US and European Govts. always cry for democracy,but why not suggest it for General Musharraf of Pakistan.?

General Pervaiz Mushraff is the President as well as Army chief of Pakistan,he is holding these two Offices since october 1999 after over riding an elected demcratic govt.Bush and Western administration fully back him,and never demand him for a free and fair election in pakistan. Why supporting a dictator,who is bullyig his opponents? WHY?

12 Answers

Relevance
  • Anonymous
    1 decade ago
    Favorite Answer

    The General of Pakistan is a friend of our president and as such is free from doing any wrong.

    Just like Attorney General Gonzales of the United States, another friend of the Decider, does not have to be honest with Congress and the Vice-President can decide what he wants to keep secret from the public.

    Pakistan knows that 9/11 was an inside job and Lil' Bush is afraid to ruffle his feathers.

    Please listen to this short music video about 9/11 and the false investigation.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rVBd03ibziM

    Youtube thumbnail

    Thank you for your question.

    Source(s): http://www.question911.com/linksall.htm Free video downloads can be obtained at the above link. Including a BBC documentary about how Bush stole the 2000 presidential election
  • Anonymous
    1 decade ago

    You are laboring under a simplistic view of the world.

    First off, there was a horrific event on Sept 11, 2001 now known as 9/11. This was engineered by an organization run by a fellow called bin Laden, who was living in Afghanistan under the protection of the Taliban.

    Now get a map of the region and look at how the military is supposed to get to Afghanistan. If you were the President, how would you get your armies there, over which neighboring nation ... fly the planes, have the aircraft carriers, cruise missiles ... what nation get permission to go over?

    Well Pakistan was the answer.

    Moving on, President Bush did a lot of good stuff, but he also acted on some incredibly ignorant guidance from some people. There is this ideology that says Democracy is the best form of government and in the best interests of America to have all over the world.

    Ok look at the Middle East ... there are millions of people who hate Israel and want to destroy Israel, then after Israel gone, they feel the same way about America.

    They were in nations taht were pro peace with Israel and America. Then the USA pressured the nations to go Democratic, so now the people who want to destroy Israel and America have won the elections and those nations are well on the road to carrying out that Democratic will.

    Do you think that was a good idea?

  • 1 decade ago

    We're a bit hypocritical on the issue of democracy sometimes, but the answer to your question is obvious: we don't push for democracy in Pakistan because Pakistan has nuclear weapons and we don't want a democracy there if there is a chance that the people will elect a radical Islamic regime which would then have their hands on nukes. You can bet that the USA has contingency plans for this horrible possibility. Better Musharraf keeping the radicals in check and those nukes safe than the uncertainty of elections. For now Musharraf falls into the "good dictator" category because he supports American interests.

  • Anonymous
    1 decade ago

    after over-riding an elected democrat?

    Musharraf's Pakistan doesn't equate to your idea of "Democracy"...in fact where have you found a

    model of "Democracy" to compare to Pakistan?

    The United States Congress.. Clinton ,and Bush have long recognized him as an essential alliance

    and that has caused the Pakistani leader to tow a tough line..

    just because "Human Rights Watch" has him on their collective radar..

    you cannot submit that you know enough about internal Pakistani politics and affairs to judge what has happened..

    of course maybe you'd rather support one possible alternative? Osama and the Taliban set up shop in a country with a nuclear arsenal?

  • How do you think about the answers? You can sign in to vote the answer.
  • Erika
    Lv 4
    4 years ago

    i've got heard it spoke of as Bush's "Musharraf coverage" quite than a "Pakistan coverage". i do no longer know if Bhutto is the respond, yet her back interior the country is a initiate, and staring on the cord provider for the period of artwork, I see the legal experts are particularly brave. All i can do is wish for the final. Ol' Pervez seems to be suitable the place Leopoldo Galtieri replaced into interior the early Nineteen Eighties and all of us know how that became out. The falsely created borders are particularly a limitation, are they no longer?

  • 1 decade ago

    us and European representatives elected by democrats way but Musharraf got the ruling power in wrong way.Perhaps above 60% people of pakistan opposses to mushraf due to increasing terrorism,drugs and border attacks.

    Source(s): from media everyday hearing only negative sujects by pakistan
  • 1 decade ago

    The USA was hoping that he would deliver Osama, but he does not have the Power or the Will to do it. Instead he is allowing the Taliban to train in Pakistan.

  • 1 decade ago

    If he was pressed to release Osama, that would slow down the war on terror. Then Bush/Cheney would have less reason to attack Iran, even though they need a good biatch-slap.

    As long as he is at large, the war games can continue, terrorism threats are more real, more government, more taxes applied. Get it?

    Follow the $$$$

  • Anonymous
    1 decade ago

    Pakistan is an important ally in your "war on terror"

  • 1 decade ago

    Radical Islamic republics are not good neighbors.

Still have questions? Get your answers by asking now.