... so?

AA,

That scene was like a poor farmer standing in front of a land lord.

You can't imagine because you have not sen it yourself.

 

[SSGPA1]

How can Musharraf not be considered treacherous? He staged a coup against his own president, rather than be sacked.

And how can he not be considered devious, he himself was the COS who planned the Kargil Conflict, trying to make it look like something carried out by "stateless" combatants.

and this is how govt. work in order to support it's interests.

I saw a clip of a US President where he said that there are no troops in Vietnam yet there were US troops in Vietnam.

Same with Regan supporting the Iran arms deal.

Since you claim to be from the US therefore only US examples are given.

 

[Zovc]

Erm it was not exactly a coup.Nawaz already staged a coup when he decided to sack him while he was in air and then divert his plane.Musharraf just responded..

Do you even know what a coup means?

 

[Solomon2]

and this is how govt. work in order to support it's interests.

Do not tar everyone with the same brush; governments don't all work the same way, nor do they always work in the interests of themselves or their country. I'm just reading a book, Michael Oren's Six Days of War, where he recounts that Nasser knew that blockading the Straits of Tiran meant going to war with Israel and that wasn't in Egypt's best interest, but with Arab pride swelling after his success at kicking out the U.N. buffering force Nasser felt not doing so would be "disgraceful".

As for your quotes about American presidents: Reagan, it was proved after a Congressional investigation, didn't really know what happened, and as for the Vietnam thing, I won't believe it until you can provide the source.

 

[Solomon2]

Do you even have an idea what a distorted point of view the US media paints in regards to Pakistan. Go to Pakistan, see the people, talk to them and you'll get the other side of the coin.

Thanks, Tamir, I do appreciate the invitation. No, I don't really know what the "U.S. media" says because I try hard not to get my information from it, but from Pakistanis, Pakistani newspapers, and the people I know who have been there. That's "distortion" enough, don't you think?

 

[Bane Blade]

He may be a very Patriotic Pakistani but he only provided short term benefits not that this term of politics is doing any better under our "democratically elected president" but Musharraf or the PPPP are too power hungry and can go to all depths to get controll. He displayed his Megalomaniac nature in his final days of his rule. By causing emergency rule sacking a cheif justice changing people to suit his benefits changing three prime ministers and completely ditching the last one.

 

[SSGPA1]

... As for your quotes about American presidents: Reagan, it was proved after a Congressional investigation, didn't really know what happened, and as for the Vietnam thing, I won't believe it until you can provide the source.

Congress let him off the hook ... As far as Vietnam is concerned, read about Operation White Star and operation Hotfoot. For further info, google Air America and CIA.

 

[SSGPA1]

... By causing emergency rule sacking a cheif justice changing people to suit his benefits changing three prime ministers and completely ditching the last one.

My friend, SC first allowed Musharraf to take part in election and then didn't allowed the result to be relased. This is the reason why emergency was placed.

Ifikhar sahib caused the emergency on purpose, this guy Iftikhar also cuased the massacre in Karachi.

If he is not fully responsible then he is at least partially (60%) responsible for these issues.

 

[Solomon2]

Got it. SSGPA1, Vientiane is in Laos, not Vietnam. An understandable mistake, I suppose.