Surviving Musharraf's Exit?

#66 Posted by masadi on March 31, 2008 10:32:44 am

tahmed writes "buzz off masadi."

Go to hell dimwit

#67 Posted by Look on March 31, 2008 10:33:10 am

#52
Tahmed32 Sahib,

It could very well be. But have you thouhgt of another, more sinister explaination: He fought extremists as much as he could, always kéeping in mind the bitter truth of how many sympathizers they have within the forces and security agencies? I am saying this while keeping in mind that 10 billion doesn't go far enough for a country of 170 mil.

Unlike many Indians who think that this 10 billion brought about Pakistan's 8% growth rates, I think this growth rate was due to economic activities by Pakistanis themselves.

#68 Posted by tahmed32 on March 31, 2008 10:33:10 am

#60 ijazgul: where did you read this?

#69 Posted by masadi on March 31, 2008 10:35:00 am

HP: By the way the Argentinian military

should read in #61

HP: By the way the Chilean military

"undmandated" should read "unmandated"

I think its time for bed...

"Go to hell dimwit" will be read exactly right as "Go to hell tahmed"

g'night

#70 Posted by ijaz_gul on March 31, 2008 10:35:40 am

Re: # 68
I did not read it. I heard it with my own ears.

#71 Posted by HP on March 31, 2008 10:38:46 am

Asadi,

Allende won only 36% of votes in a three way contest. Chile's assembly which was dominated by the moderates not socialist voted Allende to be the President after signing a pact that he will not make fundamental changes w/o the assembly consent.
He really had no mandate. The assembly could have asked for re-elections.

Allende was active in Chile for a long time and he contested several Presidential elections before the one held in 1970 w/o success.
Please re-read that history. Allende's socialism was not different than the Bhutto Socialism. Incidentally, he made roti kapra and makaan solgan(in chilean) popular before Bhutto.

Are you listening to Aitazaz, Tahemd? He is saying what I wrote in my posts.

#72 Posted by tahmed32 on March 31, 2008 10:40:44 am

#67 Look: no doubt zia had brought up a lot of "maulvi officers" in the military - but they had been perceived as a problem by succeeding cincs, and quietly weeded out of key position through attrition (retirements etc.) in the decade before mush took power.

no doubt pakistan had good growth past 10 years - but that is no justification for attacking the fundamentals of the state. that is like painting the decks of the ship while blowing a hole on the side. and also, much of the progress was due to global trends - increased remittances and so forth.

#73 Posted by tahmed32 on March 31, 2008 10:41:41 am

HP: I got aitezaz on, but wasnt paying too much attention to him. will slow down on chowk i think..:-)

#74 Posted by arjun_5 on March 31, 2008 10:42:54 am

#67 Posted by Look on March 31, 2008 10:33:10 am

Pakistan's 8% growth

You only had one year of 8.4% growth..every year since has been less than that...even with made up wheat production numbers..

your growth was a credit bubble that has burst...it's not like you produced any real companies or industries..

reality is the female of the canine species..

#75 Posted by tahmed32 on March 31, 2008 10:48:04 am

ijazgul: does it make any sense to you? makes no sense to me. this is typical musharraf strategy - blame the US ("they told me you are either with us or against us") when talkiing to pakistanis. blame Pakistanis when talking to the US ("if i go, the terrorists will take over").

Listen to the new govt instead - it is openly saying that terrorists are Pakistan's problem, rather than scapegoating the US. And it has changed Pakistanis image 180 degrees before the world from one inhabited by half-brained maulvis (as mush cleverly painted it) to one with a vibrant middle class and a nation of freedom loving people who are prepared to fight for universal values.

#76 Posted by masadi on March 31, 2008 10:49:37 am

HP writes "Allende won only 36% of votes in a three way contest.."

The Christian Democrats the two of the three way ran on a socialist platform, together these two had around 60% of the mandate. In the previous election the non-socialist US supported "president" had 31% of the popular vote- this tells me that the socialist mandate was much higher than the capitalist (US slave) mandate. The coup was US orchestrated and not socialism orchestrated and cannot be justified when an elected president, elected by popular mandate regardless of the mandate of the loser in the race is overthrown....it is just as wrong as the Pakistani coups

#77 Posted by Look on March 31, 2008 10:52:22 am

#72
Tahmed ji,

Sorry, I don't share your optimism about the lawyers movement nor do I consider the CJ an independent jurist. Standing up against someone can have many reasons(like being in the pockets of some other politician.)

#74

'your growth'...

I am Indian.

#78 Posted by HP on March 31, 2008 10:53:41 am

Asadi,
I am not suggesting that the coup was right. There is no doubt that was a horrible act and must be condemned. The situation in Pakistan is different than Chile of 1973.

#79 Posted by tahmed32 on March 31, 2008 10:54:44 am

HP: loved this shaer on Geo being read out:

zinda haiN wukla
meray mulak kay wukla
koi aa kay dekhay
takraa kay dekhay
aitezaz kay saathi
kurd kay saathi

ik mulak ki khatir
ik aeen ki khatir
lalkaar kay bolo
zara zor say bolo
sab chief kay saathi
ham chief kay saathi

..

hope someone makes a youtube out of this

#80 Posted by tahmed32 on March 31, 2008 10:55:37 am

#77 Look: you are welcome to your views.