Acts of Terrorism in pakistan I

[dabong1]

Well they were allowed to do all what men could.
Could go out to study. to participate in public life. could speak to others..and so on and so forth.

They where no worse or better then the average pakistani/indian woman

 

[dabong1]

The problem with that my friend, is that there is no guarantee that those "corrupt politicians" will not extend their "corruption" to the ballot box come election time, so in reality you will not be able to "vote them out". The only way a democracy can properly function is if it is supported by institutions such as a strong independent judiciary, an independent election commission and an independent police force and/or some sort of accountability bureau.

What makes you sure the military is not corrupt?

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

The institutions of democracy is established in pakistan, its just that the army keeps coming and trying to destroy it or taylor it to its own needs.

I had not read this particular post before my last response. I think you can make an argument both ways; the military kept interfering, but the politicians never tried to strengthen these institutions either. Political lackeys were appointed as Judges and CEC's by both military and politicians. What is discouraging for me now, with respect to the political parties and therefore a military free democracy, is that other than a few attempts by the PPP (not BB), no initiative has been taken by the parties in opposition to work towards those strong, independent institutions.

Critics of Musharraf talk about him being in power for eight years and not making any progress on those fronts, but how many years have the parties and the leadership of the MMA. PPP and PML-N existed? It beggars belief that none of them, despite their "grand alliances" and other shenanigans over all these years in the "political arena, could not come up with a simple workable plan, let alone agreement, to make those institutions independent and strong. What that shows me is that they have no interest in actually "developing democracy", only in waiting their turn to be in power so that they can manipulate those institutions to give cover to their ineptitude.

What would make me support those parties who get into these "grand alliances" are not sweeping, grandiose statements of bringing in "true democracy", but suggestions, ideas, and solutions for reforming those institutions. Call the governments bluff. Get together with them to make the EC independent, to make the SC independent, instead of running away under the pretext of "not negotiating with a Uniform". Is it not obvious that independent institutions will automatically wear away the authority of the uniform, and provide lasting rule of law?

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

What makes you sure the military is not corrupt?

I am not saying they are not. But if they are both corrupt, I'll go with the one who increased our GDP from 65 to 160 billion.

 

[irfan1173]

I am not saying they are not. But if they are both corrupt, I'll go with the one who increased our GDP from 65 to 160 billion.

AoA
What makes you think that had a civilian govt in place, they would not have achieved the same.Comparing 90's period with now is flawed. Today there are no sanctions,international debt been canceled or renegotiated, FDI coming, money coming in because of WOT, Cheaper availability of telecommunications, IT all around the world etc.Times are different.There is more exposure to everything. Compare ourself to other third world countries. In fact all of them have shown growth relative to their size of economy.
So what I see is a general improvement in economy everywhere. i am not saying Musharraf should not be given credit but I believe a civilian govt would have done the same. Ask yourself a simple question. Why everything started to improve after 9/11? Musharraf was in power before 9/11 too. Why things were not improving then

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

AoA
What makes you think that had a civilian govt in place, they would not have achieved the same.Comparing 90's period with now is flawed. Today there are no sanctions,international debt been canceled or renegotiated, FDI coming, money coming in because of WOT, Cheaper availability of telecommunications, IT all around the world etc.Times are different.There is more exposure to everything. Compare ourself to other third world countries. In fact all of them have shown growth relative to their size of economy.
So what I see is a general improvement in economy everywhere. i am not saying Musharraf should not be given credit but I believe a civilian govt would have done the same. Ask yourself a simple question. Why everything started to improve after 9/11? Musharraf was in power before 9/11 too. Why things were not improving then

This is a tricky argument to make. You are correct that there is no way to ascertain whether a government of "politicians" could have achieved the same success that Musharraf did. I would argue that the political governments would not have achieved the same. My reasoning is similar to that in my previous post; a dearth of forward thinking or/and lack of desire to actually implement any policies to reflect, and take advantage of the "new" global business environment.

I'm sure you remember the slogans of turning Pakistan into a "Asian Tiger" that Nawaz was chanting while being elected with an unprecedented mandate, Whatever happened with that? We were almost in a recession by the time he was overthrown. BB had the audacity to appoint herself "finance minister" during her last time in office. What qualifications did she have to take on the challenges of turning around an economy? Musharraf on the other hand brought in Shaukat Aziz (who I believe will turn out to be our next AQ Khan, and I don't mean that in a good way) and a team of experienced economists to restructure our economy and frame our policies. The SBP was finally given autonomy and authority to play its proper role and staffed with professionals instead of lackeys.

BB and Nawaz were never interested in professionally running the economy. Even if they were, the biggest reason I believe they would not have accomplished what Musharraf has, is the tradition of appointing ministers from party members only, and the finance ministry was always the choicest morsel. Within the parties, there are NO professionals with the qualifications that Musharraf's team had/has. Without sound policy makers, no amount of money from the WOT would matter. That is why I hope that Musharraf and his economic team can stay intact through Pakistan's second generation of economic reforms, once BB/Nawaz come into power, expect policies that will only be effective for a chaudhry/wadera cow farm. (no offense to the Chaudhries and Waderas on this forum)

 

[irfan1173]

Thx for the reply. I see where you are coming from.

 

[roadrunner]

AoA
What makes you think that had a civilian govt in place, they would not have achieved the same.Comparing 90's period with now is flawed. Today there are no sanctions,international debt been canceled or renegotiated, FDI coming, money coming in because of WOT, Cheaper availability of telecommunications, IT all around the world etc.Times are different.There is more exposure to everything. Compare ourself to other third world countries. In fact all of them have shown growth relative to their size of economy.
So what I see is a general improvement in economy everywhere. i am not saying Musharraf should not be given credit but I believe a civilian govt would have done the same. Ask yourself a simple question. Why everything started to improve after 9/11? Musharraf was in power before 9/11 too. Why things were not improving then

You're wrong on the sanctions account. Pakistan had no sanctions of its economy by 1995 when NS was in power, and before this it was only sanctioned militarily. There was no stopping trade with the US or other partners. In fact Musharraf took the brunt of the sanctions from the Nuclear tests when he was in power in 1999 (nuke tests were in 1998 and the sanctions applied through 1999).

International debt was cancelled to a degree..Not all of it, just a bit. But this was because of Musharraf's strategy.

I'm not sure what cheaper IT has to do with anything? Why would that bolster Pakistan's economy?

Not all third world countries have shown growth compared to their economies. Every country goes through the odd year of good growth, the next year bad, so it cancels out the growth and they remain static. To triple and economy size in 3 years is amazing by any standards. Can you name me another country that has tripled its economy in the last 8 years according to World Bank estimates? I doubt it.

Your next claim that things improved everywhere after 911 is just BOGUS. Following 911 there was a slump in the world economies, even Pakistan's didnt perform that well in that period, but neither did the other ones either.

 

[irfan1173]

International debt was cancelled to a degree..Not all of it, just a bit. But this was because of Musharraf's strategy.

What strategy other than support for WOT??

I'm not sure what cheaper IT has to do with anything? Why would that bolster Pakistan's economy?

Telecommunications and IT have created lot of jobs which were not possible in 90's.

Your next claim that things improved everywhere after 911 is just BOGUS. Following 911 there was a slump in the world economies, even Pakistan's didnt perform that well in that period, but neither did the other ones either.

Read before you reply.I was just talking about Pakistan after 9-11.

 

[roadrunner]

Everything, including the WOT is a strategy. Strategies are designed to protect your interests, and that's what's being done. One of those is growing the economy, not reducing it to rubble and sending it back to the stone age. These are all objectives of his strategy.

Telecommunications and IT have been taking a boom recently. But this isn't to say there was nothing the governments of Bhutto & co could not have done in the 90s. It is credit due to the present government for seeing the jobs that could be created out of IT and moving to train people in that area. The lack of economic foresight by Bhutto and co was because they did not have a Shaukat Aziz who has real experience of handling large institutions to guide them - instead it was all lotahs who were friendly with them or who were bribeable. But don't use the thinking that there was no job market in the 90s. There was, it was just that the civilian governments hired inept people who could not read market demand.

You said "So what I see is a general improvement in economy everywhere", I assumed it was the global economy you were talking about. But if this is your question"Ask yourself a simple question. Why everything started to improve after 9/11? Musharraf was in power before 9/11 too. Why things were not improving then" then the answer is simply that things stated improving in Pakistan because there were people who knew what they were doing to attract in FDI as an example. Why did FDI not just triple, but increase 200 times more under Musharraf than Bhutto and NS, and why did the Federal Reserve do the same, for whatever reason the investment climate was better under Musharraf, and his government created this. EDiT FYI, in 1999 it was sanctions year, 2000, and 2001 I presume everything was improving and by 2004, Pak achieved its maximum growth which it's sustained.

 

[Bull]

Every country goes through the odd year of good growth, the next year bad, so it cancels out the growth and they remain static.

Only failed states have such erratic growth rates. Look at the developing third worl countries, Brazil. India. SE.

To triple and economy size in 3 years is amazing by any standards. Can you name me another country that has tripled its economy in the last 8 years according to World Bank estimates? I doubt it.

Please dont say such things in public. Tripling in three years, how much % does that work out to be , in annual terms?

 

[Scorpius]

okay so when i talk of an islamic welfare state it has to be along the taliban lines and can not be based on the turkish model so it can suit your argument...i understand.
The same i hope applys to mushy who is trying to emulate the turkish model,how can it work going of your logic?
"

Let's be realistic, the Turkish AK party is a reflection of their society and as far as im aware it doesn't want to implement shariah or be part of a larger caliphate.

In Pakistan or Afghanistan the muslim parties are not so liberal, they're attitudes are more conservative and backwards and reflect the development of their country and society.

It's not about suiting my argument it's about simple realities on the ground.

If there was to be a Islamic ruling party in Pakistan it would try to bring in Shariah, this is just the nature of the beast.

It takes time, first the whole country needs to be educated once that is done then id be happy for the Military to pass along the power to the politicians, obviously something like this takes a decade or two.

You quote extreme examples to me about the islamic system but i can not do the same to a system thats killed more people then all the religious wars in history put together.

What extreme elements of Islamic ideology have I quoted?

I am a muslim and these norms/ideals/values maybe okay for children and family but not for me mate.
You sounding like a atheist/materialist

They key thing is if you have an Islamic ruling party they enforce their view of what they think is Islam on the population (ie the taliban). In my opinion religion should be a personal thing between man and God. A system of liberal democracy doesn't dictate your beliefs to you or discriminate against those who dont believe in the same way.

What do understand of the islamic welfare system?
First go and find out why the AK party of turkey are "parrots who spout propaganda for a 1400 year old system."

Again my friend your picking out the one Islamic party that is progressive and modern. Lets not goto extremes eh.

We both know the majority of Islamic partys around the rest of the world are different and demand full shariah.

This is the hadith many parties like to quote to 'proove' that shariah should be the same know as it was 1400 years ago.

"every matter newly begun is innovation, every innovation is misguidance, and every misguidance is in hell."

 

[irfan1173]

AoA
GEO is reporting suicide attack in the capital. 12 killed

 

[Bull]

Right in LM...again 12 killed.....
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/6918558.stm

 

[roadrunner]

Please dont say such things in public. Tripling in three years, how much % does that work out to be , in annual terms?

The economy has reached 160 bill or will soon. Wasnt it around 60 billion in 1999 then?