on Jan. 17, in an address to pakistani parliament and the Pakistani nation 'president' Pervez Musharraf vowed to crack down on religious extremism, strive for peace with india and prove to the world that Pakistan is a responsible nuclear power. musharraf further stated that a negative image looms over pakistan and it must be changed. Musharraf stressed that pakistan could no longer tolerate a small number of extremists damaging the country internally.

obviously such an address must have received a positive response from the Pakistani parliament, right? Wrong. On the contrary, the president's vow received a chorus of jeers and even compelled many Islamic lawmakers to walk out. what in the world is going on over there!? There is absolutely no reason for any member of the pakistani parliament to oppose the call for aggressive reform. Any reasonable person, who truly abhors the practice of terrorism and longs for peace, would have met the remarks with applause. Now add to that the fact that there have already been 2 assasination attempts on musharraf's life and we start to wonder is pakistan as a country really committed to proving itself as a friend agianst extremisim.

___________________
If God is the answer, it must have been a very stupid question.

oh

It seems you either misinterpreted or were misinformed about that episode.

Musharraf was not vowed because of his plans to crack down on islamic extremists. He was vowed because that was the first time he went to parliament to speak in all his years of "presidency", and he was vowed because he is seen by the parliament as a dictator (which he really is). It has nothing to do with religious matters.

Besides, i think most of the population, or at least the parliament, felt sad because the terrorist attacks against him have failed...

quote:

Originally posted by borron It seems you either misinterpreted or were misinformed about that episode. Musharraf was not vowed because of his plans to crack down on islamic extremists. He was vowed because that was the first time he went to parliament to speak in all his years of "presidency", and he was vowed because he is seen by the parliament as a dictator (which he really is). It has nothing to do with religious matters. Besides, i think most of the population, or at least the parliament, felt sad because the terrorist attacks against him have failed...

That may be the case but these are the same individuals that are mad that the government fired the scientist who created the nuke for Pakistan, mind you he was selling off nuclear info to Iran, Libya, North Korea aka proliferating the nuclear weapons technology for profit and yet these people believe a grave injustice has been done by Musharraf. Accusing him of course of bowing to American pressure, fully failing to realise that the IAEA also recognized what Mr. Khan was doing. Some people will always spew venom and hate no matter what the conditions.

I was India I would be very worried when Musharraf is gone from power, considering that by taking a responsible action in dealing with this scientist he is being attacked by his own people as a traitor, I do not even want to know what comes after Musharraf is gone.

___________________
Trance = Heart, Mind, Body and Soul all in 1

Current fav. Global Experience = Madras

quote:

Originally posted by borron It seems you either misinterpreted or were misinformed about that episode. Musharraf was not vowed because of his plans to crack down on islamic extremists. He was vowed because that was the first time he went to parliament to speak in all his years of "presidency", and he was vowed because he is seen by the parliament as a dictator (which he really is). It has nothing to do with religious matters. Besides, i think most of the population, or at least the parliament, felt sad because the terrorist attacks against him have failed...

what NYCtrancefan said is true, and i also agree with you that musharraf himself it not the most trustable person, nor a rightful president. infact musharraf is now being accused of being in the know about the whole nuclear affiars (which would be quite naive to assume otherwise)

Musharraf named in Nuclear Probe

furthermore yes i knew it was Musharrafs first address to parilment however am of the opinion that the geers and heckles were agianst his policies rather then him as leader. The policies Musharraf wishes to set would reform pakistan away from extremism, what other conclusion could you come to?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/3404375.stm

___________________
If God is the answer, it must have been a very stupid question.

Musharaf should remain in power because at this moment if elections were held the candidate with the most anti-American, pro-extrmisim platform would win hands down.

I support what Musharaf is doing. My gripe against him and other politicians from that region is that they wait too long and, more often than not, wait to be pressured by the U.S. to do what they had to do in the first place.

Pakistan is finally on the right road to peace with India thanks to Musharaf, the economy is relatively stable and needless religious extremism is being rooted out.

Its funny how groups comdemn dictatorships (Musharaf in my mind is the least evil of dictators I've ever heard of) but when a people put a violent government into power that is not saved of criticism either. Or when war breaks out because of said government that is also condemned. All this "condemnation" and not enough practice.

As far as I am concerned, Musharaf should remain in control over any government that is voted to power by the masses. You need a cool head on heated shoulders and he is as cold as they come.

quote:

Originally posted by Izzy what NYCtrancefan said is true, and i also agree with you that musharraf himself it not the most trustable person, nor a rightful president.

and who is so "trustable" these days? as for rightful president see above.

You people really are of double standards. Musharraf may be a soft dictator, but he still is one. Saying that it is preferable that such a guy be in power than a elected government... how can you say that? If a government is elected, than it's because the people chose it. It's not about what it's better for you, but what the people want.

It's the same thing as saying that Saddam Hussein should had remained in power, as it was the only thing that kept Iraq in place (although i agree musharaff is much less evil).

If the pakistani people want the extremist in power, let them have it. You have nothing to do with it, and democracy is not about what the israeli or american people want or think, but what the people in that specific country want.

Musharaff may be doing a fine work in cleaning the country of extremists, but don't think that's because he wants to satisfy his american ally. That's because he's now the target of those extremists.
And he is still a dictator, and i'm pretty sure most people don't like them, as i can be seen by the constant demostrations.

How about taking that into account, instead of what makes you feel safer?

quote:

Originally posted by borron You people really are of double standards. Musharraf may be a soft dictator, but he still is one. Saying that it is preferable that such a guy be in power than a elected government... how can you say that? If a government is elected, than it's because the people chose it. It's not about what it's better for you, but what the people want. It's the same thing as saying that Saddam Hussein should had remained in power, as it was the only thing that kept Iraq in place (although i agree musharaff is much less evil). If the pakistani people want the extremist in power, let them have it. You have nothing to do with it, and democracy is not about what the israeli or american people want or think, but what the people in that specific country want.

An improper direct democracy can be almost as dangerous as a hostile dictatorship. I would like to provide one example that comes to mind but I don't want to godwin myself . But let's just say that the rule of the majority is not always inherentely a good thing.

Edit: that doesn't necessarily give foreigners the right to overthrow that government (unless a direct threat is posed), but it does allow us to judge which government in power is preferable given the fact that one of them may not be a democracy.

___________________
Retro ...

quote:

Originally posted by borron You have nothing to do with it, and democracy is not about what the israeli or american people want or think, but what the people in that specific country want.

I am Pakistani
and trust me if it seems that many people dont like him in Pakistan, the vast majority of the educated population accepts that he is a better alternative than a hostile government.

Its about high time that we washed the country from the inside out and if takes a dictatorship to get the job done then so be it.