MUSHARRAF: RIGHT LEADER FOR THE WRONG PEOPLE ???

[Finer]

Oh the democratic system in which elections were rigged...where each person had 4 votes casted in their name and even those who didnt vote seemed to have voted...Yup "they" (not sure which they) chose democratic or was it shoved on them?

Secondly, democratic so far has caused total loss and destruction in Pakistan...I am not for Marshall law but if the people need a phanti to understand what is good for them...Ahlan Wa Sahlan!

IK fighting through the system and guess what he ended up accepting the same corrupts in his party that left other party to corrupt his...so basically it is corrupts who are circling and pretending to have been recycled!

Apparently people in Pakistan cant differentiate democratic from extreme monarchy to even Feudal system! We are so damn used to being enslaved by feudal lords that we end up choosing people with similar personality or even worse the feudal lord himself (Zardari) for the entire naiton!

So I am sorry from all this...Democracy either never hit Pakistan or Pakistanis prefer living in this kind of crap voting for the same lootayra group! If that is the case and a Marshall law will help flush out some shit...Bring it on!

The result of democratic hasn't been very fruitful. In spite of negative results [rigging], people still want democratic system is due to the system, not leaders. Having freedom to do anything you want regardless of the leaders is what the nation prefers the most.

No nation is perfect, but in comparison of Marshall law, Monarchy, Feudal system to democracy system, you know the answer to which system the nation will stick with. People don't choose Marshall law, Monarchy, Feudal system, rather they try to implement their voice through the democratic [choosing their leaders] to fight those systems, particularly feudal system which is big in Sindh and Punjab.

I am not justifying anything about democratic system, but if people want democratic system, then you cannot force anti-democrati system on the nation forcefully.

Whaooo....Dont equate the sahabas to our corrupt leaders...The sahaba were aware that they will answer to ALLAH regarding each human under their "control" who went hungry, unclothed or even uneducated while the shit we elect is only worried about how much they can pocket to how much more they can pocket to how bigger their tummys can go like they will be dragging all this cash into their grave! Idiots to no level purchasing the hell fire guess what they got it with bonus years for each lie and corruption they did (of course not to forget the no. of poor, hungry and those who died neglected and the fake trials and of course the abuse of the system in other ways...I may have missed some stuff but you got what I mean)

you are missing the points. I am not talking about characters, their lifestyles. I am talking about support. People chose them. People like the idea of having option to choose. That's how any leader with the support of the nation [through democratic election] can succeed. It's just Pakistan hasn't found the right leader yet.

1stly, he overthrew a man doing corruption who ran to Saudi and lived under the prince so basically he lost nothing...

Secondly, so far stats shows us Pakistan has always been at its peak during Army rule...Why are we objecting our heights? Because the west dont like it? I am no army brat in fact I only know 2 members of my family who were in the army...both through marriage...so I have not been raised to love the army without thinking but if the people need to be spanked to realize what shit they have been in and what crap they have been electing over and over...so be it!

Again, you are missing the point. Majority of people love democratic system. They chose Nawaz Sharif. Musharraf overthrew democratic elected leader, and forced Marshall law on people. I am not talking about Nawaz Sharif. I am talking about people's choice being compromised along with the system [replaced by Marshall law].

What you are calling democratic is actually a monarchy...Bhutto followed by his daughter followed by her husband ---- and now followed by the son doing cultural events on fragile grounds while the poor in his province die? if this is the shit we are capable of electing then I do not want democracy...sorry my country is not to be looted over and over!

Fool me once shame on you fool me twice shame on me..fool me over and over you are Pakistani!

If it was indeed monarchy, then how come Nawaz Sharif is in power today? Your argument makes sense only if you say there is only few parties which force people to vote for the party all the times. People are given the choice to vote, and they chose Bhutto; perhaps due to lack of good option. Bhutto cannot claim the authority over Pakistan forcely. They have to come to power through the people help. If anything, Nawaz Sharif being in power is indication that anyone can be power if voted by the people to lead democratically.

Imran Khan is next on line due to increasing popularity.

The main point you haven't understood is that you cannot force a leader and system on the nation forcefully. That never goes well with the nation.

musharaf took the govt after that fakly elected govt went, to attack supreme court of pakistan & when his plane was denied the landing permission in pakistan?
it was allways a damocrazy, failing to find goods for the nation, & it was allways a militry dictator doing good fpr the nation?
if givin the chance, of 5 years this noora govt will establish a nooracracy while peoples like IK would bw crying with lezser seats in NA for 135 punctures?
nothing will change?
damocrazy is just a foolish dream nothing else?

Musharraf took the government illegally, that overthrew democratic elected government, chosen by people, to lead. I don't know what has transpired between those situations as you have mentioned.

I am saying that overthrowing a democratic elected government, chosen by people, to forcefully implement Mashall law on the nation, and claiming the leadership forcefully on that nation that never voted for in the first place.

I am pro Army, but you cannot force the system and the leader on the nation they don't want. That's the whole point of democracy.

 

[Dubious]

The result of democratic hasn't been very fruitful. In spite of negative results [rigging], people still want democratic system is due to the system, not leaders. Having freedom to do anything you want regardless of the leaders is what the nation prefers the most.

People still wanted Zardari we saw where he left Pakistan and not to forget the swiss account that is supposed to be Pakistan's money...and people still want martial law!

No nation is perfect, but in comparison of Marshall law, Monarchy, Feudal system to democracy system, you know the answer to which system the nation will stick with. People don't choose Marshall law, Monarchy, Feudal system, rather they try to implement their voice through the democratic [choosing their leaders] to fight those systems, particularly feudal system which is big in Sindh and Punjab.

Has the feudal system been fought? The same democrats who come to power are backed financially by feudal lords so in a way the people are choosing feudal system not democratic...Democratic means everyone gets equal chance not that each person manages 4-5 votes!

I am not justifying anything about democratic system, but if people want democratic system, then you cannot force anti-democrati system on the nation forcefully.

People dont even know the meaning of democratic they just want what they know...Those who know PPP want PPP even if a donkey is the leader...People whose feudal lord says vote only for my friend dont have a choice...that is not democracy!

you are missing the points. I am not talking about characters, their lifestyles. I am talking about support. People chose them. People like the idea of having option to choose. That's how any leader with the support of the nation [through democratic election] can succeed. It's just Pakistan hasn't found the right leader yet.

They dont like the option..ask anyone from the previous generation...hum tou PPP ko daltay aray hain PPP ko hi dalain gay...ask what PPP did...roti kapra makan kithay hai...no answer...ask anything else...Bus humay nai pata PPP ko hi daal na hai...thats not liking the idea of choosing thats feudal mentality where you are soo used to 1 thing you get to comfy with it without analyzing what is actually good for you...

Again, you are missing the point. Majority of people love democratic system. They chose Nawaz Sharif. Musharraf overthrew democratic elected leader, and forced Marshall law on people. I am not talking about Nawaz Sharif. I am talking about people's choice being compromised along with the system [replaced by Marshall law].

What choice? That which has been forced on them either Marshall law or by the feudal lords...or by their mentality (PPP ko hi vote daal na hai ya sirf MQM ko hi daal na hai..)

If it was indeed monarchy, then how come Nawaz Sharif is in power today?

Were you asleep during last year's voting? Plus there is no other candidate apart from NS and IK ...thats not choosing thats having no choice!

Your argument makes sense only if you say there is only few parties which force people to vote for the party all the times. People are given the choice to vote, and they chose Bhutto; perhaps due to lack of good option. Bhutto cannot claim the authority over Pakistan forcely. They have to come to power through the people help. If anything, Nawaz Sharif being in power is indication that anyone can be power if voted by the people to lead democratically.

I agree with what you are saying but that is not choosing if you are forced...it is also not choosing if you have no other choice...its equally forced ...only thing is martial law is forced in a sudden motion while the "election" gives you a fake choice of 2-5 parties which keep recycling themselves....its not something new nor is it something unique that you are choosing...you are just choosing whom your baap dada chose, whom your feudal lord tells you to choose or whoever does favours for you or whichever sponsor of whichever party threatens you the most...its not fair having to choose based on these grounds!

Imran Khan is next on line due to increasing popularity.

The main point you haven't understood is that you cannot force a leader and system on the nation forcefully. That never goes well with the nation.

What "democracy" you are talking about is also forced...when was the last time we had a really new party with new ideas with new members? not the same lotay recycled? Answer is never...same lotay are recycled in every single party!

 

[molson4u]

People still wanted Zardari we saw where he left Pakistan and not to forget the swiss account that is supposed to be Pakistan's money...and people still want martial law!
Has the feudal system been fought? The same democrats who come to power are backed financially by feudal lords so in a way the people are choosing feudal system not democratic...Democratic means everyone gets equal chance not that each person manages 4-5 votes!
People dont even know the meaning of democratic they just want what they know...Those who know PPP want PPP even if a donkey is the leader...People whose feudal lord says vote only for my friend dont have a choice...that is not democracy!

They dont like the option..ask anyone from the previous generation...hum tou PPP ko daltay aray hain PPP ko hi dalain gay...ask what PPP did...roti kapra makan kithay hai...no answer...ask anything else...Bus humay nai pata PPP ko hi daal na hai...thats not liking the idea of choosing thats feudal mentality where you are soo used to 1 thing you get to comfy with it without analyzing what is actually good for you...

What choice? That which has been forced on them either Marshall law or by the feudal lords...or by their mentality (PPP ko hi vote daal na hai ya sirf MQM ko hi daal na hai..)


Were you asleep during last year's voting? Plus there is no other candidate apart from NS and IK ...thats not choosing thats having no choice!
I agree with what you are saying but that is not choosing if you are forced...it is also not choosing if you have no other choice...its equally forced ...only thing is martial law is forced in a sudden motion while the "election" gives you a fake choice of 2-5 parties which keep recycling themselves....its not something new nor is it something unique that you are choosing...you are just choosing whom your baap dada chose, whom your feudal lord tells you to choose or whoever does favours for you or whichever sponsor of whichever party threatens you the most...its not fair having to choose based on these grounds!
What "democracy" you are talking about is also forced...when was the last time we had a really new party with new ideas with new members? not the same lotay recycled? Answer is never...same lotay are recycled in every single party!

Same lotay are recycled because they are electable and everyone want them..

 

[VCheng]

I need people demonizing Musharraf and going all haywire in praise of the democracy to answer a simple question .

Suppose , a civilian leader was in power after the attack on twin towers and he was threatened in the same manner by the American leadership of non-compliance resulting in getting " bombed to the stone ages " , what do you think he would have done ?

He would have caved in just like Gen Musharraf did.

But, would he then dismiss the Judges, suspend the Constitution and then get himself elected for as long as he wanted by an "election"?

Those are the important differences.

 

[Secur]

He would have caved in just like Gen Musharraf did.

But, would he then dismiss the Judges, suspend the Constitution and then get himself elected for as long as he wanted by an "election"?

Those are the important differences.

Knowing their psyche and insecurities of the politicians , actually worse . Musharraf ' merely ' caved in and accepted the American demands whilst securing this country's interest too , to a certain extent - a politician would neither never have had the guts or courage to do the latter part . Therein lies the important difference .

A situation having arisen for which there was no remedy provided in the Constitution ? You must know that an overwhelming majority of these ' politicians ' have found the initial lift to their careers under Martial Laws or in the nursery of the army . It isn't as simple , as you make it out to be .

 

[VCheng]

Knowing their psyche and insecurities of the politicians , actually worse . Musharraf ' merely ' caved in and accepted the American demands whilst securing this country's interest too , to a certain extent - a politician would neither never have had the guts or courage to do the latter part . Therein lies the important difference .

A situation having arisen for which there was no remedy provided in the Constitution ? You must know that an overwhelming majority of these ' politicians ' have found the initial lift to their careers under Martial Laws or in the nursery of the army . It isn't as simple , as you make it out to be .

I would agree with you that the politicians would have caved in much worse than Gen Musharraf did. It is only a matter of degree.

However, I would differ that the recourse to the lack of a Constitutional remedy is suspending it. The proper recourse is to amend the Constitution so that it continues to evolve in line with the nation's needs and aspirations. For example, if the people feel that formalizing a legal way for the Army to intervene is in the best interests of the nation, let there be a a proper process now, to be used later as amended.

Due process is important indeed.

 

[Dubious]

Same lotay are recycled because they are electable and everyone want them..

Which is not just horrifying but terribly sad!

 

[batmannow]

Which is not just horrifying but terribly sad!

& true?

I would agree with you that the politicians would have caved in much worse than Gen Musharraf did. It is only a matter of degree.

However, I would differ that the recourse to the lack of a Constitutional remedy is suspending it. The proper recourse is to amend the Constitution so that it continues to evolve in line with the nation's needs and aspirations. For example, if the people feel that formalizing a legal way for the Army to intervene is in the best interests of the nation, let there be a a proper process now, to be used later as amended.

Due process is important indeed.

would croupts & undereducated like nawaz , or asif zardari would ever like to amend the laws, which can benefit country & common peoples?
how long to test ever failling damo-crazy?
then what if the situation arrives again?
sorry i guss, till mother of damocrazies, wouldnt amend its unwritten constitution in UK, till then every dictator in a 3rd world country can , happly use mother of needs, understood & agreed, by the judiciary itself?

 

[molson4u]

Which is not just horrifying but terribly sad!

So Khalafit we don't desire, democracy we don't deserve and dictatorship we dismay. So any solutions?

Knowing their psyche and insecurities of the politicians , actually worse . Musharraf ' merely ' caved in and accepted the American demands whilst securing this country's interest too , to a certain extent - a politician would neither never have had the guts or courage to do the latter part . Therein lies the important difference .

A situation having arisen for which there was no remedy provided in the Constitution ? You must know that an overwhelming majority of these ' politicians ' have found the initial lift to their careers under Martial Laws or in the nursery of the army . It isn't as simple , as you make it out to be .

May i ask what is the sign in ur Avatar?

 

[VCheng]

May i ask what is the sign in ur Avatar?

Michigan State University Department of Psychology

 

[molson4u]

General Musharraf was a dictator who usurped power illegally and proved to be an utter disaster for Pakistan. Enough said.

And Nawaz Sherif was an Amir ul Monineen who sent his mob to supreme court, removed 2 Armed Chief's and fired the 3rd outside of Pakistan.. enough said.

And Nawaz Sherif was an Amir ul Monineen who sent his mob to terroize supreme court, removed 2 Armed force Chief's and fired the 3rd COAS outside of Pakistan.. enough said.

 

[VCheng]

And Nawaz Sherif was an Amir ul Monineen who sent his mob to supreme court, removed 2 Armed Chief's and fired the 3rd outside of Pakistan.. enough said.

Storming a court is a criminal offence that should be prosecuted as such. A PM has the authority to appoint and remove the COAS. But none of that is treason by suspending the Constitution. BIG difference.

 

[molson4u]

Storming a court is a criminal offence that should be prosecuted as such. A PM has the authority to appoint and remove the COAS. But none of that is treason by suspending the Constitution. BIG difference.

Please can you quote me the authority from an law or article of the constitution or give me example of any general fired in Pakistani history? Those all lies to justify own wrong.

 

[VCheng]

Please can you quote me the authority from an law or article of the constitution or give me example of any general fired in Pakistani history? Those all lies to justify own wrong.

That is indeed the pity that the Generals are regarded as immune. If insubordination within the ranks by not obeying a superior officer is punishable by a Court Martial, why should Generals, Corps Commanders and the COAS be exempt from this rule? They are Army Officers too and thus subject to the same Rules.

 

[batmannow]

That is indeed the pity that the Generals are regarded as immune. If insubordination within the ranks by not obeying a superior officer is punishable by a Court Martial, why should Generals, Corps Commanders and the COAS be exempt from this rule? They are Army Officers too and thus subject to the same Rules.

plz go & tell the mother of damocrazies UK , to change its unwritten constitution to a written one , then come here & teach us , the laws ?