Pakistan's Musharraf announces resignation

[Flame Of Liberty]

ISLAMABAD (Reuters) - Nuclear-armed Pakistan's beleaguered President Pervez Musharraf announced his resignation on Monday in the face of an impending impeachment motion by the ruling coalition government.

The former army chief and firm U.S. ally has seen his popularity slide over the past 18 months and has been isolated since his allies lost a February election.

"After consultations with legal advisers and close political supporters and on their advice, I'm taking the decision of resigning," Musharraf said a televised address.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20080818/...an_politics_dc

This is not good news. Musharraf wasn't ideal, but now that these lunatics (coalition government) will fully grab the power, nothing good will come out of Pakistan.

[Itse]

Meh. Musharraf would've turned Pakistan into another totalitarian dictatorship if he could've. And to call the elected government of Pakistan a bunch of lunatics is, to put it shortly, stupid. They're no more a bunch of lunatics than the US congress. (Which I think many will agree is not the hightest standard you could compare to.)

The Musharraf regime was a disaster for war against terrorism, simply because it turned the country much wealthier (through US aid) and similarly much more militantly anti-American. He couldn't control the borders, stop the training camps (funnily enough funded indirectly in part by US aid), calm down the religious strife, stop assassinations or actually do nothing much that could be seen as truly useful. I really never got why the US was so high on him. Other than the above he's mostly known for talks with India (good thing) and attacking the basics of democracy in Pakistan by rigging elections, giving himself sweeping powers through constitutional changes and sacking a chief justice he thought was against him.

In short, Musharraf was the embodiment of what many see as the best anti-US arguments: "The US wants to turn the rest of the world into military satellite states, end the rule of law and rule of people so that they can shove their own views and values (not to mention corporate interests) down people's throats at gunpoint." Yes, this is one of the cases the other side makes. It's also for a large part true. The US has a terrible record for backing democracies of any sort, but a solid record for backing pro-west dictators.

[Flame Of Liberty]

Originally Posted by Itse

Meh. Musharraf would've turned Pakistan into another totalitarian dictatorship if he could've. And to call the elected government of Pakistan a bunch of lunatics is, to put it shortly, stupid. They're no more a bunch of lunatics than the US congress. (Which I think many will agree is not the hightest standard you could compare to.)

The Musharraf regime was a disaster for war against terrorism, simply because it turned the country much wealthier (through US aid) and similarly much more militantly anti-American. He couldn't control the borders, stop the training camps (funnily enough funded indirectly in part by US aid), calm down the religious strife, stop assassinations or actually do nothing much that could be seen as truly useful. I really never got why the US was so high on him. Other than the above he's mostly known for talks with India (good thing) and attacking the basics of democracy in Pakistan by rigging elections, giving himself sweeping powers through constitutional changes and sacking a chief justice he thought was against him.

In short, Musharraf was the embodiment of what many see as the best anti-US arguments: "The US wants to turn the rest of the world into military satellite states, end the rule of law and rule of people so that they can shove their own views and values (not to mention corporate interests) down people's throats at gunpoint." Yes, this is one of the cases the other side makes. It's also for a large part true. The US has a terrible record for backing democracies of any sort, but a solid record for backing pro-west dictators.

You know, I don't care that he wasn't a democrat. I'd much rather prefer that islamic countries stay away from western style democracy (see Turkey and the role of the military - thank god for that!). Until the muslim masses gain enough common sense to throw their religious leaders under the bus, I think the US should do anything and everything it can to keep people like Musharraf in power.

[Itse]

Originally Posted by Flame Of Liberty

Until the muslim masses gain enough common sense to throw their religious leaders under the bus, I think the US should do anything and everything it can to keep people like Musharraf in power.

"We will do x until people learn that we don't want to do x".

You should perhaps brush up on your logics. How do you suppose educating them is going to make these countries less hostile towards the west, if what they will be learning at school is that the west is hostile towards their attempts at building democracies (and as an extension, hostile towards their religion, their way of life and generally their rights as human beings and members of an independent nation)?

Or to put it in another way, instead of being nice from a position of power, you want to wait until the economical gap has narrowed (pretty tightly connected with mass education) and then start acting nice, hoping they're willing to forgive and forget once they have a better chance at getting back at you?

I think you need more education than they do. "Killing, torturing and imprisoning people as a way of governing the uneducated masses" is not exactly a sound ethical (or logical) foundation for fixing things in the world.

[Flame Of Liberty]

I am so glad I can learn from your flawless logic.

Educate masses (in madrasas I suppose), let them go nuts in their attempts at building democracies in Iran, Pakistan, Turkey, Egypt, then watch how these educated masses put parties such as egyptian muslim brotherhood in power.

Having democratic elections in such countries would create a mass of countries ruled by extreme islamic governments from Morocco all the way to Indonesia that would be extremely hostile to western world and would in fact be the biggest threat to western civilization since the Turks raided Europe back in the day. Allowing that to happen would be the most clever and logical thing to do, right?

[Itse]

Oh sorry, I didn't realize you're basing your argumentation on unfiltered racism. Yes of course, they are simply crazy people, full of irrational hatred and hostility that has nothing to do with anything that's actually going on in the world, and nothing that anyone does has any bearing on what happens in those countries, expect if you bomb them they'll be less dangerous.

I mean it's not like US backed dictatorships of Saudi Arabia and Pakistan are, like, the most common training places for terrorists aiming for the west. I wonder if you have similarly splendid ideas for what to do about homegrown terrorists. I mean surely all the violence we're promoting outside our countries couldn't reflect in the way our own citizens see us? Surely they should understand it's all for the best.

[Azure]

I think the point is that it doesn't work to instill democracy in a country where fundamental Islam shouts the loudest.

From what the past 8 years have shown us, the moderates aren't willing to stand up in numbers and fight back against the whackjobs using Islam to further their agenda.

Plus, Islam is without the fundamentalism still a religion based on prior to 20th century principles. You can't just force democracy upon them and hope they will accept it. Just look at Iraq. It will take up to 6-8 years, thousands dead, just to get a working government.

[Vulcan]

So the Flame of Liberty is against democracy. Isn't that an oxymoron . Maybe you should change your name or your philosophy.

[Vulcan]

Originally Posted by Azure

I think the point is that it doesn't work to instill democracy in a country where fundamental Islam shouts the loudest.

From what the past 8 years have shown us, the moderates aren't willing to stand up in numbers and fight back against the whackjobs using Islam to further their agenda.

Plus, Islam is without the fundamentalism still a religion based on prior to 20th century principles. You can't just force democracy upon them and hope they will accept it. Just look at Iraq. It will take up to 6-8 years, thousands dead, just to get a working government.

Nobody outside is instilling democracy. This is the nations wishes and they have every right to self determination. To think otherwise is racist or what was once called the 'white man's burden' where only our culture is any good.

[Azure]

Originally Posted by Vulcan

Nobody outside is instilling democracy. This is the nations wishes and they have every right to self determination. To think otherwise is racist or what was once called the 'white man's burden' where only our culture is any good.

Did you even read what I said?

How the heck can you have a democratic country, when you still treat your women as 3rd rate citizens?

Has absolutely nothing to do with racism, or the 'white mans burden.'

[peter12]

Originally Posted by Itse

Oh sorry, I didn't realize you're basing your argumentation on unfiltered racism. Yes of course, they are simply crazy people, full of irrational hatred and hostility that has nothing to do with anything that's actually going on in the world, and nothing that anyone does has any bearing on what happens in those countries, expect if you bomb them they'll be less dangerous.

I mean it's not like US backed dictatorships of Saudi Arabia and Pakistan are, like, the most common training places for terrorists aiming for the west. I wonder if you have similarly splendid ideas for what to do about homegrown terrorists. I mean surely all the violence we're promoting outside our countries couldn't reflect in the way our own citizens see us? Surely they should understand it's all for the best.

Not liking Islam is not at all racist. If you want that stuff to go down that's great, sell your house and move to Pakistan. Ask your wife first.

[Displaced Flames fan]

They ought to just lock this one up right away. There's more personal insults in this thread than there are solid arguments.

Ridiculous.

[Vulcan]

Originally Posted by Azure

Did you even read what I said?

How the heck can you have a democratic country, when you still treat your women as 3rd rate citizens?

Has absolutely nothing to do with racism, or the 'white mans burden.'

So things have to perfect until democracy is established? Sure they have lots of problems but a democracy is the best way to deal with them and thankfully it isn't up to you or those champions of democracy like Bush.

As an aside their last democratically elected PM was a woman.

[blankall]

Originally Posted by Displaced Flames fan

They ought to just lock this one up right away. There's more personal insults in this thread than there are solid arguments.

Ridiculous.

Agreed.

I think the point that the OP was trying to make was that:

Certain conditions allow for groups to take advantage of democratic process and impose an entirely non-democratic government. When certain conditions exist, it might be better not to have that process exist in the first place.

This is a phenomenom not confied to Islam. Although I hate bringing Hitler into arguments, you can make the argument that Hitler was democratically elected yet his government had absolutely nothing to do with the principles of democracy. No I am not comparing Islam to Nazis. But extreme Islam (ex. the Taliban) has more in common with facism than democracy.

People need to keep in mind that there is a lot more to democracy than just voting. IE there is a difference between democracy and mob rule.

[Vulcan]

Originally Posted by blankall

Agreed.

I think the point that the OP was trying to make was that:

Certain conditions allow for groups to take advantage of democratic process and impose an entirely non-democratic government. When certain conditions exist, it might be better not to have that process exist in the first place.

This is a phenomenom not confied to Islam. Although I hate bringing Hitler into arguments, you can make the argument that Hitler was democratically elected yet his government had absolutely nothing to do with the principles of democracy. No I am not comparing Islam to Nazis. But extreme Islam (ex. the Taliban) has more in common with facism than democracy.

People need to keep in mind that there is a lot more to democracy than just voting. IE there is a difference between democracy and mob rule.

So we condemn them before they've even had their try at democracy because of our paranoia of what could happen?

They've had an on again, off again democratic government since their independence from Britain and I don't remember them having a problem with religion taking over. Their most important problem was corruption and I think only time and maturity will solve that.

[Azure]

Originally Posted by Vulcan

So we condemn them before they've even had their try at democracy because of our paranoia of what could happen?

They've had an on again, off again democratic government since their independence from Britain and I don't remember them having a problem with religion taking over. Their most important problem was corruption and I think only time and maturity will solve that.

No, they just tend to kill off the people who are corrupt, but believe in democracy.

[Azure]

Originally Posted by Vulcan

So things have to perfect until democracy is established? Sure they have lots of problems but a democracy is the best way to deal with them and thankfully it isn't up to you or those champions of democracy like Bush.

As an aside their last democratically elected PM was a woman.

Who was killed because of what she believed.

And Bush has absolutely nothing to do with this. The United States is greater than any one person.

[Vulcan]

Originally Posted by Azure

Who was killed because of what she believed.

And Bush has absolutely nothing to do with this. The United States is greater than any one person.

I firmly believe she was killed because she was a threat to Musharraf, the uh dictator. I have to respect her sacrifice for the countries wish to re-establish a democracy.

The jab at Bush was because he went to war to supposedly establish democracy in Iraq while making a dictator his favorite son in a country with a history of democracy.

It's time for American diplomacy to enter the 21st century where their actions are in sync with their words.

[blankall]

Originally Posted by Vulcan

So we condemn them before they've even had their try at democracy because of our paranoia of what could happen?

They've had an on again, off again democratic government since their independence from Britain and I don't remember them having a problem with religion taking over. Their most important problem was corruption and I think only time and maturity will solve that.

I dont think condemn is the right word. But based on an objective view of the social situation there is definitely a possibility of this working out negatively.

Also your argument about them not having an islamist government in the past means they won't have one in the future is pretty pointless. The world has clearly changed since Musharraf has been in power.

All this being said there will be a change of government in Pakistan. There is nothing anyone can do about it. No army will invade Pakistan at this point to install their view of democracy. It's a huge nation. I hope the people of Pakistan make the right choice and even if they have a religious inspired government it upholds the principles of democracy (although I realize that may be an oxymoron). The OP does have a point, that based on events in nearby nations (ie Iraq) there is a real possibility of something much worse filling the void left by an exiting dictator.

[blankall]

Originally Posted by Vulcan

I firmly believe she was killed because she was a threat to Musharraf, the uh dictator. I have to respect her sacrifice for the countries wish to re-establish a democracy.

The jab at Bush was because he went to war to supposedly establish democracy in Iraq while making a dictator his favorite son in a country with a history of democracy.

It's time for American diplomacy to enter the 21st century where their actions are in sync with their words.

I really don't think Bush was ever a huge fan of Musharraf. It was more of a situation where the enemy of my enemy is my friend. A lesser of two evils argument.

Despite the US making huge donations to Pakistan, there were several instances where both leaders publicly condemned the other.

Bush needed Musharraf as part of his war on terrorism. The Taliban and other extremist groups were operating in Northern Pakistan. If not for
Pakistan's cooperation all the Taliban in Afghanistan would have poured across the border into Pakistan. Instead Pakistan became heavily involved. It also meant pulling one of the Taliban's greatest backers.