Zardari or Musharraf? now what do you say?

[Sa1eem]

Well, I'd support even kala choor (maybe zardari is kala choor???) than support any military dictator no matter how good he is. Having said that, why are we depending on individuals? And, if Zardari is elected legally & constitutionally who are we to argue against it?

No doubt that an elected Zardari deserves to be President (and Pakistan deserves that too). Nevertheless, regardless of Zardari gets elected or not, a person only support those who is similar to them in values, unless they are ignorant and following a person (or system promoting the elected person) like Zombies.

As for Mushrraf, I don't care how good he was (I think he gets credit for lots of things which he had nothing to do with). He was illegitimate self-appointed dictator, who was doing all he could to hang on to kursi. In 8 years he destroyed every institution in the country, and then at the end he gifted us NRO, Zardari and Shareifs.

Musharraf was as much legitimate or illegitimate in power as anyone could be (actually, there is no such thing as a person illegal or illegitimate in power, but these are words of losers and every loser throughout history have used it).

Musharraf done something for his own kursi: ... I do not see any truth in it other than lies and propaganda. I could not see that Musharraf gained from NRO or there was anything he could have gained when NRO was issued. Rather it was known from day one that he would lose because of NRO. When Musharraf issued NRO he was in power and anyone in power love to keep cases of people in opposition open so that he/she can victimise, torment and pressurise opposition using those cases. Musharraf did not started any of those cases and it was something he inherited from past, started by those in power to victimise, torment and pressurise oppositions. Many of those cases may be true too, still undecided, so that it can be used by people in power for victimisation, tormenting and pressurising. Many cases were lingering on because guilty party had enough support in judiciary to keep it lingering.

Only a brainless would believe that a person in power could gain something by closing cases of opponents and giving them pardon. As for Nawaz and Zardari (or any crooks in Assembly), it is propaganda and lies that they are gift of Musharraf, as they are not gift of Musharraf but those who supported, voted, and elected them (due to their own personal interest or being brainless Zombies).

[Shamraz_Khan]

Nevertheless, regardless of Zardari gets elected or not, a person only support those who is similar to them in values, unless they are ignorant and following a person (or system promoting the elected person) like Zombies.

I'm not the one nominating Zardari for presidency. All I said was if he is elected, we should respect that. BTW, I agree with you, we all support those who're similar to us & thats why MQM and Altaf Bhai have nominated Zardari for presidency. So, that means if you think Zardari is crook so is the Don of London who you worship blindly. :)

[quote]
Musharraf was as much legitimate or illegitimate in power as anyone could be (actually, there is no such thing as a person illegal or illegitimate in power, but these are words of losers and every loser throughout history have used it).
[/quote]

Let us not play with words & even in that you're contradicting yourself. System of govt, laws & rule of law matters, except for those greedy people who have no principles...all they care about is their $$$ & how they get it.

[quote]
Musharraf done something for his own kursi: ... I do not see any truth in it...
[/QUOTE]

Its not your fault. We only see what we like to see. :)

[Spock]

a person only support those who is similar to them in values,.

What about Altaf Hussain? He is the biggest supporter for A Zardari right now in the coalition, jahaan tak presidency ki baat rahi

[Shamraz_Khan]

I agree that Musharraf did alot for his Chair. but name me one person in our country who doesnt. If power corrupts...then what does absolute power do? If Musharraf had power is not Zardari aiming for absolute power? with the PM in his hand and himself as President........say no more!

How was Zardari elected? not by you or me. Nor the people.

I wouldnt accept a dictator either. In Mushrraf case i see it as an exception. because id rather have a dictator ( who did a bit of good work, even you admit to it Mr Khan) as compared to tried and tested NS and PPP. Raiwind and Surrey palace reminds me how these people are corrupt and always will be!

Care to explain few good things that Mushrraf has done?

The country is in defacto civil war were two of the provinces are going up in flames, suicide bombers going off in major cities & over paid and under worked army is either unwilling or incapable to dealing with situation. And, there is reason why its happening...b/c of army involvement in politics and its creation of jihadi monster.

As for Zardaris election...just wait and see. If guy fails to perform...him and his partly will be kicked out next time around... my point is let the the system work.

[Panthr3ss]

Re: Zardari or Musharraf? now what do you say?

Musharraf anyday!!!!!!..who wud want a scumbag like zardari..huh

[Spock]

Musharraf anyday!!!!!!..who wud want a scumbag like zardari..huh

Can you please let me know who brought Zardari back into the political scene?

[Tariq_Akhtar]

Re: Zardari or Musharraf? now what do you say?

The top charges I hear against Musharaf are:

he was a dictator who threw out elected govt

he dismissed iftikhar without undue process

. He mishandled FATA - attacking Pak citizens there

He mishandled FATA - made deal with militants

he allowed firing on lal masjid

Yes, his coup was driven by what I conider evil intent and even though it removed ganja, it still was his biggest mistake.

Iftikhar - there were and are credible complaints against he ex-CJ (his son). Iftikhar did not offer sufficient explanation nor did he stand down for an investigation. Musharraf took this opportunity to remove a thorn in his flesh but let personal hatred get the better of him in how he went abt it (he didn't read the initial reports of lawyer sentiments clearly which is a intelligence failure!) On this, equal blame on both.

FATA - musharraf or anyone else had and has no clear choice or strategy here. When your own army starts surrendering to terrorists, making the deal is the only way to prevent further damage to the nation's infamy. I think Musharraf should not be indicted on this

Lal Masjid - to me Lal Masjid was a test whether Pakistan can become a fully talebanised theocracy such as Iran or Afghanistan. Musharraf did the right thing ultimately there, thus showing the islamic thugs that they cannot take over law & order

On balance, Musharraf deserved to be fired for the coup but the rest of it is his fault

[boyee]

^ i suggest you have a look at 18 feb results and see what happened to PML(Q), which musharraf said was his party. It got routed at the ballot, which incidentally was the verdict of the people against the dictator.

err....18th feb votes were not cast against musharraf or his party. they were cast in sympathy of ppp.
at that time, the sentiment in the country was such that people voted for ppp out of sympathy.....and zardari made a statement saying that if ppp didnt win, they would launch nationwide agitation, which in plain words means, their hired thugs would go on a carnage across the country.

[Spock]

The top charges I hear against Musharaf are:

he was a dictator who threw out elected govt

he dismissed iftikhar without undue process

. He mishandled FATA - attacking Pak citizens there

He mishandled FATA - made deal with militants

he allowed firing on lal masjid

Yes, his coup was driven by what I conider evil intent and even though it removed ganja, it still was his biggest mistake.

Iftikhar - there were and are credible complaints against he ex-CJ (his son). Iftikhar did not offer sufficient explanation nor did he stand down for an investigation. Musharraf took this opportunity to remove a thorn in his flesh but let personal hatred get the better of him in how he went abt it (he didn't read the initial reports of lawyer sentiments clearly which is a intelligence failure!) On this, equal blame on both.

FATA - musharraf or anyone else had and has no clear choice or strategy here. When your own army starts surrendering to terrorists, making the deal is the only way to prevent further damage to the nation's infamy. I think Musharraf should not be indicted on this

Lal Masjid - to me Lal Masjid was a test whether Pakistan can become a fully talebanised theocracy such as Iran or Afghanistan. Musharraf did the right thing ultimately there, thus showing the islamic thugs that they cannot take over law & order

On balance, Musharraf deserved to be fired for the coup but the rest of it is his fault

Whatever happened to the emergency he imposed? That was his final nail in the coffin.

[Spock]

err....18th feb votes were not cast against musharraf or his party. they were cast in sympathy of ppp. at that time, the sentiment in the country was such that people voted for ppp out of sympathy.....and zardari made a statement saying that if ppp didnt win, they would launch nationwide agitation, which in plain words means, their hired thugs would go on a carnage across the country.

You honestly think the people would vote for the PML[Q Musharraf/SHujaat lota league]?

[ehtasab]

Musharraf done something for his own kursi: ... I do not see any truth in it other than lies and propaganda. I could not see that Musharraf gained from NRO or there was anything he could have gained when NRO was issued. Rather it was known from day one that he would lose because of NRO. When Musharraf issued NRO he was in power and anyone in power love to keep cases of people in opposition open so that he/she can victimise, torment and pressurise opposition using those cases. Musharraf did not started any of those cases and it was something he inherited from past, started by those in power to victimise, torment and pressurise oppositions. Many of those cases may be true too, still undecided, so that it can be used by people in power for victimisation, tormenting and pressurising. Many cases were lingering on because guilty party had enough support in judiciary to keep it lingering.

Only a brainless would believe that a person in power could gain something by closing cases of opponents and giving them pardon. As for Nawaz and Zardari (or any crooks in Assembly), it is propaganda and lies that they are gift of Musharraf, as they are not gift of Musharraf but those who supported, voted, and elected them (due to their own personal interest or being brainless Zombies).

Can we also say only a brainless person will pardon someone who has crimes against the nation (not just one person)? May be 2:00AM calls have something to do with all this.

[Tariq_Akhtar]

Re: Zardari or Musharraf? now what do you say?

The top charges I hear against Musharaf are:

he was a dictator who threw out elected govt

he dismissed iftikhar without undue process

. He mishandled FATA - attacking Pak citizens there

He mishandled FATA - made deal with militants

he allowed firing on lal masjid

Yes, his coup was driven by what I conider evil intent and even though it removed ganja, it still was his biggest mistake.

Iftikhar - there were and are credible complaints against he ex-CJ (his son). Iftikhar did not offer sufficient explanation nor did he stand down for an investigation. Musharraf took this opportunity to remove a thorn in his flesh but let personal hatred get the better of him in how he went abt it (he didn't read the initial reports of lawyer sentiments clearly which is a intelligence failure!) On this, equal blame on both.

FATA - musharraf or anyone else had and has no clear choice or strategy here. When your own army starts surrendering to terrorists, making the deal is the only way to prevent further damage to the nation's infamy. I think Musharraf should not be indicted on this

Lal Masjid - to me Lal Masjid was a test whether Pakistan can become a fully talebanised theocracy such as Iran or Afghanistan. Musharraf did the right thing ultimately there, thus showing the islamic thugs that they cannot take over law & order

On balance, Musharraf deserved to be fired for the coup but the rest of it is NOT his fault

[Spock]

The top charges I hear against Musharaf are:

he was a dictator who threw out elected govt

he dismissed iftikhar without undue process

. He mishandled FATA - attacking Pak citizens there

He mishandled FATA - made deal with militants

he allowed firing on lal masjid

Yes, his coup was driven by what I conider evil intent and even though it removed ganja, it still was his biggest mistake.

Iftikhar - there were and are credible complaints against he ex-CJ (his son). Iftikhar did not offer sufficient explanation nor did he stand down for an investigation. Musharraf took this opportunity to remove a thorn in his flesh but let personal hatred get the better of him in how he went abt it (he didn't read the initial reports of lawyer sentiments clearly which is a intelligence failure!) On this, equal blame on both.

FATA - musharraf or anyone else had and has no clear choice or strategy here. When your own army starts surrendering to terrorists, making the deal is the only way to prevent further damage to the nation's infamy. I think Musharraf should not be indicted on this

Lal Masjid - to me Lal Masjid was a test whether Pakistan can become a fully talebanised theocracy such as Iran or Afghanistan. Musharraf did the right thing ultimately there, thus showing the islamic thugs that they cannot take over law & order

On balance, Musharraf deserved to be fired for the coup but the rest of it is his fault

You posted that already...

[Rebel_X]

Can we also say only a brainless person will pardon someone who has crimes against the nation (not just one person)? May be 2:00AM calls have something to do with all this.

Most likely, there was external pressure to have benazir become part of the equation and the only way that was going to happen was by having her and her husband pardoned. Countries face and feel external pressure. With the situation pakistan has been it becomes more precarious. I doubt that any of our regime's in near future will be going against such pressure. Questions would be whether Musharraf pardoned them only for the sake of bolstering his own grip on power or were there bigger concerns and issues which necessitated it. Maybe we will find out later at some point in time. We do know that her return was brokered and orchestrated by US and personally supported by Condi.

[saavan]

Now that people got what they wanted and Musharaf resigned, let me ask you. All said and done, do you prefer Z o M to be president?

obviously zardari. musharaf is murderer of akbar bugti, benazir any many more.

[ehtasab]

Most likely, there was external pressure to have benazir become part of the equation and the only way that was going to happen was by having her and her husband pardoned. Countries face and feel external pressure. With the situation pakistan has been it becomes more precarious. I doubt that any of our regime's in near future will be going against such pressure. Questions would be whether Musharraf pardoned them only for the sake of bolstering his own grip on power or were there bigger concerns and issues which necessitated it. Maybe we will find out later at some point in time. We do know that her return was brokered and orchestrated by US and personally supported by Condi.

I agree, thats why I said the 2:00AM part. We CANNOT go against such pressures until a leadership rises to national levels without pampering from abroad.

One of possible reasons for "outside" forces pushing her entry could be that she was liberal (of sorts) and was "nationally acceptable" compared to Nawaz Sharif (not much liberal and more Punjab centric), Imran Khan, Altaf Hussein etc.

[Sa1eem]

Can we also say only a brainless person will pardon someone who has crimes against the nation (not just one person)? May be 2:00AM calls have something to do with all this.

Not really. During 1988 to 1999, politicians persecuted other politicians in big way (especially Nawaz Shareef made many fabricated cases against his opponents). On the other hand, most politicians were involved in corruption as well as other political crimes. Situation was that there were many politicians whom mass worshipped but they could not do politics freely, so with their mass support, they were making things unstable in the country and if things were left as it is, situation was likely to get worse still.

It was need of the time that some sort of reconciliation should be done where past obscure crimes and obscure corruption cases get wiped out. That is what NRO did, wiped out un-resolved crimes and corruptions cases that started before Nov 1999 (before Musharraf took over). Even though it is assumed fact that many of the beneficiaries were guilty, still it was difficult to persecute as politicians did not left much clues or witnesses relate to their crimes and corruptions (only visual evidence were there but no documentary evidence). Only purpose left for such cases were to victimise and persecute politicians by those in power. Hence NRO ... National Reconciliation Ordinance ... with purpose that all politicians could participate in practical politics without worries of cases.

[korn666]

Musharaf was far far better than both NS and AZ

[Panthr3ss]

Can you please let me know who brought Zardari back into the political scene?

hiz wife..n hiz hunger for power n money ofcourse..which cannot be satisfied..duh!

[Words_of_Quaid]

Re: Zardari or Musharraf? now what do you say?

Zardari is likley to sell Pakistan for 10% in swiss account. President Zardari may even increase his rate