List of Armed forces officers heading civilian institutions...updated as of 2004

[AhmedKhan]

Originally Posted by Suffyan Asad

...Nawaz Sharif did try to attack a civil airliner.

Alright, first let's get this thing out of the way.

Sharif did not "attack" a civilian airliner. Look up in dictionary what the word "attack" means. Now, let's get the "facts" straight here, know this. These facts are undispuited and as a matter of fact Mushraff himself agrees to these.

CAA ordered the plane to be diverted to Nawab Shah and Mushraff agrees to this. Read his book or BBC or whatever other source you want. ATC denied permission to land at Karachi and instructed the plane to go to Nawab Shah.
Mushraff, personally asked the pilot not to divert and keep hovering over Karachi. For your very kind information, Mushraff agrees to all this and wrote it in his book too.

Having said this, look for yourself who is wrong. CAA has authority over all the airspace of Pakistan and ALL aircrafts are required to obey orders, Mushraff did not allow that to happen. Mushraff is the one who jeapordized the lives of innocent civilians by not allowing the pilot to go to Nawab Shah. How do you think that plane was left with 7 minutes of fuel (which in itself is not true)? Mushraff was the one who ordered the plane to remain in Karachi and not be diverted to Nawab Shah

Suffyan Asad, please get your facts straight and then form whatever opinion you want but the least you have to do is have a solid basis for your opinon.

Like MD has already said, democracy never worked because there hasn't been a true democracy. Majority of the time it was military ruling directly and even when they are not, they are the ones pulling the strings.
I am sure you won't remember but Nawaz Sharif had a big issue with a former General who suggested that the military should have direct role in running the country.

So all this "Nawaz attacked a civilian airliner" being you basis is absolutely false. And since when did you become such a carer for civilians and innocent life? You support the very Mushraff who has bombed Pakistan and carried out operations on Pakistani citizens and is reponsible for forced disapperances of numerous "innocent civilians"...whom you so very much care about.

[eff-kay]

Originally Posted by AhmedKhan

How do you think that plane was left with 7 minutes of fuel (which in itself is not true)?

7 minutes of fuel is forking bulls$chit story.... I dunno who believe this stupid story...

[Cateye]

Originally Posted by eff-kay

7 minutes of fuel is forking bulls$chit story.... I dunno who believe this stupid story...

Suffyan Asad

[eff-kay]

ammm.. before believing this cock-and-bull story, anybody has seen aviation rules and regulations about jet and its fuel tanks?? Secondly, as per my information, the black box of that particular plane was declared clear and was reused, and airliner was unable to reproduce it during some court hearing.

Khair, nevermind... discussing won't decrease bread/honda accord prices :S

[Digital Jedi]

deleted

[eff-kay]

[MummyDaddy]

Originally Posted by Suffyan Asad

I think it'd be better to put this issue on the forum. So, I'm posting the PM to MD, see this:

Let me sort out this PM issue once and for all, since Suffyan seems so hung up on it. A few month ago, in one of the Musharraf threads, I challenged Suffyan to prove my arguments wrong. In response, Suffyan said he would send me a detailed report on why he supported Musharraf. I told Suffyan that if he did, I would be more than willing to reply to each and every issue he raised.

The PM Suffyan quoted in his last post is the sum total of his 'report'.

In my own posts, I have targeted the Musharraf regime for harming democracy, messing up the economy, fostering instability, and, in a nutshell, being extremely bad for Pakistan. I have posted thousands and thousands of words detailing why I think the Musharraf regime is problematic.

In response, all Suffyan can do is tell me that Musharraf's plane was prevented from landing at Karachi by Nawaz Sharif.

Yeah, Suffyan. You win.

MD

[Nee]

Originally Posted by MummyDaddy

Suffyan, let me give you a (very) brief lesson in global economic history. Once upon a time, about 60 years ago, people started wondering why some countries were more developed than others. Although they had wondered these things in the past as well, they gave this issue more thought than they had previously because the capitalist countries in the West did not want underdeveloped countries and ex-colonies to adopt communism. As a result, many economic theories and policies were devised that advocated industrialisation and capital investment as essential to economic development.

That was all well and good, except for the fact that there were huge social upheavals and disparities in the developing world as a result of such policies. Economies were growing, but inequality and social exclusion were not going away.

It was then realised that economic growth was not enough. What, after all, was the point of a 7% growth rate if many people continued to live in poverty. It was then theorised, by people like Amartya Sen (who won a Nobel prize), that development meant more than just economic growth. It meant an equitable distribution of resources and wealth, with access to civil liberties, political transparency, and social security. In the absence of these things, economic growth would only benefit a rich, parasitic minority.

Economic growth rates only tell you one thing: the rate at which the economy is growing. They do NOT tell you how the wealth is being distributed, or where it is being allocated. They also do not tell you whether the economy is structured in a way that would allow for sustainable growth. Go take a look at the UNDP or the World Bank's country statistics and see how many different indicators it takes to gauge a country's 'development'.



General Zia-ul-Haq had a democratically elected leader hanged. General Yahya Khan presided over the break-up of the country. General Ayub Khan led Pakistan into a pointless war with India.

Let me make it blindingly obvious for you Suffyan, so that you don't keep bringing this up. Democracy, especially in this country, is not perfect. Democracy is only as good as the political institutions that support it. It is these institutions that provide checks and balances (which, obviously, are lacking in any military dictatorship). You need an independent judiciary, an empowered, elected legislature, and an executive that listens to the will of the people. These institutions do not develop overnight. You need to sustain democracy for it to work. Interfering with it every ten years will never allow it to succeed. Nawaz Sharif was a moron. But he was a moron who could be removed from office.

Musharraf, on the other hand, is just a moron.

MD

Those bureaucratic institutions that you allude to are not necessarily sustained by democracy. They can be sustained by dictatorships, meritocracies, communism, even anarchism, virtually any form of governance. In theory. Likewise is the case with democracy. In theory.

8 years of democracy and Pakistan was virtually a failed state. Another term of democracy to sustain the corrupt system and Pakistan would have been all but a state. If anything that gave it impetus, it was a dictatorship.

I, too, like the idea of democracy. But you will live there once the country has democracy, not me. Benazir will be back and, hopefully for you at least, democracy will be sustained. But you need to live there with democracy and see through that the system is sustained.

It is all easy to talk like the Americans and the westerners do, but do they understand the cultural, socio-economic complexity of Pakistan?

Democracy is not the hand of God, like it will work like magic. When prudence says no, it most likely should be no.Democracy hasn't worked in Pakistan, it never will. Unless people are largely educated and autonomous 'individuals

[MummyDaddy]

Originally Posted by Nee

Those bureaucratic institutions that you allude to are not necessarily sustained by democracy. They can be sustained by dictatorships, meritocracies, communism, even anarchism, virtually any form of governance.

1) I was not referring to any 'bureaucratic' institutions unless, of course, you believe courts and legislatures are no different from the bureaucracy.
2) You clearly do not understand the differences between communism, anarchism, meritocracy, and dictatorship.
3) Let's assume, however, that you are correct and that somehow, democratic institutions can co-exist with dictatorship. At the heart of democracy is the existence of checks and balances. Is the current Musharraf regime subject to any form of accountability? Is this an example of democracy being upheld by dictatorship?

Originally Posted by Nee

8 years of democracy and Pakistan was virtually a failed state. Another term of democracy to sustain the corrupt system and Pakistan would have been all but a state. If anything that gave it impetus, it was a dictatorship.

4) Democracy amidst the well-documented hidden hand of the military establishment.
5) More importantly, a brief look at Pakistan's political history will show you how the Pakisani state structured itself in a way that lends itself to authoritarian rule.
6) Overcoming such structures can only be done through repeated elections or revolution. The democracy of the 1990s was frequently interrupted, not least due to the involvement of the military.
7) Why are you of the opinion that Pakistan is doing much better now? Surely our earlier discussions should have cleared that misconception.

Originally Posted by Nee

I, too, like the idea of democracy. But you will live there once the country has democracy, not me.

What's that supposed to mean?

Originally Posted by Nee

Benazir will be back and, hopefully for you at least, democracy will be sustained. But you need to live there with democracy and see through that the system is sustained.

8) Benazir has cut a deal with Musharraf. SHe has autocratically decided that she will bestow herself upon us as the 3rd Prime Minister of Pakistan with Musharraf as president. That is not democracy.

Originally Posted by Nee

It is all easy to talk like the Americans and the westerners do, but do they understand the cultural, socio-economic complexity of Pakistan?

9) Who's talking like a Westerner? Someone who believes that the Pakistani people deserve a shot at better governance,

OR

Originally Posted by Nee

Democracy hasn't worked in Pakistan, it never will. Unless people are largely educated and autonomous 'individuals

10) Someone who believes that the people of Pakistan are too ignorant and stupid to know what's good for them?

MD

[AhmedKhan]

Originally Posted by Suffyan Asad

I think it'd be better to put this issue on the forum. So, I'm posting the PM to MD, see this:
Originally Posted by BBC

Musharraf apparently ordered the pilot to ignore the order and continue to circle Karachi, despite the fact that fuel was now running low.

I think now it'll be wiser for my as well as your understanding.

Do you even at least read what YOU yourself post?

What did I say in my post? I said the exact same thing. ATC disallowed the plane to land in Karachi, read again, land in Karachi BUT, I will be careful here so you can read it...but plane was diverted (rerouted, asked to go to) Nawab Shah (another city in Pakistan close to Karachi).
Mushraff agrees AND so does your report that it was MUSHRAFF who jeaporidized the lives of innocent civilians by DISOBEYING ATC...CAA.

Can you understand this much? Is it too much for you brain to just get this that Mushraff VIOLATED aviation rules...He was the one who put peole's lives in danger.

To him, his job was more important than ANYTHING in the universe and that is crystal clear even after 8 years when he in bed with Terrorist organizations such as MQM and killing and abducting Pakistani citizens.

I have said this a gazzillion times but to no avail. I will say it again...what the hell.

According to Constitution (if it means anything to you) Prime Minister HAS the AUTHORITY to fire the COAS. COAS is answerable to Chairman Joint Chiefs of Staff who is answerable to Secertary of Defence who is answerable to Miniter of Defense WHO finally is answerable to the Prime Minister. You see, PM is FIVE level above the COAS and HAS the authority BY LAW to fire the COAS. WHY did then Mushraff not go????

Make it clear Suffyan, it was Mushraff who threathened the lives of innocent civilians on the plane (the only ones you seem to care about since you don't give a damn another hundereds and thousands of those who are either already killed or going to die a horrible death or have been abducted by Mushraff) by not going to Nawab Shah and ordering the pilot to CONTINUE to circle around Karachi EVEN when there was no fuel.
EVEN your report says so.

[Fookie]

And another reminder w.r.t.
"8 years of democracy and Pakistan was virtually a failed state."

=> We are still a failed state

[Nee]

Originally Posted by MummyDaddy

1) I was not referring to any 'bureaucratic' institutions unless, of course, you believe courts and legislatures are no different from the bureaucracy.
2) You clearly do not understand the differences between communism, anarchism, meritocracy, and dictatorship.
3) Let's assume, however, that you are correct and that somehow, democratic institutions can co-exist with dictatorship. At the heart of democracy is the existence of checks and balances. Is the current Musharraf regime subject to any form of accountability? Is this an example of democracy being upheld by dictatorship?



4) Democracy amidst the well-documented hidden hand of the military establishment.
5) More importantly, a brief look at Pakistan's political history will show you how the Pakisani state structured itself in a way that lends itself to authoritarian rule.
6) Overcoming such structures can only be done through repeated elections or revolution. The democracy of the 1990s was frequently interrupted, not least due to the involvement of the military.
7) Why are you of the opinion that Pakistan is doing much better now? Surely our earlier discussions should have cleared that misconception.



What's that supposed to mean?



8) Benazir has cut a deal with Musharraf. SHe has autocratically decided that she will bestow herself upon us as the 3rd Prime Minister of Pakistan with Musharraf as president. That is not democracy.



9) Who's talking like a Westerner? Someone who believes that the Pakistani people deserve a shot at better governance,

OR



10) Someone who believes that the people of Pakistan are too ignorant and stupid to know what's good for them?

MD

1) Courts are bureaucratic institutions. I was merely referring to the structure. Almost every institution is bureaucratic.
A system of checks and balances does not follow from the idea of liberty and democracy. Suppose we embody it in our constitution that the judiciary, the legislative, and the military dictator are independent. One makes the laws, the other interprets them, and the third executes or enforces them. Suppose further that we also put it in the constitution that the moment the dictator transgresses his responsibility and illegally acts to, suppose, undermine the judiciary (or the legislative for that matter), then the next top-ranked person in the army takes his post. Here, we have a system of checks and balances, but people won't be voting. There won't be democracy.

2)That is why I said, repeated elections and Pakistan would have been all but a state. It was on the verge of becoming a failed state. Regardless of what the history is. It is not like you think of butter and you have milk but just because you can think of butter it necessarily should turn into butter. There is concrete reality: the tools available, the limitations, the history and the geography, and so on and so forth. You can't jump out of those influences just like that, you take them into account, reflect on what happens despite those limitations that are a fact of life in Pakistan, and then make prudent decisions. Not based on the idea in your mind only.

3)I just meant your idealism about democracy (which is merely an idea) blinds you before the reality (in which people live).

4)That is democracy (at least that is democracy in practice in Pakistan). Deals are cut in democracy, party politics is the part and parcel of democracy. There wasn't much Musharraf could do, the tantrums of democracy meant that PPP is the strongest party in Pakistan. Laws have been amended here in the US regarding the number of terms of the president, that might as well happen back there. You are missing it, this is the essence and the inevitable conclusion of democracy.

5) See, I am not making any political speeches here, so I don't have to limit myself like that. If people are largely uneducated in our country, and they are not autonomous individuals, then that is what I will say. I call a spade a spade, I don't live in delusions. It is not like those English classes where you know you can't say anything that indicts the people, so what you do is, for everything, you blame the government. Congress supported the war in Iraq, Americans supported it in the polls, but for some reason you can't criticize the people but just the govt.

[MummyDaddy]

*sigh*

Originally Posted by Nee

A system of checks and balances does not follow from the idea of liberty and democracy.

Actually, it kind of does.

Originally Posted by Nee

Suppose we embody it in our constitution that the judiciary, the legislative, and the military dictator are independent. One makes the laws, the other interprets them, and the third executes or enforces them. Suppose further that we also put it in the constitution that the moment the dictator transgresses his responsibility and illegally acts to, suppose, undermine the judiciary (or the legislative for that matter), then the next top-ranked person in the army takes his post. Here, we have a system of checks and balances, but people won't be voting. There won't be democracy.

There is one major problem with what I'm sure you thought was a very cunning plan... noone elects a military dictator. Courts are bound to act in accordance with the constitution (itself embodying the will of the people). Legislatures have to listen to courts and, more importantly, can be recalled/dismissed through popular elections. The executive, while also subject to elections, can also be held in check by the courts and legislature.

In your system, you have an unrepresentative institution (the army) holding itself accountable. The problem with that is that at no point in time is it possible to assume that the army embodies the will of the people. Surely you can see the qualitative difference between checks and balances in democracy, and those that you've advocated. Ultimately, governments should be accountable to the people.

And don't even get me started on the possible procedural issues with what you've suggested...

Originally Posted by Nee

2)That is why I said, repeated elections and Pakistan would have been all but a state. It was on the verge of becoming a failed state. Regardless of what the history is. It is not like you think of butter and you have milk but just because you can think of butter it necessarily should turn into butter. There is concrete reality: the tools available, the limitations, the history and the geography, and so on and so forth. You can't jump out of those influences just like that, you take them into account, reflect on what happens despite those limitations that are a fact of life in Pakistan, and then make prudent decisions. Not based on the idea in your mind only.

I find it ironic that I'm being lectured on historical perspective by someone who clearly has none (at least when it comes to the question of what military rule has meant for Pakistan).

For the last time, in response to everything you have said, are saying, or might one day say: I KNOW! I understand perfectly well that there are 'influences' and 'limitations'. If you would all just read my posts, you would notice that I always say things like, 'the Pakistani state is structured in a way that lends itself to authoritarian rule'. What do you think I mean by such statements? Just to make things crystal clear, let me be a little less academic and type it out in much easier language: The military rules in Pakistan because historical circumstances allow it to do so.

Clearly, then, I am not oblivious to circumstances that exist outside of, 'ideas in my mind. The difference between you and me, Nee, is that while you are happy to live with an imperfect status quo, I see tha it is necessary, and possible, to change things. If I felt the military was good for Pakistan, I might not have opposed it. But the fact is that it is not, and its continued role in politics has to be curtailed. Towards that end, it is necessary to advocate, and fight for, change. As I have said before, people like you would have opposed the creation of Pakistan because the colonial government was in a position of strength (and because it liad some train tracks). Change has never been easy to bring about. It's not idealism. Idealism would be asking for something impossible. What I am suggesting is, instead, just difficult.

Originally Posted by Nee

3)I just meant your idealism about democracy (which is merely an idea) blinds you before the reality (in which people live).

Right.

Originally Posted by Nee

4)That is democracy (at least that is democracy in practice in Pakistan).

No, that isn't democracy.

Originally Posted by Nee

Deals are cut in democracy, party politics is the part and parcel of democracy.

In much of the rational world, when someone says party politics they generally mean parties contesting elections against each other. It takes a particularly deranged mind to suggest that a party cutting a deal with a military dictator constitutes 'party politics'.

Originally Posted by Nee

Laws have been amended here in the US regarding the number of terms of the president, that might as well happen back there.

In case you hadn't noticed, you can only be president twice in the US. If anything, the law was amended to limit the number of times a person could be president.

Originally Posted by Nee

You are missing it, this is the essence and the inevitable conclusion of democracy.

*pee noises*

Originally Posted by Nee

See, I am not making any political speeches here, so I don't have to limit myself like that. If people are largely uneducated in our country, and they are not autonomous individuals, then that is what I will say.

There are plenty of arguments that would suggest that education etc. is not a prerequisite for democracy. There are also arguments that suggest that political autonomy can only be fostered through democracy.

I realise that none of those will change your mind because 'arguments' and 'logic' are for pussies (or so you've led me to believe). So how about the example of India? They're uneducated, and inherited colonial institutions similar to ours? How come they have democracy? What about Botswana? South Africa? Kemalist Turkey in the aftermath of the Caliphate? Weren't all these examples defined by illiteracy, a lack of autonomy etc. Democracy managed to work, though, didn't it?

Originally Posted by Nee

I call a spade a spade, I don't live in delusions.

I'm extremely happy to hear that. It would be unforunate indeed if you called a spade a llama, or a book, or something like that. Too bad you insist on calling a dictatorship democracy, though.

Originally Posted by Nee

It is not like those English classes where you know you can't say anything that indicts the people, so what you do is, for everything, you blame the government. Congress supported the war in Iraq, Americans supported it in the polls, but for some reason you can't criticize the people but just the govt.

a) You can criticize the people. Be a man, and say so in your English class.
b) The US and British governments did kind of mislead their people by publishing faulty intelligence.

MD

[Digital Jedi]

deleted

[Kursed]

Suffyan - a small piece of extremely sincere advice - go look up the meaning of the word 'prosecution' and 'prosecutor' in a dictionary.