Musharraf Loses Credibility with America Also

Discussion in 'Current Affairs, News and Analysis' started by PartTimePongo, Mar 19, 2007.

Welcome to the Army Rumour Service, ARRSE

The UK's largest and busiest UNofficial military website.

The heart of the site is the forum area, including:

  2. He may have lost some credibility, but as far as the Bush regime is concerned, he is the only thing stopping Pakistan falling into the hands of islamic extremists and nuclear bombs going missing on the black market.
  3. He had credibility?
  4. Right Musharraf goes and the alternatives are what exactly ?

    A) A coalition between Bhutto/Sharif and the religious parties.
    B) A government led by either Bhutto or Sharif with other and the religious lobby sniping from the onset
    C) A government led by religious parties (hahahahahahaha)
    D) New pro-western dictator
    E) Islamist Dictator.

    None of the scenario would promote stability and nor would they be more western orientated. In the case of another pro-western general taking over - not going to happen, it would split the lower officer corp and cause much division in the armed forces over policy direction.
  5. Musharraf vs Bush in credibilty?

    Bush loses hands down. They are both fighting for credibility. Bush lost his, around the time he lost his virginity. Musharraf lost his... wait a minute. I don't think he has.
  6. It is certainly an interesting article - posted by DMA, an Indian PR Company.
    It tells us in its website that - ''DMA specializes in issues management which range from creating public debates to policy changes, from influencer outreach programmes to opinion modifications. This is a critical public relations function. DMA does this through a programme of close monitoring of media opinion and trends, government proceedings, trade & business groups, special interest groups, professional associations, and competitor activities, followed by a strategic action plan. ''

    Now, I wonder why an Indian Company would want to publish this article?
  7. Propogandists, then. Shoot them.
  8. Maybe 'lobbyists' would be a more polite description....No, you're right!
  9. Just Musharraf trying to draw attention away from the cricket holocaust.
  10. Castlereagh, you haven't mentioned a variant F - 'Freedom' (a 'liberation' of Pakistan). Btw, Pakistan has real not imaginary WMD. Moreover, gen.Musharraf 'forget' his promis about 'free elections'.

    So we have: a brutal dictator, WMD and almost open support for Taliban (terrorists for American point of view).
  11. We could give the 'contract' for just such a task to the Indian military, the West can just write the cheques.

    They'd also have an unbeatable cricket team at wars end.
  12. But he has WMD so we can't attack. He is merely our new replacement for the Shah/Saddam/Muhijideen warlords that we sponsor to do our bidding in the middle east and get peed off when we dump them to the curb.

    For some reason we seem to give dictators wmds and sponsor their regimes for access to business rights and then pray they are our friends forever after.