07-12-2004 08:07									#31
	Full PM-box? Change here!

quote: Originally posted by MRT144 why do you hate democrazy che!

Look at the results it got us.

	07-12-2004 08:12									#32
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

Saddam was also elected!

	07-12-2004 08:19									#33
	Support Apolyton, pre-order Civilization IV

quote: Multi-party elections??

Note that the election was replete with corruption, and abysmal turnout due to the fact that, you know, a dictator, not Parliament, is ultimately running the country.

	07-12-2004 08:30									#34
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: Originally posted by PLATO

Mussssshhhhharrrrrraffff (can never remember how many consonants of each kind to put) seized power in a military coup, deposing a democratically elected president. He's held a referendum on the issue since then in which he supposedly won 98% support. Your call. Dictatorship or democracy?

	07-12-2004 08:34									#35
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

You know you people make is sound like the previous government was great and Musharaff should be reviled. I guess aside from the fact that the previous government was turning to appease the Islamofundy factions, that may have some merit .

	07-12-2004 08:35									#36
	Full PM-box? Change here!

quote: Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui You know you people make is sound like the previous government was great and Musharaff should be reviled. I guess aside from the fact that the previous government was turning to appease the Islamofundy factions, that may have some merit .

Really? What I heard what was Bush said Pakistan was a democracy when, in reality, it wasn't.

Sorry, but 0/10

	07-12-2004 08:35									#37
	Imran Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations: Deluxe Edition

How about they were democratically elected by the people of Pakistan.

You know, if the current US administration was deposed by the military then I'd have a problem with that. Doesn't mean I think that Bush is a good president.

	07-12-2004 08:37									#38
	Support Apolyton, buy Call to Power 2

Mussharraf is a ****ing dictator. Pure and simple. He seized power through means other than the ballot box. He is not the legitimate representative of the Pakistani people.

	07-12-2004 08:39									#39
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

Being of Pakistani background, I see it in a different way. I recall when it happened and just about no Pakistani I knew said it was a bad thing (I don't remember any Pakistani saying it was bad). In fact there was cheering in the streets.

I have no doubt that he is much more legitimate represenative than the 'democratically' elected corruptocracy they had before.

	07-12-2004 08:41									#40
	Browse Apolyton AD-FREE

quote: Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui Being of Pakistani background, I see it in a different way.

Of course you do.

quote: I recall when it happened and just about no Pakistani I knew said it was a bad thing (I don't remember any Pakistani saying it was bad). In fact there was cheering in the streets. I have no doubt that he is much more legitimate represenative than the 'democratically' elected corruptocracy they had before.

Well, then if he allowed free and democratic elections he would easily win, right?

	07-12-2004 08:48									#41
	Lose 30 kilos (of popups)

quote: Well, then if he allowed free and democratic elections he would easily win, right?

Or the fundamentalist Al Queda backers... do you want to take the chance?

	07-12-2004 08:50									#42
	Suffering from ads?

quote: Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui quote: Well, then if he allowed free and democratic elections he would easily win, right? Or the fundamentalist Al Queda backers... do you want to take the chance?

Well, if we assume your previous post to be true, then we can reasonably assume Musharaff will win

	07-12-2004 08:51									#43
	Enter the AD-FREE zone

quote: Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui quote: Well, then if he allowed free and democratic elections he would easily win, right? Or the fundamentalist Al Queda backers... do you want to take the chance?

democracy cares not for the results. only in that it is executed.

	07-12-2004 08:52									#44
	Lose 30 kilos (of popups)

Pakistan is definitely a democery.

	07-12-2004 09:00									#45
	Support Apolyton

quote: Well, if we assume your previous post to be true, then we can reasonably assume Musharaff will win

The Islamists are different from the corruptocracy that ruled Pakistan. The government was moving towards them, but since the Iraq War, the Islamists have gotten more support.

	07-12-2004 09:03									#46
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations: Deluxe Edition

Hey, Imran, I like how you presume to tell us that you know what's good for Pakistan better than does the population of Pakistan.

Pesky thing, democracy. Doesn't always end up with what you want. Doesn't mean Bush isn't a total ****ing liar for calling Pakistan a democracy. And don't think his bald-faced hypocrisy is going unnoticed in the Muslim world.

He's redefining the English language at an unprecedented pace.

	07-12-2004 09:06									#47
	Got spare money?

Things like this actually make me sick.

Iraq was an error in judgment. The goal of oustiong Saddam Hussein was a good one. It wasn't worth the price. Calling a dictatorship a democracy cheapens the word. Makes the work of those who are actually interested in helping real democracy spread that much harder.

**** Dubya.

	07-12-2004 09:09									#48
	Get a bigger avatar today!

Even Bush knows Pakistan is a God fearing, Freedom loving Christian nation.

	07-12-2004 09:13									#49
	Put an end to popups!

But I thought.........

"I recall when it happened and just about no Pakistani I knew said it was a bad thing"....

I mean, surely these same Pakistanis dancing in the streets for military dictatorship would vote for the man you claim they support.....Are you trying to say that Musharraf is legitimate and supported by the Pakistani people only when he's a dictator?

I guess if he opened the door to the will of the people they would see that as weak or something....??

If he's not supported by the people, and he's not legimate, then what the heck is he doing in power?

And if he is supported by the people and is legitimate, why doesn't he have democratic elections?

What I love is Bush's idea of what a democracy is.

Everyone take note if you want Bush's idea of a democracy: The Government of General Pervez Musharaf.

	07-12-2004 09:34									#50
	Browse Apolyton AD-FREE

While many elements in Pakistani society favored the coup (i.e. Bhutto's Party, the PPP), that rapidly changed as Musharraf continued to maintain his grip on power despite his promises otherwise (for instance, he promised in January he would step down as army chief by the end of this year, doesn't look like it'll happen).

As for Islamism, keep in mind that Musharraf's dictatorship is giving tremendous strength to the ideology (especially since he's banned certain secular alternatives), with the Islamist parties gaining hugely in Parliament in the past years. Further, Musharraf is in a coalition with them against the secular anti-Musharraf parties.

Last edited by Ramo on 07-12-2004 at 09:43

	07-12-2004 09:35									#51
	Inflate your Upload Space

quote: Hey, Imran, I like how you presume to tell us that you know what's good for Pakistan better than does the population of Pakistan.

Anything > Fundy State

quote: I mean, surely these same Pakistanis dancing in the streets for military dictatorship would vote for the man you claim they support.....Are you trying to say that Musharraf is legitimate and supported by the Pakistani people only when he's a dictator

Read the statement... Pakistani's "I know". Such as ones in first world countries who I trust to be more intelligent that the unwashed masses in the cities there.

And the Iraq War happened between then and now.

quote: And if he is supported by the people and is legitimate, why doesn't he have democratic elections?

Legitimacy is having power over the country. It has nothing to do with democratic elections.

	07-12-2004 09:48									#52
	Got spare money?

Interesting report from the Pentagon:

http://www.acq.osd.mil/dsb/reports/...mmunication.pdf

quote: We call it a war on terrorism, but Muslims in contrast see a history-shaking movement of Islamic restoration. This is not simply a religious revival, however, but also a renewal of the Muslim World itself. And it has taken form through many variant movements, both moderate and militant, with many millions of adherents, of which radical fighters are only a small part. Moreover, these movements for restoration also represent, in their variant visions, the reality of multiple identities within Islam. If there is one overarching goal they share, it is the overthrow of what Islamists call the "apostate" regimes: the tyrannies of Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Jordan, and the Gulf states. They are the main target of the broader Islamist movement, as well as the actual fighter groups. The United States finds itself in the strategically awkward -- and potentially dangerous -- situation of being the longstanding prop and alliance partner of these authoritarian regimes. Without the U.S. these regimes could not survive. Thus the U.S. has strongly taken sides in a desperate struggle that is both broadly cast for all Muslims and country-specific. This is the larger strategic context, and it is acutely uncomfortable: U.S. policies and actions are increasingly seen by the overwhelming majority of Muslims as a threat to the survival of Islam itself

It's interesting that Turkey, Bangladesh, and Indonesia (to a lesser extent) aren't more important targets. I wonder why...

	07-12-2004 09:48									#53
	Support Apolyton, buy Call to Power 2

"Legitimacy is having power over the country"

That's NOT what legitimacy is.

Legitimacy is when a majority of the people believe you RIGHTFULLY have power over the country.

Look over the the vast tapestry of political history; even the most powerful rulers need more than naked force. States constantly seek legitimacy. How many powerful dynasties and nations fell apart because of a lack of legitimacy?

Whether legitimacy is sought through religion, ideology, or ethnic loyalty, no leader can long survive purely on power without legitimacy.

	07-12-2004 09:53									#54
	Support Apolyton, pre-order Civilization IV

quote: That's NOT what legitimacy is.

No, that is what it is. Are you saying that before democracy there were no legitimate governments?

quote: Legitimacy is when a majority of the people believe you RIGHTFULLY have power over the country.

And how do we decide that in Charlemagne's Europe? What about Napoleon's France?

quote: Whether legitimacy is sought through religion, ideology, or ethnic loyalty, no leader can long survive purely on power without legitimacy.

Power is legitimacy. How do you exactly think people get power? Force alone to gain power isn't always going to work for a far flung empire. Whether you use religion or ideology, you have to power over the country in order to be the legitimate ruler.

	07-12-2004 09:59									#55
	Help yourself to an AD-FREE life

The definition of democracy is a fairly loose one. What's the problem?

	07-12-2004 10:01									#56
	Suffering from ads?

By ANY reasonable definition, Pakistan is not a democracy. Calling it a democracy is absolutely disgusting.

	07-12-2004 10:05									#57
	Put an end to popups!

What you mean to say is liberal democracy which is quite a different animal. Now that I've solved the semantic debate is there anything substantive here other than Bush not saying bad things about an important ally?

	07-12-2004 10:08									#58
	Avatar Enlargement: We've got the solution

No, I mean a democracy. Pakistan is a dictatorship. It has an unelected (again, by any reasonable definition of an election) general that controls the state, that took power in a coup.

Last edited by Ramo on 07-12-2004 at 10:14

	07-12-2004 10:12									#59
	Lose 30 kilos (of popups)

Now that you've made your customary vacuous comment, your purpose in this thread has been fulfilled

	07-12-2004 10:17									#60
	Got spare money?

quote: Originally posted by DinoDoc What you mean to say is liberal democracy which is quite a different animal. Now that I've solved the semantic debate is there anything substantive here other than Bush not saying bad things about an important ally?

It would be crazy for the Bush administration to try to be consistent when Bush babbles on about spreading democracy in his press conferences, while lavishing praise on allies with questionable government rule.