Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Pakistani President Mussharaf Calls on India for Peace Talks
Fox News Live ^ | 27 May 02 | General Musharraf

Posted on 05/27/2002 7:50:34 AM PDT by Alas Babylon!

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061 next last
To: Nuke'm Glowing
And I don't like the inaction by our "experienced" State Department who think we can talk nice to achieve hard results. We have to choose sides and secure peace immediately.

Agreed.

As for the rest of your post, I guess it all comes down to this - how much of what Musharraf says about the Islamic nation is rhetoric meant to placate his domestic constituencies (Islamic hardliners), and how much of it does he really mean? I tend to lean towards the belief that most of it is rhetoric. You obviously disagree.

41 posted on 05/27/2002 10:19:55 AM PDT by AM2000
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: Alas Babylon!;all

India to assess Musharraf's address

PTI
New Delhi, May 27

India on Monday said it would assess Pakistan President Pervez Musharraf's televised address to the nation in "totality" and give its "considered response" on Tuesday.

"We have heard carefully the speech delivered by the Pakistani President. The content is to be analysed fully. We have to assess Gen Musharraf's statement in totality. What has been stated today has to be in the context of his January 12 statement and also Gen Musharraf's recent interviews," External Affairs Ministry spokeswoman Nirupama Rao told reporters here immediately after the address.

She said the "considered response" of the Government will be stated by External Affairs Minister Jaswant Singh at a press conference at 1530 hours tomorrow.

42 posted on 05/27/2002 10:24:01 AM PDT by AM2000
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Lazamataz
I'm watching it. He seems sincere. He is acting to defuse this situation, and that is good.

He'd better. Pakistan doesn't have many good options. It's pretty clear that Pakistan has been allowing, if not aiding and abetting, muslim insurgence in Kashmir and elsewhere in the region. They backed the USA in the move to rip up the Taliban and al-queda in Afghanistan, becasue if they had not the USA would have rolled them over too. He has probably taken notice that muslim insurgency and terrorism isn't being received very well in the world these days. If he can reign the barbarians in, he will survive to rule another day. Got to do a better job of purging his government of terrorist sympathizers. Seems to me that an agreement is possible in the region, but only if Musharraf can control the extremists. If not, he is toast.

43 posted on 05/27/2002 10:27:53 AM PDT by Mad_Tom_Rackham
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Nuke'm Glowing
If he builds enough nukes and it looks like he is going to lose a war to India, which he would, then he will arm every radical state in the Middle East and probably Indonesia also with nuclear weapons. There's your scare for the day folks.

Does wonders for the pucker factor...

44 posted on 05/27/2002 10:58:07 AM PDT by mhking
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: Lazamataz
He seems sincere.

Hitler seemed sincere in the beginning too...

45 posted on 05/27/2002 10:59:21 AM PDT by mhking
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Alas Babylon!

46 posted on 05/27/2002 11:06:00 AM PDT by DoughtyOne
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: swarthyguy
Musharraf is sidestepping the conditions of the ultimatum. He apparently has one alternative to war: he can send in the Pak army to close down the rebel bases. This is what he must do, and he will have the backing of America, Russia, and India.

Cross the Rubicon, Mr. Musharraf, it's what a stateman would do.

47 posted on 05/27/2002 12:24:23 PM PDT by RightWhale
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: RightWhale
Question is, how much of the army would obey? And ordering that COA might be like signing his own death warrant. And that brings up the question of whether an ineffectual ally is better than an explicit enemy - ie. an islamic takeover of Pakistan.
48 posted on 05/27/2002 1:19:06 PM PDT by swarthyguy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]

To: Dog Gone
Instead, like you, they don't believe a word he says.

Right. Why should they? There is no past record of honesty to go by.

Musharraf has to prove that he's not sponsoring terrorism

Preferably by stopping it. Results = Proof.

India is offering all stick and no carrot.

You have to be kidding. India is the epitomy of all bark and no bite! It's consistently been attacked and caught off guard. It's record in that sense is laughable. But that's changed. You don't tempt a rogue, rabid dog with steak in order to placate it; you either use a stick or put it out of its misery.

49 posted on 05/27/2002 3:29:47 PM PDT by swarthyguy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: swarthyguy
Thank you SG you are almost always right, and always interesting.

This Islamic Bomb thing, makes Pakistan right now more urgent than Iraq, Syria, Iran, North Korea, Lebanon, Palestine, Sudan, or Libya.

Musharraf is a twisty little Islamic weasel, not as bad as some, but if he is all that separates the world from nuclear holocaust, we had better sell all and be on our knees in prayer from here on out.

Like it or not, an entity has been created, midwifed by Britain, called Pakistan, that cannot continue to exist as a sovereign state if the world is to be livable or even to continue to exist as we know it. It will have to be ruled by somebody else, be that India, the USA, the UN (heaven forbid), or even Israel, Europe, etc...

This place is just not capable of not being a threat. Even with some individual decent people in it, the entity itself is a time bomb and has very nearly done ticked out.

Its gotta go, we don't have years. I am sometimes not sure we have months.

50 posted on 05/27/2002 3:40:25 PM PDT by crystalk
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 49 | View Replies]

To: swarthyguy
He is a lying prevaricating sack of pig droppings. Still defiant and shifting blame. He lied about no infiltration over the LoC and at the same cheerleaded further attacks.

Notice how he wears a military uniform while talking about how he wants peace. He is sending a message of belligerence with this outfit. Leaders of India do not dress up like this.

Islam has been called a "barracks religion"

51 posted on 05/27/2002 3:46:04 PM PDT by remaininlight
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: AM2000
Musharraf doesn't look his old, confident self anymore.

Haunted and hunted. A high-stakes gambler about to see his game crumble.

Just my impression of the TV snapshots.

52 posted on 05/27/2002 3:50:36 PM PDT by tictoc
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: AM2000
Well, do you realize that if India were to offer such help and Musharraf were to accept it, the resulting TV images would be of Islamic mullahs chanting allah'u akbar being rounded up by Musharrafs forces with help from the infidel Hindus? It would be a PR disaster, and Musharraf would end up hanging by a noose within days - just like Benazirs daddy.

There certainly is a risk for Musharraf in being seen as too aligned with the Indians, and I don't think there's much chance of that, anyway. He never has expressed any fondness for them, and there's no chance than he'd ask for Indian help in actually arresting terrorists in Pakistan.

But, I think India is making a strategic mistake in refusing to talk to Musharraf. There is certainly room for negotiation on confidence-building measures on the LoC, and preventing insurgents from crossing it into Kashmir. India can neither ask nor expect Musharraf to take orders from India, but unless they are willing to talk, they might as well start shooting. This limbo with no achievable goal in the interim is not a logical or sustainable position.

53 posted on 05/27/2002 3:54:33 PM PDT by Dog Gone
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: Dog Gone
here is certainly room for negotiation on confidence-building measures on the LoC, and preventing insurgents from crossing it into Kashmir.

There's no room for negotiation when you don't trust the other guy to keep his word. India doesn't trust Musharraf since he has a history of betraying Indian peace attempts in the past - for example, when he totally humiliated the BJP with his little Kargil stunt. It took President Clinton's personal intervention to bail India out of that one, and the BJP is not going to forget it.

54 posted on 05/27/2002 4:00:44 PM PDT by AM2000
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 53 | View Replies]

To: j2r2
To say that India is asking Musharraf to prove a negative is just plain stupid.

Then tell me what India is demanding. It will be different from what I've read in every published account, so I'm looking forward to finding out the truth from you.

55 posted on 05/27/2002 4:02:20 PM PDT by Dog Gone
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: keri
Do you know why Vajpayee won't talk to Musharraf? Because Musharraf is a liar and cannot be trusted. He's still lying when he denies Pakistan is training killers. If he really wants "talk" then he should take the first step and admit the truth, but he won't. If he really wanted dialogue to defuse this crisis he'd admit the truth.

If the Pakistan government is still training terrorists, then I have no sympathy for it. So far, the only statements I have seen to that effect come from supporters of India. Given the bad blood between these two countries and the ongoing exaggerations and accusations that occur in their respective media every day, forgive me for wanting a second opinion.

Musharraf can't do what the Indians really want, which is to renounce any support for Kashmir separatists. That's something that will take years of good will between these two countries to achieve. That's going to be impossible to accomplish if they aren't speaking to each other.

If India will never speak to Pakistan, much less try to work together with it, then they might as well launch the nukes and see what happens.

56 posted on 05/27/2002 4:12:56 PM PDT by Dog Gone
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: AM2000
Then perhaps Musharraf needs to sit tight, continue to crack down on terrorists in his country and pursue his domestic agenda. If the BJP refuses to negotiate, and won't launch war, it's going to get defeated in the elections, anyway.

He can try negotiations with someone else, later.

57 posted on 05/27/2002 4:17:20 PM PDT by Dog Gone
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 54 | View Replies]

To: Dog Gone
He can try negotiations with someone else, later.

I doubt it. The Indian hardline position wasn't created by the BJP, it was created by the Congress, which is the BJP's opposition. The BJP is only maintaining it - if the Congress comes back, absolutely nothing will change. Heck, the most belligerent Indian leadership to date was a Congress leadership (Indira Gandhi).

58 posted on 05/27/2002 4:23:27 PM PDT by AM2000
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 57 | View Replies]

Comment #59 Removed by Moderator

To: abwehr
Well, to hell with it then. You India hawks aren't interested in seeing Musharraf succeed, you just want to launch a war.

I don't care enough about the region to fight all of you. Fire the nukes.

60 posted on 05/27/2002 4:35:25 PM PDT by Dog Gone
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 59 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson