I wanted to walk out of Agra summit: Musharraf

[SandsofTime]

Please give me the reference so I could read. It may be right though Musharraf or any of the top military folks never mentioned this which is kind of strange since if that is true, they would have spoken to grab the credit. At any rate, the point remains that NS did not bow down to the US pressure.

Here's the reference.
DAWN.COM | Pakistan | Sartaj Aziz opposed N-tests: book

There are some other statements as well that may depict a different picture. This is just one of the perceptions.


Also you are comparing two different things. Nuclear tests are something which we simply couldn't have lived without. It was absolute necessity and would have happened even if 10% was the helms man at the time. Things like support for Taliban government were only secondary objectives and we could have lived without them (in fact perhaps better off).

 

[SSGPA1]

If the deal was not to prolong his illegitimate presidency than what else was it for? Why he had to cut deal with the looters and criminals whom you claim all will go to hell..

The deal was for Pakistan. It would have taken a lot if time to prosecute NS so Gen. Musharraf struck the deal with him so that he could work on his seven point agenda which he did.

How do you know that NS popularity was bottom low? The only way of knowing about the popularity of a political party or its leader (s) is through fair and free elections and that is it. Musharraf was never popular but powerful, and that too only because of the uniform he had. Once the uniform gone, so was his power and what you call 'popularity'. Ask him to come back and take part in the elections, than we will see where he and his popularity stand.

How many people came out in NS' support when he was thrown out of the country and how many people opposed Gen. Musharraf when he took power? CJP Iftikhar and the Parliament both accepted Gen. Musharraf as the President of Pakistan.

People in Pakistan knbew about NRO and it was clear that PPPP will work with Gen. Musharraf and people still gave majority to PPPP. Same with MQM and PML-Q was able to gain most of the seats in Balochistan. now these wre teh most free and fair elections and show that people were okay to have Mushatrraf as president.

 

[SSGPA1]

One such call from Washington made Musharraf to sell his country to the US as well. At least NS had guts to ignore not one but several such calls to go ahead and test a nuclear device.

I have seen the footage where your courageous leader NS bowed in front of Bill Clinton to shake hands during the Kargil war so spare me this NS has guts lecture.

 

[SandsofTime]

Anyone who thinks Nawaz is a good leader is in my opinion mistaken. He is just like another politician playing on both sides of the wicket. On the one hand he keeps having these not so infrequent meetings with American diplomats and on the other hand fails to take any clear positions on many issues, save the judicial one. Many a times he has evaded questions from the media. He hasn't taken any stand for or against the ongoing military operation and that has failed him in my books.

 

[Bane Blade]

Read. There was recently a news paper article (in Dawn or News) where its stated that Nawaz was under huge pressure from US to cancel the tests. The military persuaded him otherwise. This comes from a military personnel's biography who was familiar with the nuclear programme.

Yet in Gohar Ayub Khan's book testing times as foreign minister of Pakistan he never mentions of some massive army intervention for the nuclear tests. Let's not forget that Musharaff was the same man who left the PAK-Afghan border open even after America attacked the country surely it was a massive mistake on his part today no negotiations can go ahead because almost every other terrorist attack is blamed on us such trouble would never have grown if we had set our priorities right from the begining.

 

[SandsofTime]

Yet in Gohar Ayub Khan's book testing times as foreign minister of Pakistan he never mentions of some massive army intervention for the nuclear tests.

This would be extremely strange. Army is the last one to give into international pressure in matters regarding security and relations with India. Its inconceivable there wouldn't be any hard core supporters in favor of the tests.

Let's not forget that Musharaff was the same man who left the PAK-Afghan border open

Was closing the border easy? We don't have any fences and gates to control the flow of people. The only way would have been to station a large chunk of the army to man the border, but that would require shifting troops from the east which is not acceptable. Moreover, whenever we tried to establish check posts, the troll Karzai government had the ANA attack our soldiers. There is a political and diplomatic problem that may need to be resolved otherwise unilateral closing of the border would make the Afghans all the more anti Pak. NATO is also learning the same lesson, otherwise they would have fenced and mined the border already.

 

[Bane Blade]

This would be extremely strange. Army is the last one to give into international pressure in matters regarding security and relations with India. Its inconceivable there wouldn't be any hard core supporters in favor of the tests.

I never said that they held any stance however I feel that they would have backed the political setup to take the move.

Was closing the border easy? We don't have any fences and gates to control the flow of people. The only way would have been to station a large chunk of the army to man the border, but that would require shifting troops from the east which is not acceptable. Moreover, whenever we tried to establish check posts, the troll Karzai government had the ANA attack our soldiers. There is a political and diplomatic problem that may need to be resolved otherwise unilateral closing of the border would make the Afghans all the more anti Pak. NATO is also learning the same lesson, otherwise they would have fenced and mined the border already.

It would have cost us far les than it is costing us today surely it not only would have been cost effective but definately miles better than the mess we have placed ourselves in today.

 

[qsaark]

The deal was for Pakistan. It would have taken a lot if time to prosecute NS so Gen. Musharraf struck the deal with him so that he could work on his seven point agenda which he did.

No, he had to cut a deal with NS because he was playing on weak moral and constitutional wicket. Firing him for his misadventure in Kargil by NS was 100% constitutional while taking over the government with the help of his rogue Generals was 100% unconstitutional, unlawful and immoral. He would have prosecuted NS for what? Even his claims about the hijacking of plane were later proved to be all fabrications as no record from the black box etc was ever presented in the court to prove that NS or his men were involved.

How many people came out in NS' support when he was thrown out of the country and how many people opposed Gen. Musharraf when he took power? CJP Iftikhar and the Parliament both accepted Gen. Musharraf as the President of Pakistan.

People in Pakistan knbew about NRO and it was clear that PPPP will work with Gen. Musharraf and people still gave majority to PPPP. Same with MQM and PML-Q was able to gain most of the seats in Balochistan. now these wre teh most free and fair elections and show that people were okay to have Mushatrraf as president.

Useless argument. How many came out in support of Musharraf when he was thrown out ? How many people apposed when Isaknder took the power? How many people apposed when Ayub rigged the elections against Fatima Jinnah? How many people apposed when Yahya took over? How many people apposed when Zia judicially murdered Bhutto and took over the power? If Pakistani public was so sensible, these crooks never had a chance. So don’t bring this foolish argument to support Musharraf.

Iftikhar was one person of 5 member panel. It was his mistake to accept that, but why not talking about the rest of the four. And even if they made a mistake, it remains a mistake. And the parliament…as per General Ehtesham Zameer, heand his ISI had rigged the polls under the direct orders of Musharraf. So that was nothing but a rubber stamp parliament which was brought into existance (not power) to support Musharraf’s dictatorial decisions.

None of what you have mentioned in you last paragraph suggests that people were OK with Musharraf. MQM is a terror organization. Even if they make a donkey stand on the MQM platform, the donkey will win the election. In Balochistan, the votes are never given based on party affiliations except in parts of urban areas, but based on tribal and local affiliations. Besides there were number of nationalist parties that had boycotted the elections hence the vote turnout in Balochistan was very low. So PML(Q) gaining majority of the seats no way suggests that people especially from Balochistan were OK with him. As far as PPP is concerned, it was never the plan of the PPP or its supporters to work with Musharraf, and as soon as PPP saw the opportunity, Musharraf was shown the exit door.

 

[SSGPA1]

No, he had to cut a deal with NS because he was playing on weak moral and constitutional wicket. Firing him for his misadventure in Kargil by NS was 100% constitutional while taking over the government with the help of his rogue Generals was 100% unconstitutional, unlawful and immoral. He would have prosecuted NS for what? ... , it was never the plan of the PPP or its supporters to work with Musharraf, and as soon as PPP saw the opportunity, Musharraf was shown the exit door.

I have gone down this path several times with you and have exchanged the same arguments over and over again. Problem is that you can't accept the fact that people can be good for Pakistan even if they have a different point of view, hence your claims about MQM, PML-Q etc.

Constitutional vs. unconstitutional arguement makes me laugh, I will remind you of this arguement next time I see you writing against KL Bill and Zardari.

Honestly speaking Zardari is elected by the Parliament and has the authority over Pakistan Army. If Parliament and Zardari are saying that KL Bill is fine then, as per your arguement of Constitutional vs. unconstitutional, Zardari is right.

So, till you leave the blind support of NS and start accepting mistakes made by NS and others there will be no discussion.

 

[qsaark]

I have gone down this path several times with you and have exchanged the same arguments over and over again. Problem is that you can't accept the fact that people can be good for Pakistan even if they have a different point of view, hence your claims about MQM, PML-Q etc.

I never said that people cant be good if they are supporting PML(Q) or MQM. However, considering the record of the two, especially of MQM, those who support are either intimidated (most likely, I am myself is witness to it), or ignorant or simply retarded. Same is also true for those who support military dictatorships.

Constitutional vs. unconstitutional arguement makes me laugh, I will remind you of this arguement next time I see you writing against KL Bill and Zardari.

Honestly speaking Zardari is elected by the Parliament and has the authority over Pakistan Army. If Parliament and Zardari are saying that KL Bill is fine then, as per your arguement of Constitutional vs. unconstitutional, Zardari is right.

So, till you leave the blind support of NS and start accepting mistakes made by NS and others there will be no discussion.

There exists something called ‘opposition’ in a democratic setup. Only saying ‘yes’ to every good or bad decision made by Zardari or his aides is constitutional? Opposing their shortsightedness and foolishness is un-constitutional? Have you seen how the Democrats and Republican in US Congress/Senate and Liberal and Conservatives in House of Common and House of Lords in British parliament fight tooth and nail? Since when apposing the ruling party became un-constitutional? I am not aware but has Musharraf also introduced these clauses in the already adulterated 1973 constitution?