It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Pakistan 'may declare emergency' UPDATE: Musharraf rejects emergency rule

page: 1
12
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 8 2007 @ 08:42 PM
link   

Pakistan 'may declare emergency'


news.bbc.co.uk

Pakistan's government is considering imposing emergency rule, the country's information minister has said.
...
the issue was being discussed, as Pakistani TV channels reported that a declaration state of emergency was imminent.

An emergency would limit the role of the courts, restrict civil liberties and curb freedom of expression.

Opposition to Mr Musharraf's rule has also increased.
(visit the link for the full news article)

The BBC story has been updated this morning with the original story having been edited rather than a new story posted.

*I don't like the way "history" is so easily manipulated online.* :shk:

[edit on 8/9/2007 by Gools]

[edit on 8/9/2007 by Gools]




posted on Aug, 8 2007 @ 08:42 PM
link   
Things are definitely not going well for the General. It's starting to looks like Martial Law is in Pakistan's future.

Remember this guy came into power through a military coup and has been a US lapdog ever since. He's not very well liked.

I hope they got their nukes safely tucked away.

news.bbc.co.uk
(visit the link for the full news article)



posted on Aug, 8 2007 @ 08:44 PM
link   
It's only a matter of time before the Islamists take over...

I hope we're not considering military intervention, unfortunately I know the opposite is true.



posted on Aug, 8 2007 @ 09:09 PM
link   
I bet India has its trigger finger ready on its nukes, just in case the islamist take over.



posted on Aug, 8 2007 @ 10:13 PM
link   
I find it ironic that a coup in Pakistan could potentially put hundreds of nukes and a few subs in the hands of OBL. But Iran is the real threat? And I'm not saying it's not, but we'd better be doing something about this situation in Pakistan right away.

The dynamics of a Pakistan/China against India/West seems frought with danger. I know there are many side notes to all of this, but the 'potential' is there for a world wide conflict, which at one point or another could bring about any number of horrific scenarios.

I will not, however, cast blame around. I think Man has always been war-like. The clock started ticking when nuclear proliferation got out of hand. It was only a matter of time. If it wasn't nukes it'd be something else. Let's see, would I rather have gamma rays poke holes in all my cells, or would I prefer weaponized nanobots pulling all my cells apart. Hmm.. Tough choice. I have no faith in Man.



posted on Aug, 8 2007 @ 10:18 PM
link   




Sooo...UBL is still alive?

Can you be so sure?

www.abovetopsecret.com...



posted on Aug, 8 2007 @ 10:32 PM
link   
Don't need to be sure. There are plenty of clones walking around. As well as Zawahiri and the rest. But as I said, one way or another, man will find a way.



posted on Aug, 8 2007 @ 10:35 PM
link   
I think this is a harbinger of the future of Pakistan.

He is declaring this purely because they're not going to reelect him due to his actions against extremists in the Red Mosque.

Another coup maybe?

Very dangerous situation, one to watch.



posted on Aug, 8 2007 @ 10:41 PM
link   
Sooner or later some ambitious general is going to take advantage of the ever-growing unpopularity of Musharrif and blow his brains out.

God, I hope we don't intervene.



posted on Aug, 8 2007 @ 11:19 PM
link   
There's just one reason why American forces don't enter north western Pakistan to get Bin Laden. If we did, it would trigger a revolt that would toppple Musharaff. I have expected him to be taken out by his own for some years now. Assuming that he's not smart enough to hop on a jet in the middle of the night, he is likely to be arrested and put on trial or simply kiled. His situation is THAT desperate.

I would expect the U.S. to condemn the Musharaff takedown and then impose trade sanctions. We're not in a position to do much more than that. We could bring in a few carriers to wreck thier infrastructure, but that's not likely to happen due to world opinion.



posted on Aug, 8 2007 @ 11:26 PM
link   
man, that whole area is going to go thru a major happening soon. Such a powderkeg waiting to ignite...



posted on Aug, 9 2007 @ 12:06 AM
link   
No coup....My guess is a movement with US to get troops in by winter. Root out the cowards hiding in W Pakistan. A SF push with air into the area will bring huge intel and bad guy body count.



posted on Aug, 9 2007 @ 12:10 AM
link   
I'm in argreement with Justin in this one.

There have been plenty of assassination attempts on him and I think we're getting close to a point where he hears a knock on the door in the night.



posted on Aug, 9 2007 @ 12:12 AM
link   
Pakistan is a failed state on its way to happening, almost no matter what happens.
All analysis that I've seen considers there to be a significant danger of Pakistan becoming ungovernable within the next 20 or 30 years.

I don't know what the US is waiting for the government to become unfriendly. Obviously the assumption is that we will be able to destroy Pakistan's arms before they are compromised if the government falls, but personally I'm not a fan of leaving things open to the unforseen.

My call would be to strongarm Musharraf into removing the warheads from all but a handfull of his missiles and placing them in a facility where US troops play an equal role in monitoring and protecting them, and in return we station an SSBN in the area and make it our policy to regard an attack on Pakistan as an attack on the United States.

Under normal circumstances, no leader would go for such a deal, but since Musharraf is in an untennable position and absolutely needs our help to stay in power, and probably even alive for that matter, odds are that if we threatened to pull the rug out from under him that he'd play ball.



posted on Aug, 9 2007 @ 12:24 AM
link   

Originally posted by Nerdling
I think this is a harbinger of the future of Pakistan.

He is declaring this purely because they're not going to reelect him due to his actions against extremists in the Red Mosque.

Another coup maybe?

Very dangerous situation, one to watch.




Let me understand this ... the U.S. ... would support someone, who wishes to stay in office by martial law if he is voted out?

Isn't that the opposite of promoting democracy across the world?

Is this a test run to what Bush wants to do in the U.S.?



posted on Aug, 9 2007 @ 12:51 AM
link   
General Musharraf is in a different situation than Mr. Bush could be in during 2008. Yes, he has low popularity numbers, but he's also faced with a hostile population and a hostile parliament. He can't get off the tiger's back without being eaten. Not unless he runs in the middle of the night. Even then, its unlikely that he'd make it to the plane.

I understand the failed state observation, but I'm think it may be an overly broad generalization in this case. Any ouster of Musharraf would be initiated by the Islamist party that now controls a majority of seats in the parliament. that same party is immensely popular among average Pakistanis, which leads me to believe that the state would NOT fail in the wake of that power change.

The vacuum wouldn't exist long enough. It's likely that the parliament would vote to elevate their Chief Justice. The army is already showing signs that it would not back Musharraf even if he did try to stay in office by force of arms. If he's lucky, they'll stay loyal just long enough for him to leave the country with a pulse and most of his fingers.

[edit on 9-8-2007 by Justin Oldham]

[edit on 8/9/2007 by Gools]



posted on Aug, 9 2007 @ 12:56 AM
link   
Islamic extremists have gained a lot from the fact that the coalition has failed to deny them a haven in the tribal areas of Pakistan. What matters in Afghanistan and Pakistan is who controls the rural villages much like in Vietnam even if the conflict is a clone of the Vietnam war. More troops are required in Afghanistan and that is before incursions are made into Pakistan. Since the US and the UK are tied down in Iraq the troops would have to come from other coalition countries.



posted on Aug, 9 2007 @ 01:02 AM
link   
Hello xpert11

Fundamentally, I think you're right. I'm not sure that the U.S. would send troops in to Pakistan if the Musharraf regime fell. The risk of getting bogged down in yet another country would simply be too much. I can't imagine any member of NATO being up for a long campaign in what amounts to another Vietnam. No stable government could be put in place that the U.S. or its allies would tolerate.



posted on Aug, 9 2007 @ 01:46 AM
link   
I hope India would take the lead and NATO provides air, logistical, and reconaissance support if the toilet hits the fan. Pakistan cannot be allowed to fall to Islamists.



posted on Aug, 9 2007 @ 02:00 AM
link   
Pakistan is in some long-term trouble without a revolution, unless they can never miss a beat on the management of their economy and can do something to restore a bit of professionalism in their military. But a revolution would be disasterous in these respects if the military didn't preempt with a coup.

Consider the political importance of the military in Pakistan. A successful revolution could pit the military against the revolutionary government if there was any attempt to reorganize the military to protect the revolution. The military would probably come out on top of such a power struggle, and eventually that would probably just create another Musharraf of different political leanings. That leaves us with a Pakistan where the people and government are hostile, and in addition the economy could be shaken back from its recent climb out of the cellar.

I could be wrong, but thats my initial take.



new topics

top topics



 
12
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join