Musharraf will tell nation about his decision to stay on as army chief

[NNN0LHI]

http://www.khaleejtimes.com/DisplayArticle.asp?xfile=data/subcontinent/2004/December/subcontinent_December611.xml§ion=subcontinent

KARACHI - Pakistan’s military president says he will address the nation soon about his decision to renege on a promise to step down as chief of the country’s powerful army.


President Gen. Pervez Musharraf said in an interview with a Pakistani television station late Friday that he will tell the nation in a televised address why he made the decision to go back on a pledge to quit the army spot by the end of the year. No date for the address has been set.

The president’s supporters in Parliament passed a law allowing him to stay on in both posts through 2007 while Musharraf was on a trip to Latin America, Washington and Europe earlier this month. Musharraf told reporters in London and Paris that he had made up his mind to stay on in both roles.

“I will remain in uniform,” Musharraf said in an interview with Pakistan’s Kawish Television Network in the southern city of Karachi late Friday.

more

Almost sounds like a dictator. Sure glad Chimpy is letting freedom reign.

[allemand]

1. Yet I think that it's a good decision.

Musharraf giving up his post as chief of the army would only make another military coup more likely, which could replace him with a fundamentalist military dictator who is not reform-minded and who, of course, would be in control of Pakistan's nuclear arsenal.

[NNN0LHI]

3. Did you think the US keeping Saddam in power was a good decision too? n/t

[allemand]

5. I wonder how you can compare Musharraf to Saddam.

You don't seem to know much about Pakistan.

[NNN0LHI]

6. Yea, I "wonder" if the sun will rise tomorrow

Did you think the USA keeping Saddam in power was a good idea or not? (If you are old enough to remember, that is?)

Don

[allemand]

7. You know, some believe that ignorance is bliss.

But I don't think that this applies to foreign policy.

Of course, keeping Saddam in power was a bad idea, whereas helping Musharraf seems to be a very good idea, given the circumstances (nuclear arsenal, widespread islamist influence among the military and the intelligence services, strong fundamentalist sympathies among the impoverished population, the presence of islamist militants and terrorists in the country, including Osama bin Laden).

Musharraf seems to be truly reform-minded and not only willing to make peace with India over Kashmir, but also in a position to force the powerful institution of the Pakistani military to accept it.

[NNN0LHI]

8. You "know" Osama bin Laden is in Pakistan? Damn!

Really? Tell me how you know. And I hope your source for this info is not the same one that kept telling us the WMDs are right over there in Iraq. Because if they are, you can save your breath and the bandwidth. Yes, for some unfortunately, ignorance truly is bliss.

Don

[allemand]

10. So many posts and you haven't given one single argument.

Sad.

[NNN0LHI]

11. What is sad is your poor attempt at verbal gymnastics

I asked you one question:

Did you think the US keeping Saddam in power was a good decision too?

And you never did answer. You ducked and jived but you never answered. Instead you said:

"Of course, keeping Saddam in power was a bad idea.."

As you can see your answer has nothing to do with my original question. Any dope can now say that keeping Saddam in power "was" a bad idea. But my question was "did you" think keeping him in power was a good thing. As in when we the US was actually keeping him in power. Because we were being fed these same talking points by our government and media to keep Saddam in power as you are using now which try and explain why it is a good idea to keep Musharraf in power:

.."helping Musharraf seems to be a very good idea, given the circumstances (nuclear arsenal, widespread islamist influence among the military and the intelligence services, strong fundamentalist sympathies among the impoverished population, the presence of islamist militants and terrorists in the country...

Musharraf seems to be truly reform-minded and not only willing to make peace with India over Kashmir, but also in a position to force the powerful institution of the Pakistani military to accept it."

Same line of bullshit. Just a different dictator in a different country. I swear some will never learn.

I bet now you think the US financing and arming Osama bin Laden was a bad idea too, eh? The question is what did you think about it at the time when it was going on? Bet you were like most Americans and thought it was great.

Don

[allemand]

12. You are not particularly strong in presenting arguments, are you?

I can't find one concrete argument about the situation in Pakistan in your post. Obviously, you have to keep it on a very abstract level, because you don't know that much about Pakistan.

I was indeed too young to have an opinion about the US supporting Saddam at the time, but retrospectively I do think that helping him to stay in power was a very bad idea, as was US support for military dictatorships in Chile, Indonesia, or the coup against Mossadeq, etc.

However, the explosive combination of nuclear weapons and widespread support for islamists in Pakistan means that thinking about democracy in that country cannot remain on an abstract level - or you end up with an islamist government in power. The danger, simply put, is another Algeria, but this time with nuclear weapons.
Paradoxically, supporting a reform-minded Musharraf government willing to make peace with India over Kashmir may be the quickest and safest way to a complete restoration of democracy (and perhaps with a lesser degree of corruption than under Sharif and Bhutto). To be sustained, democracy needs a strong middle class, which can only be achieved through economic development. Another reason to help Pakistan economically.

Pakistan also seems to have a pretty lively press, for example from time to time I enjoy reading critical articles in The Daily Times which I don't find in the American press. This is a very healthy sign.
Of course, democracy in Pakistan should be a long term goal for US foreign policy and help for the government should include demands for upholding freedom of the press and taking further steps towards democracy.
Once we have a strong pro-democracy movement in Pakistan I will be happy to support it, but under present circumstances all we seem to have is a strong fundamentalist movement.

[NNN0LHI]

14. Your being too young to remember that period of our history explains a lot

Because if you had been around at that time there is a good chance that our government with the help of our media, would have convinced you supporting Saddam was a fine idea. Just like you think supporting Musharraf is a good idea now. You see many of us have been down this "good dictator" road before. It has never worked. What you are suggesting is that because Pakistan has nuclear weapons the Pakistani people lose the right to vote and give up on having a democracy of their own. Democracy in Pakistan? No sir. They get a dirty, stinking USA chosen dictator. And why is that? Wht its because they might vote someone in who isn't so malleable to the US position. Right? Well, I got news for you. Musharraf ain't living forever. And when he is gone which could be sooner than you think, there will be hell to pay for supporting this dictator. Just like there is now hell to pay for supporting Saddam and the Sha of Iran. The bills always come due. Usually with interest. You will see.

Don

[sweetheart]

2. the scoundrel should go down

He's no benevolent man. He's usurped from a working democratic
parliament, and he should hang at the gallows for overthrowing a
democratic system. That he is a US puppet, makes his tenure
guaranteed until we can get bush on the gallows, so this lot of
criminal dictators can swing together.

[Sara Beverley]

4. Civil war on its way. There goes the war on terror.

This man came to power in a military coup that overthrew a democratically elected government. He is our hero. Democracy has been given a really bad name by Bush and his buddies. Who needs democracy when you can have dictators who don't pretend to be anything else?

[0007]

9. Two big problems - Donald Rumsfeld is nothin' in comparison

Musharaff is a pariah only loved by junior. A leader of a nuclear nation who took his position by force. But with the War on Terror, he was suddenly thrust into the spotlight on the world's stage, because like junior he knows how to win.

Perez Musharaff rose through the ranks of the Pakistani military before becoming the Army Chief of Staff in 1998. A year later, he was Prime Minister, having toppled his predecessor in a coup. Wise man and intelligence professionals examine the dramatic transformation of Pakistan in the wake of the September 11th attack, while those who know him detail another side of the enigmatic leader.


Two peas in a pot

[Massachusetts]

13. Pervez

"Dead man walking" IMHO