situation in Pakistan

Things seem to be unraveling over there. Even Bush has jumped on the 'democracy for Pakistan' handwaving.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20071108/ap_on_re_as/pakistan

excerpt:

"
Pakistan's parliamentary elections will he held by mid-February, a month later than planned, the country's military ruler said Thursday, a day after President Bush urged him to hold the vote on time.

Opposition leader Benazir Bhutto denounced President Gen. Pervez Musharraf's pledge as insufficient and said he should step down as army chief within a week.

With anger over military rule spreading, the United States and domestic opponents are stepping up pressure on Musharraf to end the emergency rule imposed Saturday, shed his uniform and hold elections as planned in January.

Bush, who counts Musharraf as a key ally in the war on terror, telephoned him Wednesday to say he should step down as the military chief and hold the vote on schedule.

And Bhutto, who had been in talks with Musharraf on forming a post-election alliance, added to the pressure by deciding to join protests against the emergency. Authorities reportedly arrested hundreds of her supporters overnight to head off a major rally she is planning near Islamabad on Friday.

News that elections would be held by mid-February was flashed on state-run television, which quoted Musharraf as saying the vote would be delayed by not more than one month. The government said earlier this week that the vote could be delayed by as long as a year.

Musharraf's decision was announced after a meeting of his National Security Council.

The announcement was seen as an indication that the emergency would be short-lived because authorities would likely have to ease up on security restrictions to allow campaigning.

Attorney General Malik Mohammed Qayyum forecast that the state of emergency would be lifted in "one or two" months.

"It depends on how the law and order situation improves," Qayyum told The Associated Press.

Musharraf maintains that restoring democracy is his ultimate aim and the emergency was needed to prevent political instability, protect economic growth, and maintain the campaign against extremism and terrorism.

Pakistan, a country of 160 million, has been wracked by Taliban and al-Qaida-linked violence, including suicide bombings and clashes in its troubled northwest, where the insurgents have in recent weeks scored a series of victories against government forces.

Critics, however, say Musharraf, who seized power in a 1999 coup, imposed the emergency measures — suspending the constitution, blacking out independent TV news networks — to maintain his own grip on power. The moves came ahead of a Supreme Court ruling on the legality of his recent re-election as president.

Days of protests, most of them by lawyers angered by the attacks on the judiciary, have been quickly and sometimes brutally put down.
"
.

 

Musharraf is a Military General. Why would he be interested in Democracy?

This man is a snake in the grass as far as I am concerned. He is a power-hungry fascist. I'm happy to see Nawaz Sharif back in the country and putting pressure on him and making diplomatic efforts with India and a few European nations.

 

We should all fear the day Musharraf is not in power any more.Make no mistake Musharraf is a Military dictator ! He does not fight the War on Terror as hard as he should but Musharraf is our best bet right now unless you want Islamic radicals taking over the stock pile of nukes that Pakistan has and have there finger on the Button.Yes I would love to see a Democratic government work but I just can't see Democracy working right now in pakistan ?

 

He may be a fascist, but at least he's secular, and friendly to us interests. if the world weren't so shitty it'd have more of a problem with him, but as it is, he's the best we got.

 

Saddam was secular, too, and he was the US puppet for many years, much like Musharraf is now.

Because Musharraf is a puppet of the West, I have no doubt that the actions put in place were not mandated by him, but by his handlers, as a way to further increase Middle East tension.

 

Saddam was never a US puppet. Please, do you have to lie every single time you open your mouth?

 

im gonna go with pressed rat here. maybe he diddnt know it, but we used saddam for our own agenda. the whole Iraq/iran war was set up with the US back both countries with weapons and money, hopeing they would wipe each other out. the US is solely responsible for all the weapons of mass destruction saddam used on the kurds.

 

And the Kurds our glowing success in Iraq up until last month, how is the US supporting them now? What sort of stake did we give them in this new democratic country of Iraq?

 

Please let me know know how the US gave Chemical Weapons to Saddam or was responsable for the program ? Did we send scientist over to make them or what ? IRAQ had a chemical Weapons program long before the U.S got involved backing Saddam in the IRAN-IRAQ War. And what would you of done during the IRAN-IRAQ war if you were the US leader ? Just sit back and do nothing.Lets not forget now that IRAN still had our hostages during the start of that war. So who do you think was more of a enemy at the time. And the US knew if IRAN won that WAr and took over IRAQ they would not stop they would sweep right down the arabian peninsula and then threw thw whole middle east, They would kill very single Suny muslim in every country they took over. Tens of millions would die from there ethnic cleansing of the Suny's. So we had to back Saddam and buy backing him we probably saved Millions of lives and maybe even a 3rd world war because Russia would of taken Irans side.

 

Yes we did send scientists and transferred technology. Want to talk about hostages let's talk about Reagan and Iran Contra...want to?

 

Sunys, we didn't care about them anymore than we care about the Africans in Dafur.

 

Some people are expendable.

Just as the Kurds in Iraq are today. As were Lebonese civilians. Not to mention the Pakistanis or the monks in Myaranmar.


Or Rachel:



She lost her life, how many more lives need to be lost?
Not to mention the kids/students in Tianneman Square.

 

We mis-underestimate our power and influence if we think
that it is solely The West who can make or break individuals like
Mushareff, Saddam, The Shah, Fidel;
or indeed entire nations like Kurdistan.
Such hubris should be left to the White House.

 

Fidel, the Shah, Saddam, Mushreff, they all benefitted from US and western wealth. Rachel and that Chinese kid and the monks they never recieved the wealth. They just made a sacrifice. Hoping the world would open their eyes.

 

I'd like to see a wide-angle shot of the buldozer pic

to see the fiends who prompted that gullible child to stand in front of that machine.

Parents need to watch who thier children travel with on any visit to the holy land lest they be used for propaganda purposes, like Rachel.

 

we never sent scientists for his chemical weapons program where do you get this crap from ? Russia is the one who helped him make his chemical weapons program. I can show you countless programs and articles on this. During the cold War Russia and China dumped so many weapons into the hands of third world countries its unreal ! In some African nations there is more AK47's then there are people. Who cares anyways if we armed IRAQ.allies and agenda's change all the time.You make decisions on who your enemy is now not who you think could be your enemy 20 years down the road ?

 

Can we please not derail this topic?

It is about the situation in Pakistan.

If you want to discuss:

Iraq, Iran, Rachel, Russia, China, African nations, AK47's, Lebonese (I believe you meant "Lebanese"), Fidel, the Shah, Saddam, Kurds (with some tolerable exceptions), Myaranmar (I believe you meant "Myanmar"), Reagan, Iran Contra, Suny's (I believe you meant "Sunnis") - then please feel free to start a new threat *all* about the aforementioned proper nouns above.

It is just too late to take a second dose of ritalin, this evening. :H

At any rate, it's slightly troubling to hear from Musharraf himself that he is having no regrets invoking martial rule over his people. I can't say that I am surprised or that he even has any respect from his people.

*takes back the topic*

 

Latest news:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20071112/ap_on_re_as/pakistan

If the US really valued democracy, wouldn't more be done?

 

I sincerely believe he is on the way out, and that the Bush administration wants him out. He has made absolutely no progress in getting the country in order and there is nobody inside or outside the country that supports him anymore. I think he will negotiate an exit as part of the January elections.

 

I am not sure I want Bhutto either. Isn't there someone else that speaks for the people? I'd hate to see another Hillary elected just because the media only talks of her. Is anyone even speaking with the people of Pakistan?