10-24-2008, 11:10 PM
<b>The world is a safer place today!</b>
By Dr Haider Mehdi submitted 21 hours 35 minutes ago
Imagine the colossal moral and political bankruptcy of the contemporary political system in this country if the people of Pakistan started wishing that Pervez Musharraf had not gone and the army should be back in power.
<span style='color:red'>
In a similar vein, I was asked during a recent group discussion what was termed a hypothetical question: What would you do if Pakistan breaks up and is merged with India?</span> The point raised here is that the metaphorical and hypothetical context in the idea of Pakistan merging with India reflects growing public dissatisfaction with the increasing unpredictability of the foreign and economic policies of the six-month-old PPP regime. It is so because of the fundamental failure of the current leadership to give an appropriate direction to the nation's political future.
People can tolerate only so much unpredictability in political leadership and in a political system. They can appreciate a passion for democracy and pay homage to a personal sacrifice - and even admire personal attributes of a leader. But the fact is that as soon as the people's political sentiments are ignored, they tend to become nervous and justifiably start losing faith in the political system and its leadership. They look at the disregard of their political sentiment as a kind of betrayal of their legitimate and rightful demands by the leadership - because the public believes that the personal interests of the political ruling elite have taken precedent over national interests. Soon they start wondering if it all can hang together. And who can blame the masses? This has been the virtual history of this country's political leadership and its "modus operandi."
For example, we, the Pakistani nation, have heard that the world is a safer place today because of Mr Bush. Let us do a reality check, inside and outside of the US, vis-Ã -vis the above statement attributed to the Pakistani President.
Pascal Boniface, a world acclaimed scholar and a distinguished newspaper columnist, has this to say about George W Bush and his War On Terror: "President Bush's war against terrorism is a failure. In fact, we must admit that terrorism has never been so widespread...one must wonder if no US president has ever harmed his country so much...He will probably be remembered as the worst president in all of American history. At every level, the credibility of the US is undermined... Bogged down in Iraq and Afghanistan, the US has lost all credibility..."
Linda Heard, another globally-renowned columnist has a straight-forward view on the so-called War On Terror: "Let us be realistic. The Taliban do not present a physical threat to the US, Britain or the European mainland."
Dr Joseph A Kechichian, author of several books on international affairs, offered the following advice to one of the American presidential contenders for the November 4 elections: "He should have apologised to the loved ones of the million or so Iraqis killed because of an illegal war...invading on the basis of a pack of lies...Both [candidates] must reassess American influence, to avoid lies (WMDs), immorality (Abu Ghraib, Guantanamo), political quagmires (ethnic cleansing), and economic ruin."
Adel Safty, a noted academic, notes that "Washington's strategic involvement in the region is largely driven by the desire to gain access to the oil and gas-rich Caspian region."
The British ambassador in Afghanistan has spoken of "the failing of the present Afghan government" and the British commander gave an interview in which he described the war as "unwinnable" and spoke of "the need to talk to the Taliban."
Raoof Hassan, an Islamabad-based Pakistani columnist has perceptively put the War On Terror in an apt observation: "It seems so as there is no one talking about the one credible way of finding a solution to the terrorist phenomenon: an immediate and complete withdrawal of the American troops from all countries it has forcibly occupied."
By Dr Haider Mehdi submitted 21 hours 35 minutes ago
Imagine the colossal moral and political bankruptcy of the contemporary political system in this country if the people of Pakistan started wishing that Pervez Musharraf had not gone and the army should be back in power.
<span style='color:red'>
In a similar vein, I was asked during a recent group discussion what was termed a hypothetical question: What would you do if Pakistan breaks up and is merged with India?</span> The point raised here is that the metaphorical and hypothetical context in the idea of Pakistan merging with India reflects growing public dissatisfaction with the increasing unpredictability of the foreign and economic policies of the six-month-old PPP regime. It is so because of the fundamental failure of the current leadership to give an appropriate direction to the nation's political future.
People can tolerate only so much unpredictability in political leadership and in a political system. They can appreciate a passion for democracy and pay homage to a personal sacrifice - and even admire personal attributes of a leader. But the fact is that as soon as the people's political sentiments are ignored, they tend to become nervous and justifiably start losing faith in the political system and its leadership. They look at the disregard of their political sentiment as a kind of betrayal of their legitimate and rightful demands by the leadership - because the public believes that the personal interests of the political ruling elite have taken precedent over national interests. Soon they start wondering if it all can hang together. And who can blame the masses? This has been the virtual history of this country's political leadership and its "modus operandi."
For example, we, the Pakistani nation, have heard that the world is a safer place today because of Mr Bush. Let us do a reality check, inside and outside of the US, vis-Ã -vis the above statement attributed to the Pakistani President.
Pascal Boniface, a world acclaimed scholar and a distinguished newspaper columnist, has this to say about George W Bush and his War On Terror: "President Bush's war against terrorism is a failure. In fact, we must admit that terrorism has never been so widespread...one must wonder if no US president has ever harmed his country so much...He will probably be remembered as the worst president in all of American history. At every level, the credibility of the US is undermined... Bogged down in Iraq and Afghanistan, the US has lost all credibility..."
Linda Heard, another globally-renowned columnist has a straight-forward view on the so-called War On Terror: "Let us be realistic. The Taliban do not present a physical threat to the US, Britain or the European mainland."
Dr Joseph A Kechichian, author of several books on international affairs, offered the following advice to one of the American presidential contenders for the November 4 elections: "He should have apologised to the loved ones of the million or so Iraqis killed because of an illegal war...invading on the basis of a pack of lies...Both [candidates] must reassess American influence, to avoid lies (WMDs), immorality (Abu Ghraib, Guantanamo), political quagmires (ethnic cleansing), and economic ruin."
Adel Safty, a noted academic, notes that "Washington's strategic involvement in the region is largely driven by the desire to gain access to the oil and gas-rich Caspian region."
The British ambassador in Afghanistan has spoken of "the failing of the present Afghan government" and the British commander gave an interview in which he described the war as "unwinnable" and spoke of "the need to talk to the Taliban."
Raoof Hassan, an Islamabad-based Pakistani columnist has perceptively put the War On Terror in an apt observation: "It seems so as there is no one talking about the one credible way of finding a solution to the terrorist phenomenon: an immediate and complete withdrawal of the American troops from all countries it has forcibly occupied."