You complain curbing freedom of media due to emergency imposed by President, but want to stop other people freedom of what they write? Seems you do not like freedom of others but would like to have freedom for yourself whatever you write. What a double standard you have in your life. :)
As for who write trash, let those who read decide. Obviously those who think I wrote trash won’t read me, why you bother?
As for me putting President Musharraf speech to UN in 2001, I think that it is good read. You like President or not, still his decision effects all Pakistanis as he is President of Pakistan and what he says in his speech shows what type of person he is. I think that one should know who is ruling their country, regardless of one likes the person or not.
With all respect, but who declared Mushy OFFICIALLY President? Isn't he still considered as General Musharraf the Chief of Army Staff? CNN and Co always mention him as Mr. Musharraf or Mr. Gen. Musharraf.
With all respect, but who declared Mushy OFFICIALLY President? Isn't he still considered as General Musharraf the Chief of Army Staff? CNN and Co always mention him as Mr. Musharraf or Mr. Gen. Musharraf.
Well brother, it was Parliament of Pakistan that declared Mushy OFFICIALLY President when MMA joined hands with PML(Q) and others to pass 17th amendment and made Musharraf eligible for Presidential election (that needed 2/3 majority in Parliament) and than PML(Q) plus allies voted Musharraf as President of Pakistan (that needs more votes than nearest competitor, though President got more than 50 percent of total eligible votes). In Oct 2007 again, 56 percent of eligible voters (that includes voters from all 4 provinces, NA as well as Senate) voted President Musharraf to Presidency.
That is different matter that some foreign journalists may not consider Pakistanis worth to call President of Pakistan as President.
My God, the statement of the year. Democrates took the house and senate but they are not able to bring back the troops ... you know why?
because He is, how u say, the president
and he has, how u say, the veto power
Him, cheney, condi are not lame ducks. you are wrong.
yaar but traditionally US presidents are n't so aggressively engaged in foreign issues in their second term (Reagan is another example) as they are more concerned with leaving a good legacy of their presidency. Iran is no Iraq but Bush has n't been the same aggressive president with Iran as he had been for instance with Iraq/Saddam. Slightly off topic but I personally don't think that Bush will attack Iran. The next US Presdent may well do so. Cheney and Condi ofcourse have to listen to their boss.
yaar i just dont get it...why does our paki brothers n sisters hates him so much.... he hasnt harmed us(pakistan) in any way at all.....then why so much hate ???Retards who blow up our people ...some of us still sympthize with them.... thats really pathetic.
Brother, you are right. Even though in first Ayah of Quran Allah sent, Allah told to read, Pakistanis do not read. Pakistanis follow blindly whatever their leader (religious or political) says, without reading. Result is that, whatever they write or talk, they do that without reading (you can assume what a person can write or talk without reading):
Allama Iqbal wanted Pakistanis to pray:
Dur Dunyia ka meray dum say andehera hou jayea
But Pakistani prays:
Daur duniya ka meray dum say andehera hou jayea.
[Dur = ‘clear out’ or to make disappear … Daur = era or period]
Here is my own two lines for them
Atta nahi hay kuch inhay per yea baat kertay hain Parhtay nahie hayn kuch per lagviyaat kahtay hain
*yaar but traditionally US presidents are n't so aggressively engaged in foreign issues in their second term (Reagan is another example) as they are more concerned with leaving a good legacy of their presidency. *
I don't think Bush is remotely concerned about leaving a good legacy. There is no chance of that, its too late for such thought. Republicans in general are confused whether to be pro-war (by starting another one) or keep distance from Bush. War haters are more likely to vote for the Democrates, so republicans best best may be a pro-war candidate, like Gulliani. In this equation, Bush would probably welcome international confrontations and war fronts. His only problem is, that marines are stuck in Iraq and afghanistan. But a timely capture of OBL can win them some votes and how best to achieve that, then to force Musharaf to let US army in the tribal areas. If Musharaf refuses, they would like BB to do it for them. All this proves one thing for sure, Musharaf aint nobody's pet. He may be greedy of power, but I do not think he is a traitor. Infact what he has done so far for the country, proves that he can be a good leader, if not aggitated or pushed by the opposition. Being an army general, he certainly has tantrum, but he appointed the right people under his administration. First time we had a scientist, on a position of Science and Tech ministry, a genuine financial expert as finance minister (now PM) and so on. He did not try to drive everything himself (like Zia).
Also wanna point out the role judiciary played. They kept delaying the decision, knowing how much uncertainty it is causing. I mentioned that in my previous notes, that it seems like CJ dude is having fun, how much attention he is getting through media. Once decision is out, he would not be that important anymore. He got a taste of politics and he is loving every bit of it. Now he is asking people to hit the streets, first ever judge to order so. Why blame Musharaf alone? Everybody here is playing for himself, atleast Musharaf's greed of power, gave us foreign investment, relative stability, injected religious tolerence and moderation. Even a corrupt leader, can be good for the country, because he would find ways to bring in more money in the country, so he can make more. An idiot leader, would just ask you to stop spending, because he does not have ideas, how to improve economy. Musharaf is not corrupt, he does not hate this country. He fought wars for it.
I think what he might be missing, is the name of Islam. In past, Zia did whatever he wanted for himself by using the name of Islam. It kept on working and working for so many years. People in pak seems to cool down and accept any beating, only if its given to them in the name of Islam. packaging changes everything for them.
You complain curbing freedom of media due to emergency imposed by President, but want to stop other people freedom of what they write? Seems you do not like freedom of others but would like to have freedom for yourself whatever you write. What a double standard you have in your life. :)
Now how does it feel? What you guys complaining about "media this, media that".... what feels trash to you may be of some value to others, what you feel is valuable could be trash for others.... don't like it then change channel damn it.
yaar i just dont get it...why does our paki brothers n sisters hates him so much.... he hasnt harmed us(pakistan) in any way at all.....then why so much hate ???Retards who blow up our people ...some of us still sympthize with them.... thats really pathetic.
Once you come out of lala land and understand how our army works then you will come to know why Pakistanis are condemning Mushy.
Also wanna point out the role judiciary played. They kept delaying the decision, knowing how much uncertainty it is causing. I mentioned that in my previous notes, that it seems like CJ dude is having fun, how much attention he is getting through media. Once decision is out, he would not be that important anymore. He got a taste of politics and he is loving every bit of it. Now he is asking people to hit the streets, first ever judge to order so. Why blame Musharaf alone? Everybody here is playing for himself, atleast Musharaf's greed of power, gave us foreign investment, relative stability, injected religious tolerence and moderation. Even a corrupt leader, can be good for the country, because he would find ways to bring in more money in the country, so he can make more. An idiot leader, would just ask you to stop spending, because he does not have ideas, how to improve economy. Musharaf is not corrupt, he does not hate this country. He fought wars for it.
Also wanna point out the role judiciary played. They kept delaying the decision, knowing how much uncertainty it is causing. I mentioned that in my previous notes, that it seems like CJ dude is having fun, how much attention he is getting through media.
WRONG! They had decided long time ago when the verdict will come out.
I don't think Bush is remotely concerned about leaving a good legacy. There is no chance of that, its too late for such thought. Republicans in general are confused whether to be pro-war (by starting another one) or keep distance from Bush. War haters are more likely to vote for the Democrates, so republicans best best may be a pro-war candidate, like Gulliani. In this equation, Bush would probably welcome international confrontations and war fronts. His only problem is, that marines are stuck in Iraq and afghanistan. But a timely capture of OBL can win them some votes and how best to achieve that, then to force Musharaf to let US army in the tribal areas. If Musharaf refuses, they would like BB to do it for them. All this proves one thing for sure, Musharaf aint nobody's pet. He may be greedy of power, but I do not think he is a traitor. Infact what he has done so far for the country, proves that he can be a good leader, if not aggitated or pushed by the opposition. Being an army general, he certainly has tantrum, but he appointed the right people under his administration. First time we had a scientist, on a position of Science and Tech ministry, a genuine financial expert as finance minister (now PM) and so on. He did not try to drive everything himself (like Zia).
Thanks for support. Good to have some folks on the sanity side of events. I am all for democracy, but I feel like hitting my head to something hard, when I hear NS and BB talk. Its so 80's. been there done that, rather seen that.