Musharaff the president again

[Dida]

Musharaff is on the same league as Chávez, that is, dictators in evertyhing but name.

The difference is that in Venezuela the opposition is better than Chávez, in Pakistan they are for the most part worse (though I'm sure there is also a democratic opposition that gets repressed. The ones who are worse are the radical muslims who hate democracy more than Musharraff).

You are right in that they are both dictators, but I think the real difference is that Musharaff is pro-US while Chavez is anti-US.

 

[The Yankee]

Originally Posted by Rik Meleet
Sure and they don't kill their people either too right?

Sorry - I don't understand what you are saying. Can you be more clear ??
For instance - who did you mean by "they", "their people" and what other event is the "too" referencing to ?

Arguing yourself again? Don't put words into your own mouth.

But it looks like the point was that it still isn't good to have a dictator there no matter how stable it is. I think....

Even so, unless there was a very good chance that the opposition could keep the country in line, control the fundy militants, etc., this may be better than the Taliban-esque alternative.

 

[George2816]

Sorry - I don't understand what you are saying. Can you be more clear ??
For instance - who did you mean by "they", "their people" and what other event is the "too" referencing to ?

They = American backed military dictatorships
their people = American backed military dictatorships people
too = more then one american based dictatorships killing their people (Like anyone in america cares!)

 

[Rik Meleet]

Arguing yourself again? Don't put words into your own mouth.

Still - my error was a funny one.

But it looks like the point was that it still isn't good to have a dictator there no matter how stable it is. I think....

Even so, unless there was a very good chance that the opposition could keep the country in line, control the fundy militants, etc., this may be better than the Taliban-esque alternative.

In my post I haven't given my opinion on what I think is best; a dictator or Taliban or a different form of government.

 

[George2816]

:In my post I haven't given my opinion on what I think is best; a dictator or Taliban or a different form of government.

So its either a dictator or democracy? I thought all american's want democracies?? (Nvm they only want democracies in which they know they can win unlike what happened in palastein!)

 

[Rik Meleet]

They = American backed military dictatorships
their people = American backed military dictatorships people
too = more then one american based dictatorships killing their people (Like anyone in america cares!)

I don't like American backed Dictatorships.

But they do tend to be fairly stable. Stable in the sense that opposition to those kind of Dictators tend to be smothered quiet quickly. What the reason behind that is is mere speculation. I speculate that the American politics and media ignore or colour these opposition in such a way that via that the world's public opinion is supporting the American backed Dictatorship.
Examples were and are Nicaragua, Philippines, Chile and Saudi-Arabia (amongst others).

But that is way too far off-topic for this "Musharaff the president again" thread.

So its either a dictator or democracy? I thought all american's want democracies?? (Nvm they only want democracies in which they know they can win unlike what happened in palastein!)

I didn't mention democracy as option, let alone speaking of a 2-way-option.
And you're drifting far off-topic. Start a new thread if you have a new topic.

 

[aneeshm]

So dictators are good if the aid the US then?

SO its ok to be a dicator if you aid the us then?? No wonder american's think "Candyland in the sky" is good!

No.

A dictator is the better alternative when the other people would probably supply nuclear arms to terrorists and start WW3 by trying to nuke India.

 

[Virote_Considon]

Term limit is 2 and he can not be president and in the military or been in the military for 2 years. Thats like a current general running for president and winning. DO you think the supreme court would allow it? (I think not!)

What the hell are you on about? This is Pakistan, not the United States. There is no cap on how long someone can be in office. Just like here in the United Kingdom, and plenty of other countries in the world, too.

And if you've been reading, he isn't allowed to be in both the military and the ruler of the country at the same time. That is what the whole legitimacy debate is about.

Honestly, why don't you just go live in the Soviet Union

 

[The Yankee]

Still - my error was a funny one.

Quite!

In my post I haven't given my opinion on what I think is best; a dictator or Taliban or a different form of government.

Now it's my turn to have been vague. His point, not yours. But I wonder if it's a "damned-if-you-do, damned-if-you-don't" point against the people the US government wants to back.

 

[George2816]

No.

A dictator is the better alternative when the other people would probably supply nuclear arms to terrorists and start WW3 by trying to nuke India.

So your saying what i always said before that democracy is only ok if the majority of people want a gov't that bows to the USA.

And if you've been reading, he isn't allowed to be in both the military and the ruler of the country at the same time. That is what the whole legitimacy debate is about.

Thats what i said then i said something like "If a general in the USA military wants to run for president and then wins do you think the US supreme court would allow it?"

Honestly, why don't you just go live in the Soviet Union

So all people that think bush is the devil should go? How about all the people that support him should of lived in nazi germany?

 

[The Yankee]

Thats what i said then i said something like "If a general in the USA military wants to run for president and then wins do you think the US supreme court would allow it?"

Said general would have to resign, first.

 

[George2816]

You are right in that they are both dictators, but I think the real difference is that Musharaff is pro-US while Chavez is anti-US.

Please say that your not an american citizen??

http://www.umsl.edu/services/govdocs/wofact2002/geos/ve.html
federal republic

If that is a dictator then the US gov't is a dictator!

 

[George2816]

Said general would have to resign, first.

And he would have to wait 2 years too!

 

[GoodEnoughForMe]

Please say that your not an american citizen??

http://www.umsl.edu/services/govdocs/wofact2002/geos/ve.html
federal republic

If that is a dictator then the US gov't is a dictator!

that source is invalid cause the cia is the devil and they can nuke whoever they want and they are controlled by jews and snow melts when it gets hot and stuff.

 

[George2816]

that source is invalid cause the cia is the devil and they can nuke whoever they want and they are controlled by jews and snow melts when it gets hot and stuff.

Well if it smells like a pig, looks like a pig and taste like a pig. Its not a cow right?

 

[GoodEnoughForMe]

Well if it smells like a pig, looks like a pig and taste like a pig. Its not a cow right?

no it's an elephant.

 

[luiz]

You are right in that they are both dictators, but I think the real difference is that Musharaff is pro-US while Chavez is anti-US.

That too. But he has been a pretty bad ally, and the US would be foolish to overly trust him. After all, he only stopped his scientists from selling nuclear technology to unfriendly states after the entire operation became known to western intelligence.

 

[Norton II]

What the hell are you on about? This is Pakistan, not the United States. There is no cap on how long someone can be in office. Just like here in the United Kingdom, and plenty of other countries in the world, too.

And if you've been reading, he isn't allowed to be in both the military and the ruler of the country at the same time. That is what the whole legitimacy debate is about.

Honestly, why don't you just go live in the Soviet Union

Actually, the president of Pakistan is limited to two consecutive five-year terms, though it appears that additional non-consecutive terms are permitted: http://www.pakistani.org/pakistan/constitution/part3.ch1.html

 

[amadeus]

I don't like American backed Dictatorships.

What about Dutch-backed ones?

 

[George2816]

What about Dutch-backed ones?

Which country has a dutch-backed one?