Musharraf warns against Iraq attack

(This will have very negative repercussions around the Islamic world -Pervez Musharraf)
(Musharraf believes Bin Laden is dead)

Musharraf warns against Iraq attack

The President of Pakistan, Pervez Musharraf, has said a United States attack on Iraq would “alienate the Muslim world”.
General Musharraf warned that such a step would have “very negative repercussions”.

In an interview with the BBC’s Today Programme, the Pakistani leader said that although he was on the side of America, he believed an attack on Baghdad to be ill-advised.

“It is already dangerous that all political disputes at the moment all around the world are unfortunately involving Muslims,” he said.

**“Muslims are feeling that they are on the receiving end everywhere, so there is a feeling of alienation.” **

He said the region had enough on its hands already, and could not afford to get involved in anything else.

“This will have very negative repercussions around the Islamic world,” he said.

Mr Musharraf said invading Iraq would increase support for Osama Bin Laden and trigger a huge increase in anti-American sentiment.

He dismissed as “a perception in the media” claims that the United States wanted him to act more decisively against al-Qaeda.

“We are certainly assisting them all the way,” he said. “We’ve suffered casualties.”

**Asked whether the Pakistani people opposed his allegiance to the United States, Mr Musharraf said: “We are doing everything in national interest and I think the vast majority in Pakistan understand this.” **

Bin Laden

General Musharraf also said that he thought that Osama bin Laden was probably dead.

“Most likely he’s dead,” he said. “Most likely. It’s a guess. I can’t say.”

But he said Bin Laden was definitely not in Pakistan.

The al-Qaeda leader’s large contingent of bodyguards and the price on his head would certainly have led to the alarm being raised as soon as he crossed the border, General Musharraf said.

He said al-Qaeda itself had been dealt a mortal blow.

“I don’t think they can develop an infrastructure of the kind that existed before, especially if there is stability in Afghanistan,” he said.

However, he did say that there were indications that members of al-Qaeda were active in some Pakistani cities.

And he added that foreigners - possibly al-Qaeda members - were involved in recent attacks in Pakistan on foreign targets and Christians.

Who backs an Iraq attack?

Who backs an Iraq attack?

(Iraqi children pray for protection against a possible US attack)

Governments around the world are increasingly expressing strong opposition to the prospect of a US-led war against Saddam Hussein’s regime in Iraq.
Where do America’s key European allies and Russia and China - veto-holding members of the UN Security Council - stand on the issue?

**US Vice-President Dick Cheney **

We will not simply look away, hope for the best and leave the matter for some future administration to resolve.

27 August 2002

**US President George Bush **

I am a patient man. We will look at all options and we will consider all technologies available. One thing for certain is that… regime change is in the interest of the world.

21 August 2002

UK Prime Minister Tony Blair

Action is not imminent, we are not at the point of decision yet, and there are many issues to be considered before we are at the point of decision. And I would simply say to you that if you look at what we did in relation for example to Afghanistan, we consulted the House of Commons very carefully, but I am not going to pin myself to any specific form of consultation.

25 July, 2002

**UK Foreign Secretary Jack Straw **

We don’t rule out the possibility of military action. Neither, in our view, should anybody. It’s quite, therefore, prudent of the United States government not to rule out military action against the Saddam Hussein regime. At the same time, let me repeat what the Prime Minister and I have made all too clear so often, and that is that no decisions about military action have been taken here.

1 August, 2002

**French President Jacques Chirac **

I don’t want to imagine an attack against Iraq, an attack that could not be justified unless it is decided by the Security Council.

2 August 2002

**German Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder **

Under my leadership Germany will not be available for adventures

6 August, 2002

**Belgian Foreign Minister Louis Michel **

Morally, politically we could take charge in the world. But the British are blocking that. They still don’t understand that they could play a pioneer role in Europe instead of submissively following the US.

26 August, 2002

**Russian Foreign Minister Igor Ivanov **

Political and diplomatic potential for a settlement of the Iraq situation has by no means yet been exhausted. We believe that diplomatic methods alone will provide a solution.

25 July, 2002

**Chinese Foreign Minister Tang Jiaxuan **

The Iraq question should be resolved within the framework of the UN by diplomatic and political means… Resorting to force or threatening to resort to force will not solve the problem; on the contrary it leads to more tensions and troubles.

State-run Chinese television report, 27 August, 2002

**UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan **

It would be unwise to attack Iraq, given the current circumstances of what’s happening in the Middle East

Report: Saddam Open to Negotiations

By SAMAR KASSABLI
DAMASCUS, Syria – Negotiations can still avert a possible U.S. attack on Iraq, Iraq’s vice president said as his country pressed ahead with its diplomatic campaign and the United States got more advice to proceed with caution.

The official Syrian Arab News Agency quoted Taha Yassin Ramadan as saying late Wednesday that talks with the United Nations over the return of arms inspectors to the country were not deadlocked.

“There’s still room for diplomatic solutions to avert a war with the United States,” Ramadan said during a brief visit to the northern Syrian city of Homs. Iraq, he added, was ready for dialogue, not surrender.

The United States accuses Iraqi President Saddam Hussein of rebuilding facilities to produce weapons of mass destruction and wants him removed from power.

U.N. inspectors charged with confirming the dismantling of Iraq’s mass-destruction weapons have been barred from Iraq since 1998.

Three rounds of talks between the United Nations and Iraq this year failed to persuade Baghdad to readmit the inspectors. Baghdad often accuses the inspectors of being spies working for the United States and Israel.

Iraq said it wants to continue talks on the inspectors’ return – but with conditions U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan has rejected.

U.N. Security Council sanctions imposed on Iraq after its 1990 invasion of Kuwait cannot be lifted until the inspectors certify that Iraq’s nuclear, biological and chemical weapons programs have been dismantled along with the long-range missiles to deliver them.

Ramadan is on a three-day visit to Syria as part of what appears to be an Iraqi diplomatic offensive to rally opposition against a possible U.S. attack. Iraq’s neighbors have warned such an attack could destabilize the region.

**Ramadan was expected to visit Lebanon next. Other senior Iraqi officials are visiting China, a permanent member of the U.N. Security Council with veto powers. **

The British Foreign Office issued a statement Thursday saying it would discuss with its allies, including the United States, the possibility of setting a deadline for Saddam to allow in U.N. weapons inspectors. It did not say what should be done if the Iraqi leader ignored such a deadline.

Britain, the United States’ staunchest ally, has repeatedly said it is too early to decide whether to participate in a possible U.S.-led attack on Iraq. But it also has agreed with Washington that something must be done about Iraq’s alleged development of weapons of mass destruction.

Washington is getting advice to move cautiously from many of its allies.

Ugur Ziyal, undersecretary in the Turkish ministry of foreign affairs, suggested in Washington Wednesday that instead of military force, the United States apply what he called “therapy” to Iraq – such as tightening trade sanctions. Saudi Arabia has suggested relying on the United Nations to persuade Iraq to permit inspections.

**Australian Defense Minister Robert Hill said his government would want to see evidence, such as U.S. satellite photos, that Iraq has weapons of mass destruction or links to terror groups before agreeing to join a U.S. attack on the country. **

Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf also warned that an attack would destabilize the region and said Pakistan would be reluctant to get involved.

“We have got too much on our hands here in this region to get involved in anything else, especially when one is very conscious that this shall have very negative repercussions in the Islamic world,” he told the British Broadcasting Corp.

**Syria would side with Iraq in the event of a U.S. attack but would not help militarily, the state-run Tishrin newspaper said in an editorial Thursday. Syria has forged close ties with Iraq in recent years after decades of intense enmity. **

Pressure on Bush to back off

Global outcry against Iraq attack

Nicholas Watt, Richard Norton-Taylor and Lucy Ward
Thursday August 29, 2002
The Guardian

President George Bush was facing overwhelming pressure from across the world last night to step back from the brink of military action to oust Saddam Hussein.
Alarmed by growing rhetoric from leading hawks in Washington, key countries from China to Saudi Arabia warned of the devastating consequences of a US-led assault against Iraq. Even Downing Street, which has gone out of its way to support Mr Bush, highlighted increasing tensions between London and Washington when it insisted that UN weapons inspectors should be given a chance to visit Iraq.

**As Tony Blair flew home from his French holiday, his official spokesman said Saddam Hussein could “resolve the issue” by giving unfettered access to UN weapons inspectors. The remarks were in contrast to US vice-president Dick Cheney’s insistence this week that America should be free to take “pre-emptive action” against Iraq because President Saddam had rejected a “viable” inspections system. **

Such harsh rhetoric, which included a warning from the US defence secretary, Donald Rumsfeld, that the Iraqi leader was behaving like Adolf Hitler, prompted a flood of warnings on the dangers of military action.

**Saudi Arabia, which has already insisted that the US cannot use its bases in the kingdom for an attack on Iraq, warned that the US had no right to oust Saddam. The Saudi foreign minister, Prince Saud al-Faisal, told the BBC it was up to the Iraqi people to decide who should be their leader.

“If they don’t have the option, squeezing them and attacking them will force them into backing their government, rather than the reverse,” the prince said. “What makes us so gullible as to think we know what is better for the Iraqi people than the Iraqi people themselves?”

China reassured Baghdad that it opposed military action. During talks in Beijing, its foreign minister, Tang Jiaxun, told his Iraqi counterpart, Naji Sabri, that “using force or threats of force” would “increase regional instability and tensions”. **

Kofi Annan, the UN secretary general, called for the return of inspectors, adding pointedly: “The UN is not agitating for military action.”

Such warnings may fall on deaf ears in Washington after Mr Rumsfeld said that Mr Bush was prepared to take unilateral action against Iraq. Speaking to 3,000 marines in California on Tuesday, Mr Rumsfeld said: “I’ve found over the years that when our country does make the right judgments, the right decisions, that other countries do cooperate and they do participate.”

Mr Rumsfeld even likened Washington’s position to Winston Churchill’s wilderness years in the 1930s when the fu ture wartime prime minister was a lonely voice warning of the dangers of Hitler.

..edited]

**However, senior British military sources said Mr Bush had already made up his mind to attack Iraq. The US was beginning to “warm up its public relations machine, to prepare the general public”, one said. **

Who is supporting Bush's war against Iraq? It seems he has made up his mind whether the rest of the world likes it or not. Where is usually moderate Colin Powell?

The War Has Begun in the GOP

WASHINGTON – Is Saddam Hussein’s Iraq an immediate threat to the safety of the United States? President Bush says yes; Brent Scowcroft, his father’s former national security advisor, says no.

Should the United States make its goal the ouster of Hussein? Vice President Dick Cheney says yes; former Secretary of State Henry A. Kissinger says maybe not.

And should the United States invade Iraq without first gaining authority from the United Nations? Aides to Bush and Cheney say yes; former Secretary of State James A. Baker III, who also served under Bush’s father, says no

Is Iraq an immediate threat to the United States?

All year long, the president has warned that Hussein might give chemical, biological or nuclear weapons to terrorist groups like Al Qaeda—but the evidence of links between Hussein and Al Qaeda has been slim.

In a speech in Nashville on Monday, Cheney emphasized a different side of the Iraqi threat. If Iraq develops nuclear weapons, he said, “Hussein could then be expected to seek domination of the entire Middle East, take control of a great portion of the world’s energy supplies, directly threaten America’s friends throughout the region, and subject the United States or any other nation to nuclear blackmail.”

That appeared to be a response to Scowcroft, who argued in the Wall Street Journal that the threat has been exaggerated.

“Saddam is a familiar dictatorial aggressor, with traditional goals,” he wrote. “There is little evidence to indicate that the United States itself is an object of his aggression. Rather, Saddam’s problem with the U.S. appears to be that we stand in the way of his ambitions. He seeks weapons of mass destruction not to arm terrorists, but to deter us from intervening.”

If Hussein acquires nuclear weapons, Scowcroft argued, the U.S. should act then. But for now, the administration’s war on terrorism should come first—and invading Iraq would disrupt that effort.

Should the United States insist on overthrowing Hussein, or can Iraq be contained through new and tougher U.N. weapons inspections?

Bush and his aides have decided that the only way to ensure that Hussein will not attack his neighbors, or use weapons of mass destruction, is to topple his government. “It’s the stated policy of this government to have a regime change,” Bush said last month.

**Kissinger, secretary of State under Republican presidents Richard Nixon and Gerald Ford, has argued that U.N. inspections would either weaken Hussein’s regime or give the U.S. a stronger case for military action.

“If it were possible to devise an inspection system that Saddam would accept, and if it were possible to implement it and to enforce it on him, I think that would bring about … a significant regime change,” he said on PBS. “But I do not believe that that is possible without the threat of war.”**

But Cheney dismissed the idea: “On the contrary, there is a great danger that it would provide false comfort that Saddam was somehow back in his box.”

If the United States decides to invade Iraq, should it seek authority from the United Nations?

Bush and his aides have promised to “consult” with Congress and with U.S. allies before launching military action, but they have made no promise to bring the issue before the U.N. Security Council.

Unofficially, many neoconservatives dismiss the U.N. as a needless impediment to U.S. action and reject the idea that an American president should seek some outside blessing before acting against an enemy like Hussein.

But the “realists” argue that seeking U.N. authority is a good idea, in part because it would help persuade other countries to join in.

Baker, who said he supports the goal of “regime change,” argued in a column in the New York Times: “Seeking new authorization [from the U.N.] now is necessary, politically and practically, and will help build international support.”

“What [the realists] are arguing is not a case against preemptive action, but a case against unilateralism,” Mandelbaum said. “The United States fought a lot of major wars in the last century, but none of them without allies.”

Musharraf :biggthumb:

Personally, I think the Bush administration is conducting a massive bluff operation designed to get as many countries as possible pressuring Iraq into submitting to full inspections.

US citizens are not apt to (ever) support an unprovoked attack. It simply won't happen. However, if an internal (Iraqi) group were to arise, we would definitely support them in a coup attempt.

-Stu

Brent Scowcroft's statement sems to imply that the US wait for Saddam to have a nuclear capability, see him move agressively and then meet him on the battlefield after he has the capability. If he is a familiar dictatorial aggressor, who will stop at the point at which the price is of greater magnitude? I am not a great fan of Saddam's, but projecting out a few years in the area of senarios does make sense. The US has an obligation to do this. The other countries in the region have this obligation to their people. All voices and thoughts on the matter need to be heard.

What kind of precedent does that set if the US were do begin attacking any country they believe is building a nuclear program. Where would it stop?

Yeah, Stu, I have some trouble with us doing it, but the case has to be made in both directions. I am not that thrilled about bombing or going in on the ground and inflicting high civilian casualties. I just see some of the reasoning being used by the adminisrtation. It is a tough call, to be sure.

A deadline for Saddam to submit to unconditional Inspections should be imposed (perhapes Jan 15th, 2003). If Saddam refuses inspections (an agreement made by Iraq to end the Gulf War) then the cease fire was in fact nothing but a delay tactic used by Saddam to trick the world in allowing a dangerous and deadly regime continue their march towards developing weapons of mass destruction. By imposing such a deadline to Saddam this will remind the world that Saddam controls, as he always has, his own destiny.

History has shown us that governments have allowed mad men to build up dangerous war machines, it has been shown that these governments will sit idle and do nothing but watch as the danger grows and will only act after the ‘bomb’ explodes. These governments have yet to learn from their past mistakes and are once again ignoring the red lights and alarms going off. The fact is you have a man who has gassed his own innocent people, You have a man who has poured millions of dollars into creating WMD. This is a man who openly supports terror. Yet the majority of the world condemns even the notion that this man must be stopped from doing such things. If a deadline were given to Saddam that calls for inspectors to be allowed into Iraq unconditionally and he complies then such talk of attacking Saddam would not be acceptable. But if Saddam does not let inspectors in unconditional and allow them to freely inspect wherever and whatever they wish then the world community not only has justification for ousting Saddam but has the responsibility to rid the world of this dangerous regime. The governments who are protecting Saddam now are the same ones that have failed humanity in the past from such men. The U.S. received it's wake up call on September 11th 2001, don't expect them to sit around and do nothing but wait for the rest or the world to get theirs.

-utd-

Iraq says US strike will be last nail in Washington’s coffin: BAGHDAD, Aug 30: A US strike on Iraq would be the last nail in Washington’s coffin given the growing worldwide opposition to any such campaign to oust Saddam Hussein’s regime, an Iraqi newspaper said today. US President George W. Bush’s “boasts are aimed at scoring public opinion points but they have come up against a wall of rejection,” the daily said. It has made " futile and irresponsible statements against our country and its leaders, who constitute a complex and a terrible nightmare for American politicians ," Al-Iraq said. (AFP) (Posted @ 14:40 PDT)

LINK

Finally we hear from Powell.

From today’s LA TIMES:

Send U.N. Inspectors, Powell Says

Iraq: Secretary, declaring he’s backed by Bush, appears to contradict Cheney on need for arms searches. Policy experts see a picture of discord.

The apparent Powell-Cheney dispute came against a background of escalating disagreement and uncertainty among senior members of Congress, Republicans as well as Democrats, over whether to go to war with Iraq. Foreign policy experts from previous administrations have also joined the debate.

Both Powell and Cheney claimed to speak for President Bush. Confusion over the president’s real intentions seemed to mount further Sunday with a report in Newsweek magazine that Bush had not told Cheney to rule out U.N. weapons inspectors and had not meant to slam the door on diplomatic options.

..
**The lack of a consistent message about the president’s plans “confuses Congress, the allies, the American public and even the Republican Party, which is at loggerheads about whether and how to move forward,” Daalder said.

Richard Holbrooke, a former U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, called this a “summer of disarray” in the Bush camp.

“Instead of making the case unambiguously with a single group of people singing from the same song sheet, they’re singing at least, at minimum, different lyrics to the same music,” he said on “Fox News Sunday.” “They’re undermining their own case, first by the disarray … and secondly by their failure to recognize that they must seek international approval [for military action against Iraq] through the U.N. Security Council.”**

And former Secretary of State Lawrence S. Eagleburger, who served under the current president’s father, noted a “disconnect” between the vice president’s assertion that Iraqi President Saddam Hussein poses an imminent threat of nuclear blackmail and the president’s insistence that he has not made up his mind to act.

Eagleburger joined the growing group of advisors to the senior Bush who are cautioning the junior Bush against taking military action without allies and without exhausting diplomatic options. Speaking on “Meet the Press,” he questioned why, if the Bush administration has compelling evidence that Hussein will soon have a nuclear weapon, it has been unable to convince its allies.

Powell, in an interview with the BBC, appeared to be signaling that the U.S. would make one last attempt to force Iraq to comply with the U.N. Security Council, which has designated Blix its chief inspector.

“The president has been clear that he believes weapons inspectors should return,” Powell said. “Iraq has been in violation of many U.N. resolutions for most of the last 11 or so years. And so, as a first step, let’s see what the inspectors find. Send them back in. Why are they being kept out?”

Holbrooke said the United States needs a fresh resolution from the U.N. to replace the 12-year-old measure that authorized the use of force to evict Iraq’s army from Kuwait in the Persian Gulf War. But he said a new resolution should mandate “airtight, no-notice, anywhere, any time inspections” and should authorize “any means necessary” to enforce them.

Newsweek described a videoconference last week in which Bush, Cheney and White House Chief of Staff Andrew H. Card Jr. discussed the speech the vice president was about to give to the Veterans of Foreign Wars convention in Nashville. In that discussion, the president reportedly did not include rejecting arms inspectors among the points the vice president would make.

The magazine said administration officials later worried that Cheney’s public rejection of inspectors made the president look duplicitous in saying he has made no decision.

Pakistan Not To Side With US In Attack on Iraq: Musharraf

Terms deployment of any more US troops in Pakistan ‘unwise’; says amendments to ensure sustainable democracy

ISLAMABAD: Pakistan is not “at all” interested in joining efforts to topple Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein, being burdened enough by the campaign in Afghanistan, President Pervez Musharraf said on Monday.

“I wouldn’t like Pakistan to get involved at all,” Musharraf told CNN in an interview here. “We have too much on our hands here internally and regionally and we wouldn’t like to get involved anywhere outside.”

He warned that a US military strike against Iraq would not only raise ire among the Islamic world, but would also upset other Western interests. “I don’t think there is full support even in the European Union and in many other big powers, in Russia, China… so I think it’s going to disturb, cause a lot of imbalance,” he said.

President Musharraf also complained that the Muslims were at the receiving end of all the world’s disputes. He said that too many Muslim countries were being targeted in military operations around the world, and equated efforts to remove Saddam Hussein with yet another attack on a Muslim country.

“At the moment all the political disputes, all the military action, all the casualties, the suffering, are by the Muslims around the world, because all the political disputes involve Muslims unfortunately,” he said. “And more unfortunately Muslims happen to be at the receiving end every year. Therefore, another action against a country – I am not talking of Saddam Hussain as an individual – against a Muslim country, will certainly have its impact. We are not going along. So, this is not at all true that we go along. We see our national interest and we move accordingly.”

“It is not a question of removing Saddam Hussain. It’s a question of attacking a country, attacking another Muslim country,” he said. He also said there was “no point” in Islamabad providing any kind of support to a military strike on Iraq, as it did with the US-led bombardment of Afghanistan. “We have no geographical affinity with Iraq, and therefore there’s no point in our getting involved,” he said.

President Musharraf said that the deployment of more US troops in Pakistan for hunting the members of the al-Qaeda network would be unwise and was unnecessary. Asked how he would respond if the United States asked to put more troops in Pakistan, General Musharraf replied: “US troops? No, I don’t think that would be wise at all. We are looking after any foreign elements in Pakistan. We have deployed a part of our army and the frontier force for this purpose and the United States knows what we are doing. We are fully involved in this act. We don’t need assistance. We will ask for assistance if we require it. I think our forces are capable of meeting whatever is required in Pakistan.”

When asked about the failure of efforts to find bin Laden, Musharraf suggested that al-Qaeda had been significantly weakened. “Well, Osama bin Laden has not been found – I would say he may even be dead, but the leadership and the entire organisation is in total disarray at the moment.”

Asked if he expected some kind of attack on a Western target on the anniversary of September 11, he said: “One can’t rule out the possibility. But again, one would not like to put the entire onus on the door of al-Qaeda again, because I don’t think they are organised. But so much of whatever is happening in the Middle East has its own repercussions and therefore a possibility does exist.”

To a question, he said that amendments to the Constitution would ensure sustainability of democracy in Pakistan. He said that he wanted “to counter any coups, in the future.” “There was unbridled use of authority and power by the chief executive ie the prime minister for his own party and political interests, for corruption, loot and plunder and misgovernance,” he said, adding: “The changes in the Constitution are to ensure sustainability of democracy in Pakistan.”

“I have not taken the power on myself. I have created this National Security Council (NSC) which is an improvement on the previous part, when this power was with the President,” he said and added that he had given away the power of the president and created the NSC “where everything will be debated.”

“Uniformed people have to be there if you want to keep them out. Because, whenever there is a problem in Pakistan, everyone runs to the chief of army staff and they always drag him into the problem,” :hehe: he said. “Then, it is left to him (COAS) whether to take over or do whatever he thinks is right for the country, because all the people run to him for solving the problem of Pakistan. So, why not (to) include him in the body (NSC) so that whatever he (COAS) has to say or do is debated in this body of the National Security Council. There is no reason whatsoever for him (COAS) ever to take over,” he added.

About cracking down against extremists, President Musharraf said that the whole public was fed up with the extremist acts before the crackdown. “So, I think, it will have a positive effect in the long run.”

To a question whether the incident of September 11 made life difficult in Pakistan, he said: “It has raised some opposition. It has generated a kind of dynamics within the country. It has given rise to a little bit more of extremism. But, I personally feel, it is good that we have faced it and it is good in the long run. I am sure of its positive effects in the long run, because we are matching them head-on, we are taking them head on. Pakistan is improving its law enforcement agencies. We’re improving our capabilities to match this extremist threat, and sooner the better.”

“I think, the whole Pakistani public was fed up of these extremist acts before we cracked down. So, therefore, I think it will have a positive effect in the long run. One should not at all get worried about them. This is happening, this is a phenomenon all around the world at the moment. It is a result of the 9/11. I think all around the world there is a shift towards militancy and extremism. So, therefore, it has its effects on Pakistan also. This is a small minority and one should not get unnecessarily perturbed about it.”

Referring to the terrorist attacks in Pakistan, President Musharraf said: “These are acts which had been done and we have moved and we have made a lot of success and I am sure with the passage of time normalcy will return, better sense will prevail in these extremists also and we will get back to normal. I am very sure of it. It does not disturb me much.”

To a question about Pakistan’s foreign policy, the president said: “We have done everything in our national interest and on matter of principles. We take our stand in accordance with what the nation requires.”

:hula:PAKISTAN - ALL THE WAY:hula:

“Because, whenever there is a problem in Pakistan, everyone runs to the chief of army staff and they always drag him into the problem,” he said. “Then, it is left to him (COAS) whether to take over or do whatever he thinks is right for the country, because all the people run to him for solving the problem of Pakistan.”

LOL this is very true indeed. Mush is spot on :k:

Precisely. This has been Pakistan’s history :slight_smile:

Civilized world? :rolleyes: Does he mean the ones that massacre the Palestineans?

**(http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-fg-letter5sep05.story) **

Text of President Bush’s letter on Iraq, sent Wednesday to members of Congress:

America and the civilized world :rolleyes: face a critical decision in the months ahead. The decision is how to disarm an outlaw regime that continues to possess and develop weapons of mass destruction, despite its own promises over the last decade and despite the condemnation of the world. Since Sept. 11, we have been tragically reminded that we are vulnerable to evil people. And this vulnerability increases dramatically when evil people have access to weapons of mass destruction.

I know members of Congress agree that Saddam Hussein’s regime is still a threat to peace, as it was when you passed the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998. I also know members of the United Nations are angry that this regime continues to thumb its nose at the world, defying at least 16 U.N. Security Council resolutions adopted between 1990 and 1999 that require Iraq to disarm and give up weapons of mass destruction, to stop threatening its neighbors, and to stop oppressing the Iraqi people.

America intends to lead the way to make certain that the Saddam Hussein regime is not able to threaten anyone in the world with the world’s most devastating weapons.

I am in the process of deciding how to proceed. This is an important decision that must be made with great thought and care. Therefore, I welcome and encourage discussion and debate. The Congress will hold hearings on Iraq this month, and I have asked members of my administration to participate fully.

Doing nothing in the face of a grave threat to the world is not an option. At an appropriate time and after consultations with the leadership, I will seek congressional support for U.S. action to do whatever is necessary to deal with the threat posed by Saddam Hussein’s regime. The Congress can play an important role in building a national consensus for action.

The international community must also be involved. *(Ihttp://www.guardian.co.uk/worldlatest/story/0,1280,-1990858,00.html) I will also reach out to President Chirac of France, President Putin of Russia, President Jiang of China, and other world leaders.

I will have these discussions in advance of next week’s meeting of the United Nations General Assembly in New York. At that meeting, I will discuss the challenge that the current Iraqi regime represents to the United Nations and the entire international community.

My administration remains committed to the regime change policy enshrined in the Iraq Liberation Act. The world must address how the Iraqi people can be liberated from the bondage in which the regime holds them and realize a better future for their children.

We must not allow an outlaw regime that incites and uses terror at home and abroad to threaten the world by developing the ultimate weapons of terror. The months ahead will be important ones and the civilized world must come together to deal with the threat posed by the Iraqi regime.

–Associated Press*

Pak Wants No part In An Attack on Iraq: Musharraf

NEW YORK, September 13 (PNS): President Pervez Musharraf of Pakistan on Wednesday said that an American decision to attack Iraq would inflame Islamic extremism in his country and across the region and that therefore “we would not like to be involved” in it.

Speaking in an interview with The New York Times during a weeklong visit to the United States, he said he would caution President Bush, whom he is to meet Thursday after a United Nations General Assembly session, to seek the consensus of the international community and of Muslim nations before starting military operations against Iraq.

He expressed concern that any expansion of war in the region might undermine the allied campaign to stabilize Afghanistan and strengthen its central government.

An assassination attempt last week against Hamid Karzai, the Afghan leader, set off a spike in anxiety levels among coalition forces and allies supporting the new leadership.

“The operation needs to be taken to its logical end,” he said. **“It needs to be culminated with government established over the whole of Afghanistan. Leaving it half there would be extremely dangerous.” **

General Musharraf defending his decision last month to amend the Pakistani Constitution unilaterally, expand his control over the country and limit any challenges from former Prime Ministers Benazir Bhutto and Nawaz Sharif said his decisions would promote democratic development.

An opinion the White House does not share but was not willing to criticize too sharply, an administration official responded.

Given Pakistan’s crucial role in securing Afghanistan’s future and preventing the spread of terrorism in the region, Mr. Bush is expected today to gently criticize the democratic reversals that took place in Pakistan this summer while emphasizing Washington’s overall support for the military government, the Times reported.

General Musharraf said Mr. Bush’s doctrine of pre-emptive strikes against hostile nations or organizations armed with nuclear, chemical or biological weapons could incite India to move against Pakistan.

“There is a possibility that India could take a lead from this theory of pre-emption,” he said. “And they may undertake an adventurous act. But I would like to hasten to add that here the situation is different. Pakistan is not Iraq, and India is not the United States.” In other words, he added, **“they’d better not try it.” **

He warned that tension between the two nuclear-armed adversaries remains high in Kashmir. “We are killing each other almost on a daily basis,” he said.

“Therefore the danger remains explosive,” he said.

In discussing the potential American campaign against Iraq, General Musharraf indicated that it was a highly sensitive issue in Pakistan’s domestic politics in advance of parliamentary elections next month.

“Pakistan is facing problems in its own region,” he said. **“We have too much on our plate, too much on our hands, internally, domestically, and on our western border, and eastern border with India, Kashmir. We would not like to be involved in anything more than this.”

He said the main direction for American policy in the region ought to be conflict resolution, including the Israeli-Palestinian dispute. He did not say this was a precondition for war in Iraq, but the political risks were substantial, he indicated.

“Tensions are high,” he said. “In the Islamic world and in the Middle East especially, people are seeing a U.S. role maybe biased towards Israel. so under these circumstances, undertaking an operation against another country, an Arab country and Muslim country, will certainly have negative repercussions.”

In Afghanistan, he indicated that the hunt for Osama bin Laden might not be as important as strengthening government control over the countryside. “My hunch is that more chances are that he is dead,” he said.

Like some American officials, General Musharraf cited the clear intelligence that Mr. bin Laden in December entered the Tora Bora region of eastern Afghanistan, where he and his 200 or so guards were subjected to intense bombing, and that there had been radio silence ever since.

“I don’t think we have searched every cave, so therefore one presumes that he may have been killed in one of those caves,” he said, adding that Mr. bin Laden’s kidney condition, which requires dialysis, is a factor in judging his survival chances on the run.

General Musharraf defended his government’s decision to ban Ms. Bhutto, now living in exile in London and charged with corruption, from taking part in parliamentary elections. He said keeping her off the ballot was part of his effort to promote the emergence of new political leaders, though opposition leaders accuse him of manipulation to protect his hold on power.

Pressed on how his actions could be seen as the promotion of democracy, he said, “I am trying to introduce real democracy into Pakistan, the essence of democracy.” Referring to Pakistan’s turbulent history of coups and ousters, he said that **“democracy has never existed” **in the country, because almost no leader had governed to the end of his term.

In Pakistan, he said, “any civilian government has always misgoverned, has always looted and plundered.” He suggested that “memories are short” about the conditions under which he took power in 1999. “We were being almost declared a terrorist state, and we were going to default on our loans.” he said. “It was being said that Pakistan was a failed state.” **

Pakistan Hopes Iraq Will Not Be Attacked

UNITED NATIONS, Sept 18: **Pakistan on Wednesday joined most members of the international community in expressing hope that following Iraq’s unconditional acceptance of weapons inspection the use of force against Iraq could be averted. **

In a statement at the Organization of Islamic Conference meeting, Minister of State for Foreign affairs Inam ul Haq hoped that following Saddam Hussein’s unconditional acceptance of the inspectors, the use of force could be avoided.

The major topic at the UN in these last few days has been the possibility of the use of force against Iraq following President Bush’s virtual ultimatum.

**Pakistan has expressed its support for the full implementation of UN Security Council resolutions. **

The danger of a military attack against Iraq is not considered imminent but reportedly the Americans have openly enlarged their demands beyond the acceptance of inspectors. These are now 16 requirements contained in various resolutions which Iraq will have to fulfil to avoid unspecified action the US had threatened to take.

Mr Haque, held a series of meetings with a large number of foreign ministers. **These include: Kazakhstan, China, Ukraine, Romania, UK Germany, Vietnam, Chile, Cuba, Australia, Bangladesh, Switzerland, Lao Republic, Spain, Luxembourg, Tunisia, Cambodia, Morocco, Libya, Philippines, Algeria, Jordan and Turkey. **

Mr Haq is also lobbying delegates and diplomats here to elicit support for Pakistan’s diplomatic stance and to secure the maximum possible support for Pakistan’s election to the Security Council. Elections which will be held on Sept 27.

At a meeting of OIC on Wednesday, Inam-ul-Haque, has reiterated Pakistanis principled position on Kashmir.

He called for immediate withdrawal of forces; end of Indian repression and resumption of an Indo-Pakistan dialogue.

Mr Haq asked the OIC to act to prevent the massacre of Indian Muslims as happened in Gujarat. He also expressed Pakistan’s concern regarding the need to create conditions of comprehensive security in Afghanistan as well as in the Middle East. He hoped that following Saddam Hussein’s unconditional acceptance of the inspectors, the use of force could be avoided.

The OIC foreign ministers adopted a Final Communique on Tuesday evening which affirms the OICs support to a resolution of the Kashmir dispute in accordance with UN Security Council resolutions and the wishes of the Kashmiri people. It also calls for immediate de-escalation of forces and a dialogue between India and Pakistan.

Kashmiri leader Mir Waiz Umar Farooq also addressed the OIC ministerial meeting, calling on India to engage in a genuine dialogue to resolve the problems and to halt its violations of human rights in Kashmir.