Musharraf Ki Yaad AAyi Us Kay Janay Kay Baad

[SSGPA1]

Major General Ehtesham Zamir (head of the political wing of the ISI directorate) has admitted his guilt of manipulating the 2002 elections, and has directly blamed General Musharraf for ordering him to do so.

This certainly bolsters the 'lousy' argument of a rubber stamp Parliament.

In addition to that, even Shujaat, Mushahid, Sheikh Rasheed and many other PML(Q) members have accepted that their party acted as rubber stamp for Musharraf.

Please give me an example from Pakistani politics where a political party has accepted defeat. There are sevral examples which show NS and BB did the same thing.

From Gen. Gul to Gen. Baig no one trusted BB over the nuclear program. Now does it mean BB was a traitor and not trust worthy?

I never say that Musharraf is free of fault but I have always said and strongly belief that Musharraf is the best option among the leadership choices we have at hand.
Parliament of Pakistan

 

[Comet]

He is not only one who changed consitution and he got it approved by an elected Parliament. This Parliament which was elected by the people of Pakistan. If his decissions were wrong then PML-Q shouldn't have got the third highest number of seats! End of the lousy argument of a rubber stamp Parliament - majority of the people didn't come out in streets against the same Parliament.



Utter nonsense! Musharraf was brought in power by the Army command with full support from Pakistan's bureaucracy.

Benazir Bhutto, Imran Khan and Qazi sahib all supported Army's decission to take over. Why don't you write against these folks??

Don't blame Gen. Musharraf as he had fuull support from politicians to the agencies.

Last but not least, Ch. Iftikhar took oath from the same Gen. Musharraf becoming one of the first Supreme court judges to take oath on PCO under Musharraf regime.

Click the link below for a pretty pic!

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/f/f4/Pakistan-CJ.jpg/250px-Pakistan-CJ.jpg



Yes, he is the best option given the current options from Pakistan's political leadership.

PPPP: Zardari and Bilawal Zardari - there is no electrol system in PPPP and the entire senior leadership has been sidelined for thugs and novices!

People in interior Sindh are even tired of Zardari now!

PML-N: Javed Hashmi goes to jail and suffer for years but NS keeps all powerful seats for himself and his family. Ran from the country when his party needed him the most! SHAME ON HIM!



Fine! bring some serious data of all the work done in NS and BB govts include present Zardari govt and lets compare.



Yes he was suppose to take these decissions per the PCO which majority of the Parliament approved! End of the lousy argument of a rubber stamp Parliament - majority of the people didn't come out in streets against the same Parliament.

That was the policy of the Parliament at that time if this Parliament think that PCO was wrong then repeal it!

Still the same lousy argument. IF NS and BB didn't do well then any one else has the right to rape the constituion and do well( and your definition of doing well is also pathetic).

The fundamental question is that: NO ONE SHOULD BE ALLOWED TO RULE A COUNTRY BY FORCE. And Ayub, Zia, and Mush were what they call Dictators.

And by the way, who says that the army has the RIGHT to take over a country. Even if Gen. Musharaf was backed by Army and burocracy, no one has right to disable a parliment. Then wait for 3 years to get himself a bunch of luosy, good for nothing polititians and start voting. You call it democracy? they worked for 3 years to make that parliment. They couldn't gain enogh power so they divided their enemies so that they can have votes. And when the time was right, they call for election.
You have to admit, the first 3 years of Musharaf regime was pure regime, right? There was no Parliament no Public opnion no nothing.

 

[qsaark]

Please give me an example from Pakistani politics where a political party has accepted defeat. There are sevral examples which show NS and BB did the same thing.

From Gen. Gul to Gen. Baig no one trusted BB over the nuclear program. Now does it mean BB was a traitor and not trust worthy?

I never say that Musharraf is free of fault but I have always said and strongly belief that Musharraf is the best option among the leadership choices we have at hand.
Parliament of Pakistan

In 2002 elections, PPP or PML(N) did not complaint, it was Musharraf's own man who accepted that the elections were rigged. And yes, BB or NS might have rigged the elections but they are 'bloody' politicians with very little or no principles whatsoever. What happened to the General? Why he ordered his men to do a criminal thing (rigging is a crime).

Musharraf may have some good qualities in him (everyone has good and bad qualities) but in the history he will always be remembered as an Army officer who did not honor his oath.

 

[waraich66]

We need to develop nation to give us great leaders , education is only tool to build nation,
We all know very well how much of our annual budget was spent on education , R&D , so we should not blame Ayub,Yahya,Niazi,Bhutto,Altaf, Musharaf and Zardari ,they are the output of our education system,training institutions and political system.

 

[Blossom]

Nice to see that you feel comfortable labling somone "selfish", you know noting about me or what i am. So Please do not lable me. I have not personally attacked you, so i would appreciate the same ammount of respect in return.

Despite what you say, in my opinion the General was a brilliant leader then most can imagine. I dont give two hoots about "Ghadari", did i even mention him in my post...?

I dont need to tell you anything, but from your rant it seems you have a lot on your mind, go ahead and spill it out. The truth shall set you free.

yeah? was it personal?
well i'm not labelling you "selfish" once and for all.I only called you selfish because.........you ,after having a long long love affair with me...finally chose someone else over me...ran away with her and broke my heart

Come on!!! The answer is in my post if only you had read it carefully...Dont I have a right to speak on behalf and represent Pakistani people being one, proud to say?
here:

if I were you..I wouldn't be overwhelmed by the presence of a President/CoAS and overlook how during his reign he gradually sabotaged the country/country people

 

[Blossom]

Plz answer!
Was Zardari better choice against Musharraf??

And answer should be only "yes" or "no"!

no comparison!!!
both are completely different in every way..every aspect...have an entirely different background.
one was CoAS at the time he took charge..A ghaazi..fought wars for Pakistan ...was very well aware of the centiments/demands of public, He understood what we've been through ,since 1947 and we thought he was the Man of the People, proved us all wrong...and other is an inarticulate "paindoo" from a "whatever" tribe.No comments!

 

[Hasnain2009]

Read my post again, we had only 2 choices!
Zardari or Musharraf?

 

[ali.abbas00001]

GEO musharraf we are missing u alot.

what politicians were opposing are now supporting

 

[Blossom]

Read my post again, we had only 2 choices!
Zardari or Musharraf?

I don't answer illogical questions.Thanks!

 

[SSGPA1]

In 2002 elections, PPP or PML(N) did not complaint, it was Musharraf's own man who accepted that the elections were rigged. And yes, BB or NS might have rigged the elections but they are 'bloody' politicians with very little or no principles whatsoever. What happened to the General? Why he ordered his men to do a criminal thing (rigging is a crime).

Well if i ahve to vote for these guys with no principles then I will vote for Musharraf as he is better than all of the otehr choices.

Look at the available options today and Musharraf (now a civilian) is better than his opponents.

 

[SSGPA1]

And by the way, who says that the army has the RIGHT to take over a country. Even if Gen. Musharaf was backed by Army and burocracy, no one has right to disable a parliment. Then wait for 3 years to get himself a bunch of luosy, good for nothing polititians and start voting. You call it democracy? they worked for 3 years to make that parliment. They couldn't gain enogh power so they divided their enemies so that they can have votes. And when the time was right, they call for election.
You have to admit, the first 3 years of Musharaf regime was pure regime, right? There was no Parliament no Public opnion no nothing.

NObody ahs the right, point I was trying to make is that why everyone blames Musharraf alone. Quiet frankly people of Pakistan should be blamed for staying and supporting every single general.

There was always a public opinion and that opinion suppported Musharraf just like that same public opinion supported Zia before him.

Reality today is that Musharraf is a civilian with 8 yrs of governance experience and with very limited corruption charges.

Musharraf's biggest challenge is NS who ran away with his family, leaving his workers behind. This escape of NS left no choice for people like Mushahid Hussain and Sheikh Rashid but to change side.
Many corruption cases and with a wish to rule with an iron fist.

I have personally met an engineer from Pakistan Railways who was working on a gas station abroad because of NS. His only crime was that he didn't sign the paperwork required for NS to eat a fit PR engine.

I have also met a young engineer from Peshawar who came for a job interview and got a job purely on merit. This was during Musharraf's era.

If we are talking about raping the constitution then lets not forget the role of Iftikhar Ch. who took oath on that broken constitution. That oath was adninistered by no one other than Gen. Musharraf.

So when I see all of this hypocrisy and dishonesty, I know I will get a hypocrite to rule my motherland and all I can do is to choose the best amongst those corrupt and hypocrites.

 

[qsaark]

Well if i ahve to vote for these guys with no principles then I will vote for Musharraf as he is better than all of the otehr choices.

Look at the available options today and Musharraf (now a civilian) is better than his opponents.

This is your personal choice and many will say the same thing for BB or NS. It is all about perspective. As far as better or worst is concerned, neither the civilian nor the military rule has given anything to this country. In fact all the fateful decisions were made by the Military rulers that have eventually put this country on the path of a total collapse. If this can’t open your eyes, than perhaps nothing can. I have already been into this debate with you and it is better to agree to disagree on this. It is interesting though that the civilized and highly advanced societies do not agree with your philosophy of military rule.

 

[qsaark]

Reality today is that Musharraf is a civilian with 8 yrs of governance experience and with very limited corruption charges.

Upon taking oath of the President, Musharraf declared that when he joined Army, all he had was three or 400 rupees. Today he owns billions of rupees of property both in the country and abroad (he recently purchased a house in London). How on earth he got so much money in only past 30 or so years? Army doesn't pay that well does it? Now you'll say that politicians do the same and I'll say they are "bloody civilians", lesser humans, un-civilized and corrupt. But an Army General? come on, if there’s a clean and pious person after Rasool Allah, perhaps it is the COAS of Pakistan Army. A person of such high moral and civil caliber, why he is so corrupt and if he is, what is the difference between him and a civilian politician? Why I or a common Pakistani should prefer him over others?

Every time the army has mounted a coup d'etat it has done so saying it has come in to clean up the mess made by the 'bloody civilians', the elected government it removes to take over power. Well, the simple riposte to that is: if the military is going to make an equally big mess, why throw the civilians out in the first place? More importantly, if the civilians make a mess the electorate can boot them out at the next election; a military government is answerable to no one. Indeed, because the military and its appointees are not answerable to anyone, let alone the people, what incentive should they have for doing a good job?

 

[muse]

It is interesting though that the civilized and highly advanced societies do not agree with your philosophy of military rule.

Like saying "it is interesting that civilized and highly advanced societies do not agree that "democractic" government is composed of assigning an equation of equality to all ideas, and bythe abdication of responsibility, ineptitude and a legislature entirely uniterested in formulating and refing laws"


Our problem is over definitions and ideas -- someone asked what military regimes have given us, fair enough, let me poiint out that it's a mixed record under Ayub Khan and Musharraf Pakistan did make economic progress and was trusted by international investors - the same is not true of the so called democratic civilian regimes is it?

And look to economics, point to a period where in the the kinds of economics that animate the civilian politicians (populist economics) have brought Pakistan any other than ruin?

Listen, some here seem to be thinking that Western style, in particular Westminster, is almost a religious propositon -- look, there is China as model as well, yes, it is not rowdy, yes, it is stable, and yes, it is changing, and yes, hundreds of millions of persons now lead more difgnified lives --- can poor peoples ever be free? can ignorant peoples ever be free? Forget about the media hype, just concentrate on what works, not on ideas that have taken a "article of faith" hue with some on us.

 

[SSGPA1]

It is interesting though that the civilized and highly advanced societies do not agree with your philosophy of military rule.

Thank God I am not one of those civilized societies otherwise I would have also supported the slaughter of innocent Iraqi children.