As usual with Mush, when he speaks, he speaks well, talks from his heart and makes sense (even when he’s wrong!!!).
http://www.outlookindia.com/full.asp?fodname=20030311&fname=raman&sid=1&pn=1
Gen. Pervez Musharraf did so while talking to a group of intellectuals at the Governor’s House in Lahore in January. His significant address to them was analysed in four installments by Jang, the Urdu daily (January 21 to 24). Some of his remarks as cited in the analysis need to be quoted:
“Our people are saying that if Iraq is attacked, then we will fight for Iraq. Before saying such things, we should see whether such commitments are in the interests of Pakistan. We should give priority to our interests over all other issues. Instead of sentimental statements and slogans we should behave sensibly. We should think over how we can protect ourselves from the possible effects of US policies. We can choose a path of confrontation. Whenever we disagree with the USA, we can adopt an inflexible and aggressive stand, but would it be in our interest? The other way out is that we should follow prudence, far-sightedness and a cautious approach…Our nuclear capability has become a matter of concern for many countries and we should try to protect our nuclear assets. By adopting a sentimental course, we should not provide an opportunity to others to destroy our nuclear capability.”
Our nuclear capability has become a matter of concern for many countries and we should try to protect our nuclear assets. By adopting a sentimental course, we should not provide an opportunity to others to destroy our nuclear capability."
I think everyone knows what he means by that, and he's not wrong.
[QUOTE] Originally posted by Malik73: *
**Our nuclear capability has become a matter of concern for many countries and we should try to protect our nuclear assets. By adopting a sentimental course, we should not provide an opportunity to others to destroy our nuclear capability."*
I think everyone knows what he means by that, and he's not wrong.
[/QUOTE]
Agreed! Can Pakistanis PLEASE put Pakistan FIRST?? What the hell is going on when you have a multitude of problems and external pressures on your country, yet you insist on taking on the saviour of the Muslims role as well!
Agreed! Can Pakistanis PLEASE put Pakistan FIRST?? What the hell is going on when you have a multitude of problems and external pressures on your country, yet you insist on taking on the saviour of the Muslims role as well!
[/QUOTE]
President Nasir of Egypt once said. True Islam came in 1947... there was no isalm before that LOL....
Let me get this straight. Is Musharraf now worried that being a nuclear state may result in us being targetted if we don't support US in its rogue policies towards Iraq?
People talk about turning a lemon into lemonade. Musharraf seems to have championed the art of turning a lemonade into a rotten, smelly lemon.
We should decide our policies on what is best for Pakistan in line with the wishes of our people, not by being scared of what will happen to us by a rogue bully drunk in its power. If we are going to be scared like this, then tuff hai nuclear deterrent pe.. khaya piya kuch nahi, glass tora bara aanay wali baaat ho gayee. We took sanctions and everything for these nukes and are now scared because of them again.
I am not really sure where I stand on this issue, but Mush did state his position quite well. I agree with the Pakistan First comments, We are not the Guardians of Islam in the World, while our identity is linked to Muslims and Muslim beliefs, we do not have the strength to project power to go around and lecture others or defend others.
On the flip side I agree with Faisal, whats the point of spending so much money on a deterrent programme which was setup to protect the country if we are now scared someone will make a try to destroy it? By not standing for the Iraqi people and by not arguing against the doctrine of Pre-emption aren't we just ensuring that when our turn comes we are well and truly alone?
Standing for what's right is never easy, but South Asian Muslims have done it before they stood for Turkey in 1920 when it was near defeat, stood for Indonesia when it was fighting the Dutch, helped the Syrians in 1973 and the Arabs in 1948. While many did not stand for us (especially Egypt), others did (Iran gave the PAF use of it's air bases in 1965), Turks to this day treat Pakistanis with a lot of respect. As do many Indonesians.
I think all Musharraf is saying is that we shouldn't always go by our heart but use our Brains.... we are not in a position to take on US..and why should we anyways for Iraq.... whose leader supported Milosovic against Muslims of Bosnia, and who supported Soviets during the Afghan war, India on Kashmir...and last but not least was providing weaponry for the Baluch (Mengal & Company) rebels.... I have heard many people saying that well we support the Iraqi people...at that point I am with them...but are we really helping the Iraqi's by letting Saddam stay in Power....the crook has killed more Iraqi's then the Mongols.... look at the Kurds how well they are doing when there not getting butchered by Saddam... He has constructed a dam and stopped majority of water from reaching southern Iraq...which was once Green has now turned into desert... so the crimes of Saddam and his Baathist thugs are manyfold and Pakistan should just stay out of it...let the major powers resolve this.
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Faisal: *
We should decide our policies on what is best for Pakistan in line with the wishes of our people, not by being scared of what will happen to us by a rogue bully drunk in its power. If we are going to be scared like this, then tuff hai nuclear deterrent pe.. .
[/QUOTE]
hey its fine as long as people then dont start bytching about the consequences. back when pakistan did the nuclear tests all ppl were gung ho, and then when teh sanctions started taking its tole they were yip yapping against the govt.
Point is this, its an unfair world, whimpering for fairness aint gonna do jack, one has to do the best with what one is presneted with. best action will be to be prudent.
If people in Pakistan really want to do something else than fine, they can go for it but they should understand the consequences and be prepared to deal with them..fair or unfair.
qaum jazbaati hai, gets all hyped up and worked up about everything.
Badsha, well said mah man..
I thinkPakistan has done enough already by presnting alternative approaches to reolving the issue with other temp sec council members and from what I know had not volunteered its forces for missions there.
what do ppl want...that pakistan becomes iraq's defender? send its forces..if not then what else do you want pakistan to do.
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Faisal: *
We should decide our policies on what is best for Pakistan in line with the wishes of our people, not by being scared of what will happen to us by a rogue bully drunk in its power. If we are going to be scared like this, then tuff hai nuclear deterrent pe.. khaya piya kuch nahi, glass tora bara aanay wali baaat ho gayee. We took sanctions and everything for these nukes and are now scared because of them again.
[/QUOTE]
You need a dosage of reality. This is international politics. It aint 1920, that protectionism is rage and you can do whatever you want and nobody cares. Any single action has consequences in other nations. It is no longer a vaccum. You have to live with the rest of the world, and this is the time for pakistan to tread very carefully.
This is all crap. I don't want Pakistan to stand with Iraqi government. Saddam is probably the worst thing which happened to that nation, and they have to deal with the consequences. The French position has some viable aspects to it. Billions of people in the middle east and all through out the world are opposing war, and each may have a different reason. Atleast get your reason right.
Either milk the American cow and get some monetary benefit (like African nations are doing) or else side with French or stay neutral. But to spread fear in your own country that "we should side with US, otherwise they will neutralize our nuclear capability" is the height of cowardice. He wants to side with US, do that, but give better reasons. He's a bad negotiator, thats all. Instead of getting some goodies for our seat in UNSC, he is caving in based on fear.
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Bhadsha: *
I think all Musharraf is saying is that we shouldn't always go by our heart but use our Brains.... we are not in a position to take on US..and why should we anyways for Iraq.... whose leader supported Milosovic against Muslims of Bosnia, and who supported Soviets during the Afghan war, India on Kashmir...and last but not least was providing weaponry for the Baluch (Mengal & Company) rebels.... I have heard many people saying that well we support the Iraqi people...at that point I am with them...but are we really helping the Iraqi's by letting Saddam stay in Power....the crook has killed more Iraqi's then the Mongols.... look at the Kurds how well they are doing when there not getting butchered by Saddam... He has constructed a dam and stopped majority of water from reaching southern Iraq...which was once Green has now turned into desert... so the crimes of Saddam and his Baathist thugs are manyfold and Pakistan should just stay out of it...let the major powers resolve this.
[/QUOTE]
I commend your cooments, very concise and appropriate. I don't want Pakistan to be US "henchman" in this war, but Saddam & co. don't deserve our support either. I am more convinced that the abstention would be the best way to go, as much as Iraq has been against Pakistan, the domestic opposition to the war must be taken into account.
As far as the present crisis is concerned, I think its against our interests to side by the Americans. By co-operating with the Americans we will get isolated like the Americans are at the moment, and after fulfilling their interests in Iraq they will undoubtedly come towards Pakistan, but then it would be very late for us. Iraq's WMD are of no concern to the world, but Pakistan's are. By siding with the Americans in this war, WE would have no justification in keeping our WMDs when we vociferously supported the disarmament of Iraq. Its not worth it for us to get isolated for America which on numerous ocassions has proven to be an undependable ally.
We must accept the ground realities, that India is a natural ally for the Americans in the near future, whereas Pakistan is no where in the picture. Therefore I feel that by siding with the Americans we will only help in American designs regarding this region. We can tell them, "Sorry! we cant help you in case of Iraq as that might destabilize our country domestically, but we will keep on trekking the remnants of Al-Quaida members".
Faisal the threat is very real. If Iraq first, NK, Iran what about us? You cant just ignore a possible threat no matter how unlikely. If it is a threat you must deal with it. Saddam is the worst thing to happen to Iraq. I am for getting rid of Saddam. Black Ops, SAS, or even a war. Get him.
As for the caving in, valid i think in this regard. Rumsfeld is hinting if not stating that they will go to war without a UNSC resolution. It is very likely if they do it once they can do it again.
Even for my "pro-war" (i want saddam out) position, i dont think Pakistan should vote yes. If we vote yes, we have no moral ground on which we can defend our own program on WMD. It would be stupid to do so. Saddam doesnt deserve our support.
yup. balanced, you are not supporting a war that the country is not behind and UN has not sanctioned, and you are showing no support for a dictator like saddam who has never been our friend.
The only way this becomes a problem for Pakistan is if a resolution comes to vote, US has 8 votes and has to tell Pakistan to get the ninth. In that case, even though I do not expect Islamabad to be set fire or anything, the GOP loses all credibility inside the country. But weigh that against a few billions that will be paid out and GOP (in both countries) can spin it to their benefit.
The part that surprised me is how candidly and openly (inadvertently?) Musharaf has admitted the most basic protocol of current US-PAK relations - “you do what we want and we’ll let you keep the nukes”. As long as sovereignty is not a desired value, Musharaf has worked his way to a “can’t loose” position.
PS: I just read what I wrote and it sounds like Kissinger-speak! may be I should look for a career in shuttle diplomacy! (but no Watergate please)
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by aravamudhan: *
US has 8 votes and has to tell Pakistan to get the ninth.
[/quote]
I believe US has got 3 more votes [total 6 votes] as Powell had a wonderful kiss moment with 3 African nations. Even Mexico stands is to abstain from UNSC vote. This is what their officials agreed on recently with Pakistan officials.
Accordin' to the Mexican officials, best way to occupy Iraq, would be to send 100 batch of troops one by one. No hurry.
I just read what I wrote and it sounds like Kissinger-speak! may be I should look for a career in shuttle diplomacy! (but no Watergate please)