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

[Rafael]

I hate Musharraf.I hate this man.

welcome to the club I hate him more than ever

 

[Rafael]

No, but in this case, our Problems are FAR greater than Iran and always have been. U.S was our major arms supplier back then and the only route into Afghanistan was through Pakistan. Iran didn't had any relation with the U.S since the Islamic revolution and Putin wasn't generous enough to let the yanks pass through their territory. We were pretty much bottled into this situation and realizing that we were their only option, they threatened us. And ALSO agreed on increasing military supplies to Pakistan.

Everything was working in our favour with that deal. And in the wake of 9/11, emotions filled the air instead of sensibility. We JUST could NOT Have afforded an isolation in those dire moments. It would've been a total suicide for EVERY Pakistani to go against that proposal.

It doesn't matter if you have "Big balls" As you put it, to do the right thing. For a long term goal, you must forget about them and act in a manner that preserves your existence and secures your long term aims.

Well from what I know they never threatened us, Its another of musharaff's story that he created, I believe the US senator is on record that they never threatend to bomb pakistan to stone age,

Just for the sake of the argument If we believe it, than what does an army general suppose to do if he is threatened?? Surrender?

Tommorow if USA says again that it will bomb pakistan to stone age if it does not destroy its nuclear arsenal becuase it feels that talibaan can get hold of them...Would you destroy your atom bomb??? on which the survival of your country depends?

 

[Beskar]

Well from what I know they never threatened us, Its another of musharaff's story that he created, I believe the US senator is on record that they never threatend to bomb pakistan to stone age,

Just for the sake of the argument If we believe it, than what does an army general suppose to do if he is threatened?? Surrender?

Tommorow if USA says again that it will bomb pakistan to stone age if it does not destroy its nuclear arsenal becuase it feels that talibaan can get hold of them...Would you destroy your atom bomb??? on which the survival of your country depends?

Man, It's obvious that you're a "Hardcore" Musharraf Hater. Which is also quite obvious from your previous post lol. No amount of reasoning with you would work, because regarding musharraf, There's only two sides to the argument and usually none of them agree with the other side.

You're taking my post out of context there. Things WERE different and they shaped up "Just" the way they should have BACK then. We should ask ourselves this question that would we have been better off standing up to the world's lone "Superpower" who was "Blood Thirsty" at that time for a revenge?

Seriously, I would rather have my country act "Rationally" than go for a war with the U.S. Our country has A LOT to achieve yet and war at that point would have meant as a total destruction for us. They invaded Iraq for "NO" solid reason. You think if we wouldn't have been their ally, they would've spared us? We would've been in the hit list instead of Iraq.

 

[Rafael]

Man, It's obvious that you're a "Hardcore" Musharraf Hater. Which is also quite obvious from your previous post lol. No amount of reasoning with you would work, because regarding musharraf, There's only two sides to the argument and usually none of them agree with the other side.

You're taking my post out of context there. Things WERE different and they shaped up "Just" the way they should have BACK then. We should ask ourselves this question that would we have been better off standing up to the world's lone "Superpower" who was "Blood Thirsty" at that time for a revenge?

Seriously, I would rather have my country act "Rationally" than go for a war with the U.S. Our country has A LOT to achieve yet and war at that point would have meant as a total destruction for us. They invaded Iraq for "NO" solid reason. You think if we wouldn't have been their ally, they would've spared us? We would've been in the hit list instead of Iraq.

Yes I am a Mush Hater like every other pakistani

Well, I am not saying the we should have had confronted US.. All I am saying that things could have been dealt in a much more better way...had there been a democracy or an independent judiciary for that matter,


US had invaded iraq for oil, for their own benefit...what guarantee do we have that US will not invade pakistan if it sees another benefit in this strategic location? Answer none!

If a country like Venezuela stand against the policies of USA, y cant us?

Regards,

 

[Solomon2]

US had invaded iraq for oil, for their own benefit...what guarantee do we have that US will not invade pakistan if it sees another benefit in this strategic location? Answer none!

What guarantee do the Brits, Japanese, Germans, ex-Yugoslavs, Columbians, Kuwaitis, and South Koreans have that the U.S. won't invade them? The answer, of course, is that all these nations have been invaded by the U.S. in one form or another and like it enough to retain no more than the number of U.S. troops they desire - and often a lot less!

The current deal with the Iraqi gov't continues in the same tradition. Past performance is the best guarantee possible, wouldn't you agree?

 

[Rafael]

What guarantee do the Brits, Japanese, Germans, ex-Yugoslavs, Columbians, Kuwaitis, and South Koreans have that the U.S. won't invade them? The answer, of course, is that all these nations have been invaded by the U.S. in one form or another and like it enough to retain no more than the number of U.S. troops they desire - and often a lot less!

The current deal with the Iraqi gov't continues in the same tradition. Past performance is the best guarantee possible, wouldn't you agree?

Yess, you come, invade, destroy everything in the name of democracy and weopans of mass destruction and then estabilish your own puppet govt and sign a deal.

How convenient that is?

 

[Solomon2]

[/B][/I]Yess, you come, invade, destroy everything in the name of democracy and weopans of mass destruction and then estabilish your own puppet govt and sign a deal.How convenient that is?

Not convenient at all, because America makes efforts to spare civilian and enemy lives and property during military operations, and America doesn't do the puppet thing - you don't feel like a puppet, do you? - so we have to negotiate with governments legitimized by the ballot box.

You don't seem to be disagreeing with anything in my previous comment. So what are you worried about, exactly?

 

[Rafael]

Not convenient at all, because America makes efforts to spare civilian and enemy lives and property during military operations, and America doesn't do the puppet thing - you don't feel like a puppet, do you? - so we have to negotiate with governments legitimized by the ballot box.

You don't seem to be disagreeing with anything in my previous comment. So what are you worried about, exactly?

America makes efforts to spare civilians?? I might have been living in some other world for all those years....Really???? why were Bush administartion supporting Musharaff than?

America cries all over the world for democracy but when it comes to pakistan they find 1 ally and 170 million terrorists here....

I dont disagree with your above point.....

 

[Solomon2]

I might have been living in some other world for all those years....Really???? why were Bush administartion supporting Musharaff than?
America cries all over the world for democracy but when it comes to pakistan they find 1 ally and 170 million terrorists here.

You are correct that when it comes to allies, the U.S. has sometimes made dreadful choices in supporting governments that are far less chary of human life than Americans would like. Pakistan is probably the shining example, I think the carnage carried out by its Army in 1971, alleged to be in the hundreds of thousands, was unmatched by any other U.S. ally. I don't know what Musharaff's record was, but I know Americans don't like the diversion of funds provided to Pakistan for combating terrorism to supporting the Taliban and anti-India terrorists instead.

Such choices - generally the violation of our good faith - are made by the non-puppet and sovereign recipients of such aid. The U.S. could respond by halting such funds - and indeed, as discussed elsewhere on this board, we have. Unfortunately, the recipients are often clever enough to create a situation where if we stop funding them, the results will undoubtedly be even worse. That the Zardari government has not done so (or else we would not be holding funds meant for Pakistan) is a kind of odd measure of its decency.

 

[tamir]

Yes I am a Mush Hater like every other pakistani

Your opinion is respected but clearly you cannot say that every Pakistani shares your view regarding Musharraf.
I haven't agreed with all of Pres Musharraf's policies but back to the thread topic...... my personal opinion is that his era was better than whats going on in Pakistan right now.
People argue that his regime is the cause for the current mess. Take a step back... put all your opinionated views aside and think where Pakistan was in 1999 when Gen. Musharraf took over. His govt really pulled Pakistan out of the ditch. Yes, people say that had it not been for 9/11, we Pakistanis would have never gotten the aid etc. Why don't we give credit where its due and not make up excuses. For some reason we have a really hard time excepting facts.

 

[Rafael]

You are correct that when it comes to allies, the U.S. has sometimes made dreadful choices in supporting governments that are far less chary of human life than Americans would like. Pakistan is probably the shining example, I think the carnage carried out by its Army in 1971, alleged to be in the hundreds of thousands, was unmatched by any other U.S. ally. I don't know what Musharaff's record was, but I know Americans don't like the diversion of funds provided to Pakistan for combating terrorism to supporting the Taliban and anti-India terrorists instead.

Such choices - generally the violation of our good faith - are made by the non-puppet and sovereign recipients of such aid. The U.S. could respond by halting such funds - and indeed, as discussed elsewhere on this board, we have. Unfortunately, the recipients are often clever enough to create a situation where if we stop funding them, the results will undoubtedly be even worse. That the Zardari government has not done so (or else we would not be holding funds meant for Pakistan) is a kind of odd measure of its decency.

The so called carnage carried out by pakistan in 1971 was nothing compared to what US did in japan during world war..so cheers!! and not to forget the recent ones...iraq and afghanistan.
Do you seriously think America respects non-american lives? You seriously need a break my friend.


Yes pakistan did supported taliban previously but so did US, whats the difference? US did it for her own benefit and pakistan did the same?

whats the big deal?

 

[Rafael]

Your opinion is respected but clearly you cannot say that every Pakistani shares your view regarding Musharraf.
I haven't agreed with all of Pres Musharraf's policies but back to the thread topic...... my personal opinion is that his era was better than whats going on in Pakistan right now.
People argue that his regime is the cause for the current mess. Take a step back... put all your opinionated views aside and think where Pakistan was in 1999 when Gen. Musharraf took over. His govt really pulled Pakistan out of the ditch. Yes, people say that had it not been for 9/11, we Pakistanis would have never gotten the aid etc. Why don't we give credit where its due and not make up excuses. For some reason we have a really hard time excepting facts.

It was exaggeration, I got carried away

HAPPY?

 

[TopCat]

That is EXACTLY backwards. Iran threatens to replace America as the hegemon in the middle east. Israel, which enjoyed good relations with Iran in the past, may well cut a deal for favored treatment. After all, it has traditionally been the Arabs who have posed the greatest threat to Persia's power. If the Iranians have been saying the opposite that may be because they want to throw the world off-guard until they have nukes.

Consider that if the Iranians openly proclaimed they were building a nuclear arsenal to dominate the Arabs that might unite an international coalition against themselves. Much safer to mouth anti-Zionism until the dominating moment arrives, yes? Remember, the chess-playing carpet-weavers aren't Arabs; they plan it all ahead, and they, unlike the Arabs, can make their schemes work.

I have serious doubts about Iran. I was blessed to have a visit to Iran for a
week and I know how their people feel about the regime and economic system. You go to Iran and try to change 100 dollars which I did in airport and I needed a bag to put all the Paper money they gave. I looked at the lady and said, its too many and how long its going to feed me? Now the fun part you cant even understand their currency. You asked how much, they say 20 tomans. now they have 20000, 2000, 200 and all looks the same. It will take a while figure out which note you suppose to give them
By the time I am returning and I had bag full of their money and I did not know where I suppose to spend them so I dumped them in Box in the airport which they put for some children welfare.
Iranians does not have any entrepreneur class. Everything owned by govt like a communist state and they have a inflation running 14% or more for the last 30 years. The only way govt is running the country is through printing money which they get from selling oil.
Very very grim picture...

 

[Bane Blade]

Aparantley Musharraf did bring progress in the form of trading and banking based money, hollow money as it can be seen from the world wide financial crisis, but this helped the upper middle class that worked under employers who were reaping benefits on banks that upped their savings accounts by giving loans to poor people. This kind of system bought terrible concequences to our economy and ripped it to shreds as it can be seen tumbling today if one brings progress for a short term takes housing prices to the skies destroy's people because of putting them in debt it will further our divide between upper and middle class leading to more violent protests and no better era's.

Although I agree with the thread that Musharraf era was better than this one I also completely believe that it left things in the worst state than one could find them. Musharraf was a megalomaniac who bought in three prime ministers during one reign and started cutting back door deals today he roams around like a prince in this country rather than being put to trial for his corruption and events like the 12th of may. I have absolutely no idea how someone can actually account to calling him good he had to bring all the developement projects during his reign for they were already in the pool and were being heavily funded by the U.S aid is this the kind of leadership people prefer where a dictator comes to power and simply rolls over to any American policy set on him. I am sorry but terrible as it is Pakistan deserves better leaders than Musharraf or Zardari both of them beat the system rather than letting it work and both will put our country into misery the way it has always been and all that we will do is say that this nation needs a good leader no it doesn't it needs good people to encourage people to vote for better governance a senior member of a think tank said that 88% of the votes that bought the PPP into power was that of people who don't know how to even write or read. If such people decide the fate of our country we will never have good leaders we need as people to teach them to vote properly to reap long term benefits to them and Pakistan as a whole.

 

[Durrani]

I am sorry but terrible as it is Pakistan deserves better leaders than Musharraf or Zardari both of them beat the system rather than letting it work and both will put our country into misery the way it has always been and all that we will do is say that this nation needs a good leader no it doesn't it needs good people to encourage people to vote for better governance a senior member of a think tank said that 88% of the votes that bought the PPP into power was that of people who don't know how to even write or read. If such people decide the fate of our country we will never have good leaders we need as people to teach them to vote properly to reap long term benefits to them and Pakistan as a whole.

BINGO my friend ! You have just explained the FUNDAMENTAL problem with our country today. The fact that a mere 30-40% of our citizens vote and those citizens are from the poorest class.... Unless we can change all this and the fact that the majority of our country is still dwelling in rural areas where the sardars, nawabs, pirs, mirs , waderas rule then we will never be able to move forward.

I wish the whole elite of pakistan would just die suddenly, and then we could start from zero again, that would be a big blessing for us !!