| Author |
|
~~Snake~~
TWL Member
|
| 08-18-2008 01:51 PM / profile
|
|
Originally posted by: T. Wrecks
I get that. And I don't necessarily disagree with your points. But from a practical and realistic angle -and not a philosophical standpoint- he was the best possible candidate we could have had in there.
There are 2 people who have led this insurrection that are likely candidates for the Presidency:
Nawaz Sharif & Asif Ali Zardari
Sharif tried to kill Musharraf and a planeload of civilians. He was convicted on corruption and terrorism charges and, legally, isn't allowed to even be IN Pakistan. He is corrupt, weak, and has a demonstrable history of making bad decisions under pressure and then blaming everyone but himself. He can't stick to any platform, but is continually morphing his platform just to make sure he stays popular. Sharif was known for selling cabinet and ministerial positions to friends and business associates, and allowing them access to government funds and benefits. Plus, he ran Pakistan's economy into the ground the last time he ran the country.
Zardari is Benazir Bhutto's widower. He is a world class scumbag. Zardari strapped a bomb to a guy in 1990 and forced him to empty his bank account or be blown up. He forced a 10% levy on every business that he could find and, when his wife was PM, he emptied more than 5 BILLION rupees from government accounts. Thats tens of millions of dollars. Plus, over the years hes been implicated in several murder cases. Not one, not two, but several...as in 3 or more. And we aren't talking about some oblique association to someone who knew someone who might have killed someone. We're talking either 'hands on' or 'paid a thug to do it'. Too many witness either get killed or have family members get raped, so he's not been convicted.
These guys are not better alternatives than Musharraf. I see no reason to rejoice.
Twrecks. The left doesnt care. All they hear is dictator and assume that because he had a relationship with Bush that is bad. The are simple minded in their thinking. They probably know nothing of how Musharraf came to power, know nothing about the political landscape and know NOTHING about the risks that have now just escalated by Musharraff stepping down.
Post edited by ~~Snake~~ at 8/18/2008 1:51:12 PM
|
|
T. Wrecks
TeamWarfare Vet
Retired Sr. Staff
|
| 08-18-2008 02:00 PM / profile
|
|
The Left may not care, but Cobalt & DF aren't the collective 'Left'. Hell, I think they're Independents... I'm the damn Democrat here. Plus, both C & DF have the capacity for independent and rational thought. They CAN understand issues and make logical and reasonable conclusions, and that is how I am appealing to them.
In a perfect world, there wouldn't be wars, Taliban, terrorism, militaries, and dictators. They may not like Musharraf -he was a heavy handed dictator- but they should be able to see that this isn't the perfect world. And we have to deal with the heads of state that are in place, for good or for ill, and that the alternatives for Musharraf are much worse for us, the region, and Pakistan itself.
|
|
[-NM-] -SS-
TeamWarfare Vet
|
| 08-18-2008 02:04 PM / profile
|
|
I dont see any "good alternatives" to him stepping down. If anything, I see a rise in recruiting and less policing of the NWF region of Pakistan and more corruption in the next "administration".
Ugh.
|
|
T. Wrecks
TeamWarfare Vet
Retired Sr. Staff
|
| 08-18-2008 02:07 PM / profile
|
|
Originally posted by: [-NM-] -SS-
I see a rise in recruiting and less policing of the NWF region of Pakistan and more corruption in the next "administration".
I agree wholeheartedly.
|
|
~~Snake~~
TWL Member
|
| 08-18-2008 02:07 PM / profile
|
|
Originally posted by: T. Wrecks
The Left may not care, but Cobalt & DF aren't the collective 'Left'. Hell, I think they're Independents... I'm the damn Democrat here. Plus, both C & DF have the capacity for independent and rational thought. They CAN understand issues and make logical and reasonable conclusions, and that is how I am appealing to them.
In a perfect world, there wouldn't be wars, Taliban, terrorism, militaries, and dictators. They may not like Musharraf -he was a heavy handed dictator- but they should be able to see that this isn't the perfect world. And we have to deal with the heads of state that are in place, for good or for ill, and that the alternatives for Musharraf are much worse for us, the region, and Pakistan itself.
I would disagree they are independents. But that aside the problems in Pakistan are gonna escalate now. Sharif is kicking up the anti-west rhetoric. While you are correct he is a corrupt politician it worries me he is appealing to the radical elements in his country.
I also worry the Madrass will reopen in full force churning out anti-western idiots again on a large scale. India's tension levels are certainly rising as well which will create more issues in the months ahead.
Who do you forsee taking over as well? And do you think the military machine over there will back either candidate or simply stay in the shadows?
|
|
T. Wrecks
TeamWarfare Vet
Retired Sr. Staff
|
| 08-18-2008 02:18 PM / profile
|
|
Originally posted by: ~~Snake~~
Who do you forsee taking over as well? And do you think the military machine over there will back either candidate or simply stay in the shadows?
For the moment there will be an Caretaker President. There will be elections and my money is on Nawaz Sharif and/or Asif Ali Zardari, we'll call that the Scumbag Ticket. Theres really no other realistic candidates.
The military....sad to say, to placate his opponents, Musharraf promoted officers whose loyalties lay with people other than him. The Army Chief of Staff is a loyal Pakistani, but wasn't one of those who worshiped Musharraf. He has worked to keep the Army out of politics (normally a good thing) but the military endorsement has historically played a key role in that nation's politics.
EDIT-
The Army Chief of Staff is General Ashfaq Kayani. He comes from a poor family and was the son of a junior officer. He was worked his way up on the merit of his service with no important patron holding his hand. Kayani has often butted heads with Musharraf, for decades now, but he is a sincere and dedicated military officer, and highly decorated for valor. This 'noble prince' was schooled in Pakistan and the US, smokes Camels, drinks Chivas, and has an 18 golf handicap.
I see no Pro-Musharraf military coup in Pakistan's future, but if things go awry, we could do worse than Kayani.
Post edited by T. Wrecks at 8/18/2008 2:32:21 PM
|
|
~~Snake~~
TWL Member
|
| 08-18-2008 02:35 PM / profile
|
|
|
Appreciate the insight. What about the Madrass? Do you see a resurgence of them like they had before? That is a big worry of mine.
|
|
T. Wrecks
TeamWarfare Vet
Retired Sr. Staff
|
| 08-18-2008 03:02 PM / profile
|
|
Pakistani madrassas aren't the big issue that you think they are. At the moment, there are something like 1,900 of them in Pakistan.
Musharraf forced the closure of some of the ones churning out pro-Taliban Islamists, primarily extremely militant Deobandi ones around Peshawar, Karachi, and Islamabad. However, they just relocated to the FATA and the NWFP, where 150 new extremist madrassas have opened in the last 3 years.
EDIT- Update: I just looked it up, there are more than 10,000 madrassas operating in Pakistan.
Post edited by T. Wrecks at 8/18/2008 3:31:30 PM
|
|
Abaques
TeamWarfare Vet
|
| 08-18-2008 03:09 PM / profile
|
|
I wonder what India think about all of this?
I must admit I simply don't know how the Indian government viewed Musharrif nor any of his rivals. What I really hope is that whomever takes over Pakistan doesn't decide to drum up a confrontation with India in an attempt to build up some support.
|
|
T. Wrecks
TeamWarfare Vet
Retired Sr. Staff
|
| 08-18-2008 03:12 PM / profile
|
|
I'd bet that they are quite unhappy. Musharraf was the first one to somewhat normalize relations with India. He secured the nuclear weapons, he apologized for the Kargil War, returned territory, & cracked down on the Kashmiri Muslims who attacked Indian interests. There has been a 4 year set of peace talks between the 2 nations, and this may turn the clock back on relations.
From what I've seen and read, Sharif and Bhutto's widower are not viewed as being good for India. They both have historically contributed to corruption and the destabilization of the region.
http://www.voanews.com/english/2008-08-18-voa25.cfm
Post edited by T. Wrecks at 8/18/2008 3:32:55 PM
|
|
T. Wrecks
TeamWarfare Vet
Retired Sr. Staff
|
| 08-18-2008 03:51 PM / profile
|
|
Oh, and I did a search of some known al Qaeda websites (nothing the 'powers that be' don't already know about, and even then, still through several proxies). Here are some comments from writers and readers about Musharraf's resignation:
Musharraf has officially resigned as President of Pakistan due to the pressure of impeachment!!!!!
This is excellent news for the Mujaahideen specifically.
The funny thing is that the United States will not grant political asylum to this Murtad (apostate)! They won’t grant asylum to their own puppet!
Their allies deceived them like Satan, when he says to man: “Disbelieve in Allah.” But when man disbelieves in Allah, Satan says: “I am free of you, I fear Allah, the Lord of the all mankind, jinns and all that exists!” (Al-Hashr 59:16)
This should serve as a warning to all of the other “Muslim” rulers who think they stand to benefit from aiding the Americans.
Truly, Allah is humiliating this man and his humiliation will continue.
Alhamdullilaah (praise be to Allah), Bhutto is gone and now Musharraf is out.
May the curse of Allah be upon this Murtad (apostate) tyrant wherever he goes.
May Allah destroy his end and make his life miserable.
May Allah allow the Mujaahideen to establish the Shari’ah all throughout Pakistan.
...
|
|
~~Snake~~
TWL Member
|
| 08-18-2008 04:13 PM / profile
|
|
Originally posted by: T. Wrecks
I'd bet that they are quite unhappy. Musharraf was the first one to somewhat normalize relations with India. He secured the nuclear weapons, he apologized for the Kargil War, returned territory, & cracked down on the Kashmiri Muslims who attacked Indian interests. There has been a 4 year set of peace talks between the 2 nations, and this may turn the clock back on relations.
From what I've seen and read, Sharif and Bhutto's widower are not viewed as being good for India. They both have historically contributed to corruption and the destabilization of the region.
http://www.voanews.com/english/2008-08-18-voa25.cfm
That is a good assessment and how I see it as well. Again which is why I have defended Musharrafs position over the years. I don't think people in the US were aware of how close India and Pakistan almost went to war.
|
|
T. Wrecks
TeamWarfare Vet
Retired Sr. Staff
|
| 08-18-2008 04:32 PM / profile
|
|
There is some GOOD news from Pakistan today:
Kashmir Khan is dead.
He was the military chief of the HiG, a Taliban allied Islamist militant/political group allied to Gulbuddin Hekmatyar. Hekmatyar is a long time friend of bin Laden, and Khan was his Deputy and second in command. Khan's ties to Hekmatyar, and by association also to bin Laden, meant that he could do as he pleased without interference from anyone except Hekmatyar. This nasty bastard was a veteran mujahideen and a strong proponent of using militants against civilian targets.
This guy was so brutal that even the Taliban did not try to exert any control over him. In 2002, a Taliban chief appointed by Mullah Omar went to ask Khan to pledge his allegience solely to Omar.
Khan sent the representative's hand back. Only his hand. In a box. To Mullah frigging Omar. You know you're a badass when...
Post edited by T. Wrecks at 8/18/2008 4:37:34 PM
|
|
DirtyMitten
KERRPOW!
TeamWarfare Vet
TWL Contributor
|
| 08-18-2008 04:52 PM / profile
|
|
Originally posted by: ~~Snake~~
I would disagree they are independents.
Of course you would..
|
|
~~Snake~~
TWL Member
|
| 08-18-2008 05:24 PM / profile
|
|
|
Kashmir! Now that Musharraf is stepping down what are the chances the militants are gonna hit the area hard with terrorism? Im thinking a major terrorist operations in the next few weeks in the area.
|
|
-EB- Bluedoctor
TeamWarfare Vet
|
| 08-18-2008 06:46 PM / profile
|
|
Originally posted by: ~~Snake~~
Originally posted by: T. Wrecks
I'd bet that they are quite unhappy. Musharraf was the first one to somewhat normalize relations with India. He secured the nuclear weapons, he apologized for the Kargil War, returned territory, & cracked down on the Kashmiri Muslims who attacked Indian interests. There has been a 4 year set of peace talks between the 2 nations, and this may turn the clock back on relations.
From what I've seen and read, Sharif and Bhutto's widower are not viewed as being good for India. They both have historically contributed to corruption and the destabilization of the region.
http://www.voanews.com/english/2008-08-18-voa25.cfm
That is a good assessment and how I see it as well. Again which is why I have defended Musharrafs position over the years. I don't think people in the US were aware of how close India and Pakistan almost went to war. Frankly I'm no expert. But I too am worried about Musharraf stepping down. Whether its Musharraf, Bhutto, Sharif, or Zardari India will always be under threat from Islamic fundamentalists. So that's a constant but the frequency is what's different.
Musharraf at least had the luxury of being a dictator of Pakistan and therefore he didn't give a shit what his people thought and only did what he thought was best in terms of strategy.
What worries me is a far radical government seizing power in Pakistan and firing nukes at will--at the US forces in the region, Afghanistan, or India's cities and military bases. As I said, regardless of the three T. Wrecks mentions, Sharif, Zardari, or that General guy, India will be under threat from terrorists.
Pakistan has been supporting terrorist attacks in Kashmir alone for the last 20 years. As far as I recall, Sharif believes in making India into a muslim nation (by forced conversion); Bhutto/Zardari believe(d) in balkanizing India and then conquering the pieces one at a time (see their instigation in Kashmir), and Musharraf was just somewhere in between.
And yes India and Pakistan have been very close to war many times in the past 10 years. Since I am of Indian background take my opinions with a grain of salt, but I blame Pakistan very much. They send their soldiers in plain clothes to do bombing inside Indian borders. Indian government offices have gotten bombed. If this were happening to the United States, war would have not only been declared but there already would have been a full invasion. Pakistan is very lucky they have nuclear weapons as a deterrant b/c if they didn't have them, Islamabad would be Indian territory right now.
|
|
-EB- Bluedoctor
TeamWarfare Vet
|
| 08-18-2008 06:52 PM / profile
|
|
Originally posted by: ~~Snake~~
Kashmir! Now that Musharraf is stepping down what are the chances the militants are gonna hit the area hard with terrorism? Im thinking a major terrorist operations in the next few weeks in the area. When Musharraf was in charge terrorism had not stopped. When Musharraf was in command of the military they were conducting terrorism in Kashmir so Musharraf was not the person who would put an end to them.
As I allege in my previous post, Pakistan's goal is the balkanization of India and the mass conversion of its people. I don't know of any major leader in that country who wants to normalize relations and make amends. If there is, I very much wish that the people of Pakistan wisen up and realize that peace with India will not be achieved as long as their government is sponsoring the murder of Indian citizens.
On one hand Pakistan indirectly directs terrorism in Kashmir and on the other they go to the UN and cry foul and demand a referendum for independence. What assholes.
|
|
~~Snake~~
TWL Member
|
| 08-18-2008 07:56 PM / profile
|
|
Originally posted by: -EB- Bluedoctor
Originally posted by: ~~Snake~~
Kashmir! Now that Musharraf is stepping down what are the chances the militants are gonna hit the area hard with terrorism? Im thinking a major terrorist operations in the next few weeks in the area. When Musharraf was in charge terrorism had not stopped. When Musharraf was in command of the military they were conducting terrorism in Kashmir so Musharraf was not the person who would put an end to them.
As I allege in my previous post, Pakistan's goal is the balkanization of India and the mass conversion of its people. I don't know of any major leader in that country who wants to normalize relations and make amends. If there is, I very much wish that the people of Pakistan wisen up and realize that peace with India will not be achieved as long as their government is sponsoring the murder of Indian citizens.
On one hand Pakistan indirectly directs terrorism in Kashmir and on the other they go to the UN and cry foul and demand a referendum for independence. What assholes. Blue you must at least admit he was still more comitted towards peace than the two groups Twrecks has mentioned. He shut down a ton of madrass training people to hate india and the west, he secured the nukes and more! JSo while he was far from what is perfect he still IMO is a better choice than the current alternatives
|
|
-EB- Bluedoctor
TeamWarfare Vet
|
| 08-18-2008 08:24 PM / profile
|
|
Originally posted by: ~~Snake~~
Originally posted by: -EB- Bluedoctor
Originally posted by: ~~Snake~~
Kashmir! Now that Musharraf is stepping down what are the chances the militants are gonna hit the area hard with terrorism? Im thinking a major terrorist operations in the next few weeks in the area. When Musharraf was in charge terrorism had not stopped. When Musharraf was in command of the military they were conducting terrorism in Kashmir so Musharraf was not the person who would put an end to them.
As I allege in my previous post, Pakistan's goal is the balkanization of India and the mass conversion of its people. I don't know of any major leader in that country who wants to normalize relations and make amends. If there is, I very much wish that the people of Pakistan wisen up and realize that peace with India will not be achieved as long as their government is sponsoring the murder of Indian citizens.
On one hand Pakistan indirectly directs terrorism in Kashmir and on the other they go to the UN and cry foul and demand a referendum for independence. What assholes. Blue you must at least admit he was still more comitted towards peace than the two groups Twrecks has mentioned. He shut down a ton of madrass training people to hate india and the west, he secured the nukes and more! JSo while he was far from what is perfect he still IMO is a better choice than the current alternatives Yes I will admit that Musharraf did make overtures to the Indian government for a peace process that would allow commerce between the two countries. However Musharraf was not guilt-free when it came to the problems in Kashmir. If he was truly all for peace more would have been done on his part.
Part of the reason he was mending relations with India was b/c of pressure from Washington. It was more of an effort to build political capital with the UN and the US. In addition, Musharraf also intended that a peace treaty could end some of the extremism raging within his own country.
Musharraf's position was that India give up Kashmir which would be jointly manned by Indian and Pakistani military. In the interests of peace it is worth talking but as a practical matter his idea would have further destabilized the region.
Just as the border with Pakistan and Afghanistan are porous, so is the border of Pakistan with Kashmir porous. Pakistan makes no concerted attempt to clamp down on the border even though they could if they tried. Just as terrorists and Taliban cross into Afghanistan to attack the US and NATO so too do terrorists and Pakistani operatives cross into India to wage their clandestine war upon India. It is a very frustrating situation.
Post edited by -EB- Bluedoctor at 8/18/2008 8:35:20 PM
|
|
-EB- Bluedoctor
TeamWarfare Vet
|
| 08-19-2008 06:32 AM / profile
|
|
|
To be clear, yeah Musharraf was "better" than some of these others that are in line to succeed him are probably going to be. But Musharraf was no saint either. He might have been hated by some extremist groups in his own country but he still allowed them to operate as long as it wasn't against the Pakistani people. If those terror groups went elsewhere to instigate, he wasn't about to do a crackdown on them to stop it. That's just how I see it. I might very well be wrong.
|
|
| New Thread / Reply to Thread |
|
