Talk:Pervez Musharraf/Archive 1

message: Despite the fact that Pakistan is not a democracy, non-extremists and those without a political agenda would agree with the content of this article. Life is better for the average Pakistani now then it ever was under during "democratic" rule. 
---Zulfikar
:If we're going to write a neutral academic article (as opposed to an editorial), let's admit that the US is in fact a democracy, or at least a democratic republic.  ---Jules1236
:I would say the article has parts (like "he is a great speaker") that could do with cleaning up, but it is not pure POV. And I would not, for example, make statements like "Life is better for the average Pakistani now then it ever was under during "democratic" rule." in the article itself. But then Zulfikar was saying that on the discussion page.
:Folks that have issues with parts of the article as being POV, please list them here or edit the page and let's take it from there. I hope I can say this politely, but I get the feeling that folks just feel that the article does not show him in a negative light and since he was the leader of a military coup and an authoritarian leader, that must mean that the article is not NPOV. IMHO, he has been not completely bad for the economy or the standard of living, but in the long term, undemocratic leadership can be bad for a country. And so on. there's a lot to be said on all sides of that discussion. Let's get specific and say it.—iFaqeer (Talk to me!) 00:58, Dec 14, 2004 (UTC)
This article has been improved of late. My main remaining criticsm of it remains the title of the paragraph "Restoration of democracy". The contents of this paragraph do provide an explanation of what this "democracy" actually amounts to (i.e. the legislative body has now been democratically elected (in elections overseen and - arguably - manipulated by Musharraf), yet the real power still lies with the unelected head of state). I feel that the title "Partial restoral of democracy" is perfectly fair, and a lot more neutral (and truthful) than the present title. I shall change it accordingly. Also, though I am no fan of the United States (especially the current incumbent), you do have to admit that the US do at least hold presidential elections (however imperfect) every four years. I'm not making a quality judgement here, just being as honest as I can.
Faulenzer 22:02, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  The article is neutral. 

message: quote: "Though the Taliban was largely an independent phenomenon, there exists a general impression that the Taliban regime is a product of the Inter-Services Intelligence security agency of Pakistan working on the principle of 'Strategic depth' to ensure a Pakistan-friendly regime in Afghanistan. The new policy was a sudden 180-degree turn from the old one and had been judged a key indicator of Musharraf's sincerity by analysts at think tanks like the Brookings Institute."
If at all the taliban was an independent phenomeon, how could Pakistan have made a "sudden 180 degree turn" in a diametrically opposite direction?
on the other hand if the Brookings Institutes has judged Musharraf to be sincere on the basis of his "new policy", then clearly Taliban could not have been an entirely independent phenomenon on which Pakistan had no influence.
Avataran
:I'm not aware of any evidence that the Taliban organization was created by a Pakistani government agency. My understanding has been that the Taliban may have indirectly received support from the Pakistani Interior Ministry even before the ISI switched its backing from the Northern Pakhtun mujahedin commanders, and that only happened after the Taliban demonstrated the ablility to provide security for the cotton convoys from Turkmenistan to Quetta. So I think the formation of the Taliban was an independant phenomenon. 
:As for the "sudden 180-degree turn," that's a myth; relations between the Pakistani government and the Taliban had already become strained earlier in 2001. Even before that, it became increasingly apparent that the Taliban were worse than useless for Pakistan, which required three main things of the Afghan government: enough progress to 1) allow three million Afghan refugees to go back, and 2) to encourage transhipment of cotton, gas, and other goods from Central Asian republics to Pakistan, and 3) to not make trouble for Pakistan. Not many refugees went back while the Taliban were in power. Outrage by womens' groups against the Taliban's medieval practices caused UNOCAL to cancel its gas pipeline project. Then the Taliban blew up the Bamiyan Buddhas, infuriating the top military commanders whose public and personal pleas to spare the Buddhas were ignored. At that point it became clear to Pakistani leaders that they had little influence over the Taliban and also that they had become a serious liability. I think the Pakistani government may have been already contemplating a regime change in Afghanistan when 9/11 happened. They weren't adequately prepared, though, and the pro-Pakistani "Eastern Alliance" suffered a setback when Abdul Haq died, allowing the anti-Pakistan Northern Alliance to dominate the new Afghan government.
:I'm not an expert on Afghan-Pakistan relations, and the more I find out, the more I realize how much I don't know about this very complex subject. AmeriDesi 11:57, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Partner in the "War on Terror"

message: That's all that can be about his liberal views? That he owns dogs? Talk about damning with faint praise. 
Quite a bit has been omitted here. Points to consider --
* liberal upbringing
** educated mother who worked for ILO and had leftist friends.
** diplomat father, so M. had contact with different cultures
** grew up in Turkey, admired the secularist Ataturk
* women in family are not sequestered
** wife & mother photographed/seen in public with no veils.
* condemnations of religious radicalism that predate 9/11.
And that's not even the half of it. AmeriDesi 12:44, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Liberal views

message: If this artcile is neutral then i shudder at the thought of bias !
Wikipedia, mark on the top of this article that its neutrality is suspicious. This is the least admins can do here. --204.46.125.17 15:47, 12 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Neutral???? say again :) 

message: : B4 U begin an anti-Mush crusade, lemme ask u a simple question: Wud u like a hot 1 to be shoved up your western ass, if instead of Mush, a taliban type dictator was to come to power in Pakistan? The hot 1 I'm referring to is a nuclear warhead. If the answer is yes, then pls., pile all the garbage u feel like on Mush, the only friend of the west, in radioactive Pakistan. 193.251.135.123 09:01, 25 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  lets start editing it 

message: explain me...why my edits have ben removed ,otherwise the should be reverted (unsigned by Wisesabre 02:51, 31 July 2005)
: In the future, please sign your comments (with four tildes (~)), or people are going to have trouble figuring out who you are.  
: If you're talking about this revision, it looks like the sections about Musharraf's Referendum and the PML-Q had NPOV and minor grammatical issues.  Also, the PML-Q section could stand to have some sources behind it, if it's going to say anything potentially controversial.  --Skoosh 18:39, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: you may be right about PML-Q (cause i have no prove), but i listed sources about musharraf referendum.
and thats true, what else should i have done?? --WiseSabre 19:48, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  explain me...why my edits have ben removed 

message: Musharraf recently made a statement that Pakistani woment get raped to obtain a visa to Canada, or citizenship and also become millionaires. Here are the URLs that provide the proof :
1. Boo-Boo At NY, article in Outlook on the above statement. http://www.outlookindia.com/full.asp?fodname=20051003&fname=Rape+%28F%29&sid=1
2. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/audio/2005/09/23/AU2005092301278.html
3. Protests that were caused by the statement. http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/050928/481/kar10509281551
:User:212.138.47.23 has removed the Washington Post reference from the article. I am reverting back to the last good version. Please do not arbitrarily remove large chunks of the article without posting and discussing your reasons here on the talk page. Hulleye 08:40, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Musharraf's statement in Washington Post