He has escaped assasination twice in two weeks, and it appears that based on the location of the attacks (heavily guarded military areas) the attackers must have been getting some help from inside the military. Musharrif is our man in Pakistan helping in the destruction of the Taliban, the prosecution of Al Qaeda and the search for its leaders. Pakistan is also in possession of nuclear weapons. What are the consequences if we lose our dictator?
What happens if General Musharrif is Deposed/Killed in Pakistan?
- Thread starter tnitsuj
- Start date
dahunan
Lifer
- Jan 10, 2002
- 18,191
- 3
- 0
He had no choice really. The Islamic parties had effectively paralyzed Parliment (not that it really matters in a dictatorship).
Bad situation either way. Pakistan like it or not has been our main weapon against Al Qaeda. They helped us destroy the Taliban, almost every major capture of an Al Qaeda leader has been through Pakistani intelligence, and it is likely that Osama Bin Laden and his top Lieutenants are in Pakistan. Pakistan is also responsible for churning out the majority of the brainwashed fanatics in the world through thier madrassas.
Overall, not a good situation. Kept in line only by the military and out dictator and close ally Pervez. If he goes, I really have no idea what will happen in that country..but the potential implications are enormous.
Hopefully he'll be replaced by another similar dictator. I can't imagine Pakistan's military letting an iranian type goverment take over. But if crazy lunatics seize power....oh man...let's just say we'll have plenty to discuss in this forum.
Hayabusa Rider
Admin Emeritus & Elite Member
- Jan 26, 2000
- 50,879
- 4,268
- 126
For once we agree.
The situation is extremely volatile, and I do not know who the powers waiting to be are.
Kadarin
Lifer
- Nov 23, 2001
- 44,296
- 16
- 81
Correct me if I'm wrong on this, but Musharraf's decision to side with the US essentially prevented the US from invading Pakistan along with Afghanistan back in early 2002. If hard-line Islamists take over, what's to prevent the US from acting to secure their nuclear weapons?
Hayabusa Rider
Admin Emeritus & Elite Member
- Jan 26, 2000
- 50,879
- 4,268
- 126
There is a difference between acting to secure and securing. Remember that Pakistan fears India, and that is why these weapons exist. If a supercountry tried to "secure" US ICBMs during the Cold War, I think they would be lauched before taken.
He hasn't let go of his position in army as the Chief Of Army Staff, but has proposed to leave it by the end of 2004.
The madrassa point has been raised many times. However I must clarify that they are just like other schools except that they have till now always emphasised on religious education. However the Government has now put some plans into action regarding this by making the madrassa's follow a given cirriculum and include study of mathematics, sciences and other subjects alongside religious studies. These madrassas have been a great help to provide the illiterate majority of children in rural areas with atleast some form of education, even if it is religious studies, which was later exploited by specific people by twisting the true meaning and context of these studies. They provide a shelter for millions of children by providing them a place to live and food to eat which would otherwise die of hunger and lack of a place to live. They were indeed BEING used for recruiting by AlQaeda but the problem has been looked into and adequate steps are being taken to remedy this situation.
General Pervaiz has more support than others because he represents the Army and the Army has always had a special place in the heart's of the Pakistani people. These acts of terrorism to take his life were probably by AlQaeda due to the steps Pakistan has taken against it or by some other party interested in sabotaging the upcoming SAARC conference to destabilise the atmosphere for the conference and to increase tension between India and Pakistan.
As to if he had been killed, the religious parties won't be taking over the entire government as they only represent a part of the Parliament and do not have the power to impose their descisions on the whole country and the policy of the government. There is no dictator to take over and the replacement would had probaly been by election or by the descision of the Parliament.
Hopefully the security of the President will be tightened to an even greater extent(I have seen it with my very own eyes in Islamabad how the security has improved and tightened, probably the tightest security I have seen in the last 7 or 8 yeas in Islamabad) and thereof any such fears of his replacement would be void.
The madrassa point has been raised many times. However I must clarify that they are just like other schools except that they have till now always emphasised on religious education. However the Government has now put some plans into action regarding this by making the madrassa's follow a given cirriculum and include study of mathematics, sciences and other subjects alongside religious studies. These madrassas have been a great help to provide the illiterate majority of children in rural areas with atleast some form of education, even if it is religious studies, which was later exploited by specific people by twisting the true meaning and context of these studies. They provide a shelter for millions of children by providing them a place to live and food to eat which would otherwise die of hunger and lack of a place to live. They were indeed BEING used for recruiting by AlQaeda but the problem has been looked into and adequate steps are being taken to remedy this situation.
General Pervaiz has more support than others because he represents the Army and the Army has always had a special place in the heart's of the Pakistani people. These acts of terrorism to take his life were probably by AlQaeda due to the steps Pakistan has taken against it or by some other party interested in sabotaging the upcoming SAARC conference to destabilise the atmosphere for the conference and to increase tension between India and Pakistan.
As to if he had been killed, the religious parties won't be taking over the entire government as they only represent a part of the Parliament and do not have the power to impose their descisions on the whole country and the policy of the government. There is no dictator to take over and the replacement would had probaly been by election or by the descision of the Parliament.
Hopefully the security of the President will be tightened to an even greater extent(I have seen it with my very own eyes in Islamabad how the security has improved and tightened, probably the tightest security I have seen in the last 7 or 8 yeas in Islamabad) and thereof any such fears of his replacement would be void.
Precisely.
Pakistan has no threat in the region except India. They are purely for deterence purpose BUT IF THE NEED ARISES and circumstances leave no other option, they would ofcourse be used.
Has everyone forgotten the Cold War and the Cuban missile crises?
However the matter of US securing Pakistan's nukes is in my opinion, stupid. How, if I suggest, being the president of X country which is powerful than US, would the US citizens react if i said that my country needs to secure US nukes? It would ofcourse seem very imposing of X to try to secure the US's nukes when it has no right to interfere in the US's nuke strategy and be in doubt of the security of US's nukes. Also it would tarnish the global image of X if it was done just like the US's image has been tarnished in many countries due to its interference in their matters. Sometimes it has been useful but at most other times, it only had a negative effect..
Only Pakistan has the right to 'secure' it's nukes, just as India, Israel, Britain or US do to secure their nukes.
Those who fear the nukes going into the hands of the religious parties are just playing into the hands of propaganda by various sources. They are in the control of the Army and the people of Pakistan and the Army would never let them get into wrong hands.
This is just like saying the zionist are controlling the US's nukes(the view by some people over here which is very far-fetched). Ofcourse the US military and US citizens would never let this happen(however if you think this is possible, do let me know).
This is just like saying the zionist are controlling the US's nukes(the view by some people over here which is very far-fetched). Ofcourse the US military and US citizens would never let this happen(however if you think this is possible, do let me know).
Musharrif is already dead.
He had a stark option: bin Laden or him.
He chose to keep bin Laden alive. The inner circle of the military infrastructure noticed this and decided to do him in.
Now he's dead.
Who comes next will either bring bin Laden's head or nuclear war.
EDIT2: It was Pakistan's military infrastructure that helped Iran with its nuclear program. Probably Libya too.
He had a stark option: bin Laden or him.
He chose to keep bin Laden alive. The inner circle of the military infrastructure noticed this and decided to do him in.
Now he's dead.
Who comes next will either bring bin Laden's head or nuclear war.
EDIT2: It was Pakistan's military infrastructure that helped Iran with its nuclear program. Probably Libya too.
What the....?
You make it seem like Pakistan's being an ally of the US in this war was a mistake. Perhaps you would be kind enough to return the many hundreds of AlQaeda operatives and the numerous US successes (in apprehending other terrorists and foiling AlQaeda attacks and plans) due to the information gleaned from them back?
The investigation regarding the Iranian nuclear program and the help of certain Pakistani individuals is underway and the results would hopefully come soon. Where does Libya comes in from?
What I don't understand is why is the media so hush hush about India's support of Iran in its nuclear program which I am quite sure was proven by some international organization or group some months back?
The biggest of helps was perhaps by the US itself in Israel's nuclear program as a result of Israel's nuclear blackmailing (told plainly in a program on bbc which caused quite an uproar in Israel)? Has anyone done anything about it? Israel is perhaps the only nuclear power and the biggest peace threat in the region. I don't see anyone reprimanding them like Iraq? Where's the guarantee they won't use it in a war? I believe there is a need to secure Israel's nukes before any other country because of its potential as a peace threat in the region.
Just ignore Dari, he's talking out of his ass again (he's been doing alot of that lately with his French Bashing) Makes you wonder if the guy has ever been outside his little part of the world...
Also, I would like to point out that al qaeda and some Kashmir group are the main suspects involved in ploting his death,it's been said in the news already, and it would make sence since the extremists are pissed at him about the whole Kashmir issue.
Well, al Qaeda basically said "Get Musharraff" back in early November. This was after he refused to chase al Qaeda in the Northwest Frontier Province. The man basically blinked when the Islamist within his gov't threaten him. From then on, he looked vulnerable. Like every other country that has since been bombed by al Qaeda and her local affiliates, a sign of apathy against the terror nexus isn't seen as gratitude by the various groups, but as weakness. And since Pakistan is very, very close to the epicenter of terror, the terror leaders noticed this tacit weakness in Musharraff and decided to take action. Adding that Musharraff doesn't have the confidence of the people (he's just another power-hungry dictator), he's very prime for capitulation and perhaps assassination.
Musharraff is basically isolated more than many see. When I said that he had a stark option, I meant he was basically given an option between going after bin Laden full force and going against the powerful islamist who see Pakistan's nuclear bombs as Islam's greatest weapon. That would've most likely captured bin Laden quicker but lead to his death earlier. He chose to live a little bit longer, but, IMHO, he's already a dead man. Hell, if he had gone full force against bin Laden in the Northwest Frontier Province, maybe the Islamists within the ISI and military would've blinked. Instead he negotiated and got the two or three years before they eventually realized how weak and vulnerable he realy is.
heh, well, Dari, atlest we agree on something. Musharraf is a dead man, no matter what he does now. I guess we'll just have to agree that we disagree as to what lead to him signing his own death warrant.
asadasif,
Keep India out of this discussion, if possible. To answer your question, India has steadfastly refused to transfer weapons-level nuclear technology to Iran, Iraq and Libya. The assistance is purely for civilian purposes - though some of it is probably dual-use technology.
Musharraf did not offer support to the U.S immediately after 9/11. India offered it right away. Yes, India did so out of a selfish motive - is there any other kind? Musharraf, in his speech to his nation, cited India's support for the U.S and claimed that if Pakistan did not support the U.S, India would use the situation to its advantage - which was perfectly true.
India is no Israel (unfortunately, in some cases and thankfully in a lot of others). India was the first country to recognize a Palestine nation. India did not establish diplomatic relations with Israel until 1992.
Apart from this, if you insist on dragging India into this discussion, you will end up sidetracking it and I will be happy to assist you in doing it.
I did not intend to sidetrack this discussion. I just presented my point of view which is open to positive feedback, critiscism and correction.
India might have provided assistance for civilian purposes which again might have been used for Iran's nuclear program development by the Iranian government. Likewise, same could have been the case for Pakistan.
Both countries had selfish motives with intentions of taking advantage of the situation to some extent (though sorrow for the victims of 9/11 was there too on each side)but how is that diffferent from other countries that are part of the coalition???
I never said that India did any sort of nuclear blackmailing or like. I clearly said said it was by Israel.
On the issue of dragging India into this discussion and sidetracking this discussion, I already stated my answer at the beginning of the post.
India might have provided assistance for civilian purposes which again might have been used for Iran's nuclear program development by the Iranian government. Likewise, same could have been the case for Pakistan.
Both countries had selfish motives with intentions of taking advantage of the situation to some extent (though sorrow for the victims of 9/11 was there too on each side)but how is that diffferent from other countries that are part of the coalition???
I never said that India did any sort of nuclear blackmailing or like. I clearly said said it was by Israel.
On the issue of dragging India into this discussion and sidetracking this discussion, I already stated my answer at the beginning of the post.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 24K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
Facebook
Twitter