Musharraf Spilling the Beans—Why Now?

bulleya writes <<< had musharraf left after three years, i think new political faces would have come up......however, pakistan is now set for another of its historical cycles:

- military ruler overstays welcome......gets country to the point of polarization (baluchistan, waziristan).......puts army into everything.......gets far too close to usa for his own good and good of pakistan.......people get fed up with this....>>>

The cause of this cycle and why it continues is the abnormally overdeveloped nature of the Pakistan military institution, an institution that serves externals, compared to the political. If they are allowed to meddle in political affairs, and if the country does the bidding of external moreso than its own affairs, this cycle will continue until an external literally takes over. Any support for musharraf, short or long term is thus not justified.

Re: # 110

Respected Masadi Sahib,

You are fantastic... Hats off to you... You actually and sincerely believe that Pakistan should continue to cok a snook at the rest of the world, refuse to cooperate in the war on terror and continue to give shelter to Jihadis, Dawoods & Osamas. The training camps for terrorists, in your opinion should not be dismantled. The Pakistan army should not go for Osama & Co again, in your opinion.

And your opinion is simply based on the belief that doing any of the above would amount to (or has already amounted to) complete capitulation before the US. After all the sovereign state theory, according to you, would mean a per se & complete rejection of all US & International demands.

Get real man. Open your eyes to the world around you. Read TIME, CNN, Herald Tribune, New York Times or whatever is available wherever you live. Watch international TV.

How can you crib when at long last Pakistan appears to be doing something to combat terrorism?? Whether it is a genuine change of heart or due to solid arm twisting by the US is not so relevant. What matters is that something is being done. The world expects much more from Pakistan. A complete turnaround on support to terrorism.. nothing less.

And what are the options. A ``sovereign nation state`` can refuse to take any action against the terrorists on its soil. What will happen then?? You think the rest of the world(US) would watch silently and wring its hands in frustration. It will not be ``hot pursuit``. It would be a full scale invasion and ``back to the stone age``.

And that is why, Musharraf is the best bet Pakistan has at the moment...

PM (#91) is not a dimwit. If you cannot rebut arguments rationally and logically then abuse appears to be the only recourse available to you. Please desist.



And after all...


Open your eyes. Please open your eyes.

#112 by bulleya on September 27, 2006 8:07pm PT


people get fed up with this


The paki people have their own Islamist frustrations..On one hand, pakis, even seemingly moderate ones like Ayaz Amir, harbor this secret desite would like to emulate the hezbollah and take a stand for Islam..on the other hand, they don`t have the balls..

It`s like a horny man with ED..that`s the source of the paki public`s frustration...

OTOH, the amazing ability of pakis to delude themselves also plays a large part..Against all logic, reason and facts, pakis first convinced themselves that they had willingly signed on the war on terror like Britain...why, some pakis even dreamed of personally joining the US led war on afghanistan and had dreams of wearing t-shirts with paki flags in the hopes that Americans would be tripping over themselves to thank every paki they met in the street...

Then they ran smack into the wall of reality...

Reality is the female of the canine species..

#83
Eent se eent bajana - reduce to rubble.

Respected Masadi Sahib,

You are fantastic... Hats off to you... You actually and sincerely believe that Pakistan should continue to cok a snook at the rest of the world, refuse to cooperate in the war on terror and continue to give shelter to Jihadis, Dawoods & Osamas. The training camps for terrorists, in your opinion should not be dismantled. The Pakistan army should not go for Osama & Co again, in your opinion.

And your opinion is simply based on the belief that doing any of the above would amount to (or has already amounted to) complete capitulation before the US. After all the sovereign state theory, according to you, would mean a per se & complete rejection of all US & International demands.

Get real man. Open your eyes to the world around you. Read TIME, CNN, Herald Tribune, New York Times or whatever is available wherever you live. Watch international TV.

How can you crib when at long last Pakistan appears to be doing something to combat terrorism?? Whether it is a genuine change of heart or due to solid arm twisting by the US is not so relevant. What matters is that something is being done. The world expects much more from Pakistan. A complete turnaround on support to terrorism.. nothing less.

And what are the options. A ``sovereign nation state`` can refuse to take any action against the terrorists on its soil. What will happen then?? You think the rest of the world(US) would watch silently and wring its hands in frustration. It will not be ``hot pursuit``. It would be a full scale invasion and ``back to the stone age``.

And that is why, Musharraf is the best bet Pakistan has at the moment...

PM (#91) is not a dimwit. If you cannot rebut arguments rationally and logically then abuse appears to be the only recourse available to you. Please desist.



And after all...


Open your eyes. Please open your eyes.

#110 by masadi on September 27, 2006 7:27pm PT


or that of Cuba, which has said NO to the US on several occassions.


Yes..you`re right, comrade masadi..Cuba is the the country to emulate..cuba is what Pakiland should aspire to be...

However, Cubans only have to ride an inner tube for 90 miles or so to escape to the US..it`s going to be a very very long trip from Pakiland..

Here` s the beginning of AP`s newsy:
President Bush jokes that he`ll study the body language of Afghan President Hamid Karzai and Pakistani President Gen. Pervez Musharraf at the dinner table on Wednesday to see how far their relationship has frayed.


Bush to referee Karzai, Musharraf dinner. WHAT`S REALLY GONNA HAPPEN?
Here is what happened!

Bush: Perv, Hambone, how ya been?

Musharraf & Karzai (together): In Allah`s name, stop calling me that.

Bush: Can`t you Ayrabs take some Texas-style--

Musharraf: We`re not Ay-, oh just shut up.

Karzai: Yeah, I`ve got more important problems, like what my deal is when I lose. The bank account, the Miami real estate--

Musharraf: That`s not urgent--urgent is assassination--

Karzai: There hasn`t been an attempt in 6 months on you. You want assassinations, come to Afghanistan. Assassinators coming from YOUR country, by the--

Bush: Whoah fellahs, good buddies, no need to argue about which of you is sacrificing more in my democracy crusade over there.

Karzai: Yeah, democracy, then why doesn`t your puppet over there have to get elected like I did? Look at this lame outfit I have to wear, pretending I`m not a US businessman. Why doesn`t Pervy have to--

Musharraf: Cuz I have a real country to rule and the U.S. couldn`t force a result like they did over in Afghan. And I`m not a puppet; look in the mirror, Hammy!

Bush: Ah shucks, there ya go again, fellahs, let`s not let --

Karzai: And you, ya damn shrub, why can`t I get my hands on 150,000 troops and $1 Billion a week like you spend over in Iraq? Me, my family, and my relations could really get something going with that kind of support. Like, for a democracy-building crusade and, whatever.

Musharraf: Hambone, you and your government can`t even transport your asses safely out of Kabul, why should Uncle Money bucks here give you anything? At least I rule most of my country, except for that border area, where we`ve had a few problems.

Karzai: Like the Taliban and Al Queda taking over and you making a peace treaty with them? Like Bin Laden making it his headquarters and you not doing a damn thing about it? Does that justify shrub`s hundreds of millions in military aid? You need to--

Bush: Now you don`t need to carry the ball for me on this one, Ham, only in your own country. I do have a few problems with Perv, I mean PerVEZ, but all in all I think he`s doing a heckuva job.

Musharraf: Thanks shrub, and we`ll keep turning over lots of `Al Queda` guys, whenever you want. How `bout late October? Just keep the money flowing to the numbered accounts.

More from the AP report:

For months, Karzai and Musharraf have been trading barbs and criticizing each other`s efforts to fight terrorists along their long, remote, mountainous border.

Afghan officials allege that Pakistan is letting Taliban militants hide out and launch attacks into Afghanistan. Pakistan bristles at such charges.


Karzai said Omar is ``for sure`` in Pakistan. Musharraf says he`s in Afghanistan.

``Where`s that Bin Laden? Not under here! (Musharraf or Karzai looks under the banquet hall table) Is he over there? Nope.``

Karzai said his government has not stopped the Taliban from committing acts of terrorism because of the country`s police and military structures have been weakened from years of war. Afghanistan would be ``heaven in less than a year`` if it received the $300 billion the United States had spent in Iraq, Karzai says.

Bush feels it`s better to have half an ally in Pakistan in the form of Musharraf than none at all,`` said Husain Haqqani, director of the center for international relations at Boston University and a former adviser to several Pakistani prime ministers.

``Karzai will probably be told to tone down his rhetoric against Pakistan,`` he said. ``But, in the end, will it really change the one-the-ground situation? I don`t think so.``

#62 by zeemax

Only thing is they were right in your case but wrong in Pak`s case because Pak has not turned in UBL or Zawahir in for $25 mio each.

WRONG..because in India`s case, you only have the CIA version, where as in your case, Mushy has actually confirmed what the US attorney general said: that the CIA paid millions of dollars for the Al Qaeda operatives turned over. Got it?

Some comments since #83.

1) I see chowk-staff filtering a lot of my posts while taking no action re offensive nicks.

2) Re Turkey, I still haven`t seen a single good reason how Turkey could say NO while Pak couldn`t. One post tries to argue that Turkey`s refusal was not critical to US success but Pak`s airspace was critical. That`s a load of crap. Pak had allowed use of its airspace to Clinton`s cruise missiles in 1998 and would have done the same this time as well. Sharing of intelligence etc also was no big deal. The only extra thing that Pak did was to provide logistical support on its territory i.e. bases in Jacobabad etc. and this extra thing was hardly `critical` to US success for which Pak would have been invaded by US.

The demand on Turkey, however, was not to open a second front (because none was needed as Kurds were not going to fight US) but rather for logistical reasons. Turkey`s refusal forced US to truck supplies through not only hostile enemy territory but over an extremely harsh desert all the way from Kuwait, resulting in plenty of hardship for them as well as significantly more casualties. If there was any reason for US to bomb either Pak or Turkey, it was Turkey which provided a better reason. But US backed off.

3) Sadna has an excellent point in saying ``Musharraf`s tour in the US virtually announces his second U-turn wrt the Taliban.``. This is a rare occasion when her perception is correct. As bbabu made the dumb statement ``The problem is that you will have a hard time defining ``our best interests``, he should find the answer in Sadna`s discovery.

Pakistan`s `best` interest lies in Taliban control of Afghanistan, and Musharraf has now realized that contrary to all efforts, Taliban will retake Kabul the moment foreign forces leave. Therefore Musharraf is getting on the right side of Taliban once again. BTW, a tribal sardar of N. Waziristan has stated that the recent agreement was cleared by no other than Mulla Omar himself. So a lot of posters here do not know their ass from their elbow!

``Musharaff-nama`` is nothing but a hollow attempt at justifying the crimes that the dictator has committed in his past. It is like a terrorist justifying himself by pointing fingers towards everybody else but himself. It is like a criminal and a murderer giving his alibi before the court of law and trying to condone his crime in his own eyes by referring to the great injustices that the system has done to him since he was born.
The criminal of Kargil and the countless terrorist attacks on India should be tried as an ordinary criminal and the copies of his books should be burnt in protest by every Indian!!

why are the best and or most charming leaders of Pakistan from India?

from India

(a) Jinnah, and the few after him
(b ) Zulfi Bhutto
(c) Zia-ul-Haq
(d) Musharaff

from Pakistan
(1) BB
(2 )Nawaz
(3) Ayub
(4)Yahya Khan
(4)few others we can forget

The ones from India did Pakistan proud. The others are just robbers and hoodlums and thugs.

What is it that India did for these guys that they do well?

#122 by queen_cut&paste

why are the best and or most charming leaders of Pakistan from India?

Let me be the devil`s advocate here. All the leaders born in India have brought violence and untold misery to Pakistan. Jinnah was responsible for Partition and the accompanying violence, Zulfi Bhutto for brutally suppressing the first Baluch rebellion in the 70s and the excommunication of Ahmadis from the Islamic fold, Zia ul Haq for hanging ZAB and the Islamization of Pakistan, and Musharraf for Kargil and the present ops in Waziristan and Baluchistan.

OTOH, except for Yahya Khan for Bangladesh and BB during whose tenure Karachi witnessed bloodshed, none of the leaders born in Pakistan can be accused of bloodletting. Corruption yes, but violence, a resounding NO.

#123 harish_dakhani stop throwing your monkeys with a wrench!

Macacus will do for now!

arjun:

looks like your comments carry extra sarcasm with your new handle.. :-)

What is your guess about the reaction of folks here if some other general overthrows Musharaff.. Already we hear that military generals should change after 3 years of ruling.... etc..

#125 by masanamuthu

What is your guess about the reaction of folks here if some other general overthrows Musharaff..

Past experience says that Pakis will welcome anyone who overthrows Musharraf. After all, not too long ago (7 years to be precise), the average Abduls were jumping with joy when Mushy overthrew Nawaz Sharif. Even many Chowkies saw him as the saviour who would deliver them from authoritarianism.

Already we hear that military generals should change after 3 years of ruling.... etc..

To modify that old saying that great soldiers never die, they just fade away - dictators never change, they just are either overthrown or assassinated.

Re: # 125 But consider who said it. Romair said it! Now I am surprised that you lend so much weight to the Romair!