so pakistan is getting the z-9 too?
the pakistanis seem to expect everything that china makes after all.

thats not a pic of the tsunami. tsunamis dont develop like that..it looks more like a hurricane off the US coast.

oh man i cant believe they dragged a sunday morning comic columnist like jug suraiya into military aviation. :rolleyes: i can only imagine what it must be like to live in a world filled with psychedelic lights 24-7 .. 😀

anyway..

Why Were they laughing at Gen. Musharraf?

By Hassan Abbas

BOSTON: President General Pervez Musharraf while addressing a select gathering of students and scholars at the prestigious Kennedy School of Government, Harvard University, on the evening of September 8, asserted that “I am at the helm of affairs and I am extremely democratic” – the audience couldn’t help laughing.

Musharraf, apparently, was reading the text of the speech for the first time. The title of the address was: “Pakistan in the 21st century: our vision for the future”. He, instead, spent most of the time elaborating his achievements in reviving the Pakistan economy and justifying his measures in the political sphere – the arguments were neither forceful nor convincing. The best part of the speech, however, was his advocacy for a dire need of the dialogue of civilization between Muslims and the West. While criticizing the stereotyping of Muslims in the West, he insightfully maintained that “we must ensure that the Islamic world and the West are allies in combating terrorism and do not at any stage turn into antagonists confronting each other.”

Musharraf surprised many in the audience when he told a questioner that he may soon be leaving the post of the Army Chief. The leading question was asked by a known Nawaz Sharif supporter. “Mr President,you have spoken about the role of the army and the three power brokers, when will you appoint a new army chief.” Musharraf was taken aback and in his usual frank style said: “I will appoint a new chief when I step down.” There was an laughter in the audience. But then Musharraf added: ” That will not be very far off.”

This comment left many guessing what did he mean as only a few days back he had announced that he would be president and army chief for the next five years. That had prompted many commentators and analysts to assume that he had blocked the path of all his colleagues who could start conspiring against him. Is this his quid pro quo for remaining President? Is this why he is so confident he has left the country for several days although there have been several attempts on his life? What does it mean for the rest of the country? Can he survive purely as a politician, without the army stick with him? These and numerous other questions were immediately rising in every mind, but Musharraf had moved on to the next question from his audience.

Earlier, President of the Harvard University, Dr. Larry Summers while introducing President Musharraf was quite kind to him when he said that “General Musharraf began exercising his responsibilities as chief executive of Pakistan in October 1999”. He considered it impolite to say that Musharraf dislodged a democratically elected government and took over the country by force.

Encouraged by this gesture, Musharraf later went on to explain his theory of “checks and balances” justifying his recent constitutional dispensation. Perhaps, his political advisors should brief him that by a system of checks and balances, Montesquieu meant constitutional checks between state institutions and not between powerful personalities in a state. But unfortunately, politics as a subject is not taught at military academies and hence his advisors, mostly retired generals, are not aware of these “intricacies”.

While facing tough questions from audience on issues related to democracy in Pakistan, Musharraf at one point said that he had two options before him on October 12, 1999 – “to face humiliation or take over” – he asked the audience what they would have done? People laughed and perhaps the General didn’t realize that they laughed at him. Perhaps, for the first time he acknowledged that it was a personal issue and not that of “national interest”.

Musharraf also spoke about the four pillars of his reform agenda – economic revival; good governance; political restructuring to ensure stable and enduring democracy; and human resource development focused on poverty alleviation. He tried to argue that Pakistan’s economy is poised for sustainable growth, but the facts and figures he quoted were quite exaggerated. To say that inflation in Pakistan is “well in check” and that “exports have reached a historical record” is not substantiated by facts on ground.

Comparatively, his arguments in reference to fighting extremism in Pakistan made much more sense. His assertion that, “shunning the illiterate view of Islam shall remain our endeavor” and that he would not “allow a fringe element to hold the entire nation hostage” was appreciated by the audience. But he criticized the “detractors in the media” who are indicating that he is backing down from his commitments. He maintained that these media gurus “need to have a clearer picture of the ground reality”. Its not understood what he meant by this last statement!

In reference to relations with India, he articulately made the case that since 9/11, India has embarked upon a relentless campaign to cast Pakistan and the Kashmiris on the wrong side of the terrorism issue. He argued that “terrorism did not create the tragedy in Kashmir”, rather, “the long delay in the resolution of the dispute has led to desperation and militancy”. Musharraf, benefiting from the opportunity, conveyed to the US administration that “India needs to be persuaded that coercion is not a viable instrument of policy in our regional environment”. Later when an Indian student asked him why should India trust him after the Kargil episode, he in a debator-like fashion said: “I have offered India a no war pact, mutual denucleariztion, and a dialogue for peace – what would you like to do first?”

During the last part of the speech, he gave voice to the concerns of Muslims in general vis-à-vis the war against terrorism. He emphasized that simplistic explanations of the recent terrorist acts are sowing the seeds of conflict at a time when greater understanding among cultures and civilizations is needed. He said that his vision of future see Pakistan as a bridge between Islam and the West.

During the Q&A session, a couple of very interesting issues were raised. Professor Mahmood Awan, a close family friend and business partner of Nawaz Sharif, asked Musharraf about his views on the future role of Pakistan Army in the political sphere, to which Musharraf replied that Army will have no role in the government sector. A lady then asked him about the feudal culture in Pakistan and how is he planning to eradicate that. Musharraf gave a very surprising answer to this – he contended that many youngsters from these feudal families are coming to US and Europe for higher education and they are bringing about a positive change in the traditional system. Perhaps, the general has no clue how far is this assertion from reality.

It is not often that prestigious institutions like Harvard invite the leaders of Pakistan. The opportunity could have been availed in a better way. There is not much that Musharraf can defend vis-à-vis his constitutional changes, so it is advisable for him to focus more on the regional and international issues that interest Pakistan and make a case for more foreign investment and financial support to Pakistan.

its fun how this F-16 thing keeps going around in circles. when pakistan didnt have a hope at getting their hands on f-16s, ofcourse everything was better than it…esp the jf-17. and if their leader-for-life visited a country – say sweden or france – the country was getting gripens or maybe rafales. there never ofcourse was any confirmation of the same from the source country and as it became more and more clear that these plans never really panned out, its back to the f-16s again. and 2-3 months down the line the same proponents of the f-16 will proclaim the jf-17 to be the world-beating champ again when the f-16s dont materialize.

the latest article that seems to have the pakistanis….ermm… “concerned” :
============================================================
http://www.washtimes.com/upi-breaking/20041222-113037-5489r.htm
India ruins Pakistan’s F-16 shopping spree

New Delhi, India, Dec. 22 (UPI) — India on Wednesday claimed partial victory in spoiling Pakistan’s F-16 jets shopping spree by saying that Belgium had agreed to New Delhi’s request not to sell the fighter jets to Islamabad.

“The issue of Pakistan’s formal request to Belgium to procure F-16 jets was taken up with the Belgian authorities in September 2003,” Indian Defense Minister Pranab Mukherjee told lawmakers in the parliament on Wednesday.

“Given the sensitivity of the geo-political situation in South Asia, the Belgian government took a conscious decision not to sell F-16 fighter aircraft to Pakistan,” Mukherjee announced amid thumping of desks by the lawmakers.

Indian government had been lobbying with the United States and Belgium over the last several weeks not to fuel an arms race in nuclear-armed South Asia by supplying sophisticated weapons and jets to Pakistan.

“The range of the F-16s would cover a number of civilian and military facilities of northern India,” Mukherjee said, adding, “The increase in strength of F-16s with Pakistan would adversely affect the current balance of air power between the Indian and Pakistan Air Forces.”

Pakistan has been pressing Washington in the recent months to supply it with the promised fleet of fighter jets.

While Washington has pledged a $1.2 billion arms package to Islamabad, it has not categorically said if the deal would include the F-16 jets.

Last month, the Bush administration had notified Congress of its intention to sell sophisticated weapons to Pakistan, including eight P-3C Orion planes to beef up surveillance of its coasts and borders.

Earlier this month, U.S. Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld was in Indian capital, where he was told by New Delhi that any sale of fighter jets to Pakistan might affect India-U.S. relations.

Washington has to tread carefully in South Asia, where Pakistan is America’s launching base in its war against terror in Afghanistan. On the other hand, India is the biggest democracy and home to world’s second-largest Muslim population after Indonesia.

While India is lending its hand in rebuilding the war-devastated Afghanistan, it has stayed away from the war on Iraq, which now many Americans feel was not worth fighting.

Last week, the United States tried to placate an incensed India over Washington’s impending arms sales to Pakistan by offering to sell more weapons to New Delhi.

The U.S. ambassador to New Delhi, David Mulford, said Washington wants to be a very big supplier of military equipment to India.

“We would like to have a very important economic and military relationship with India. We would like to be a big supplier of military equipment to India,” Mulford told reporters in the Indian capital.

Mulford dismissed New Delhi’s apprehension that arms supplies to Pakistan would have negative impact on bilateral ties as well as on the India-Pakistan peace dialogue.

“I don’t see why it (arms supply to Pakistan) should have any impact on the dialogue,” he said.”

Pakistan wants to buy up to 25 F-16s, which cost around $25 million each, to add to its F-16 fleet. The United States has yet to make a decision on the sale. Pakistan has been waiting since 1990 for the planes. The Presser Amendment banned military transfers unless the U.S. administration could certify that Pakistan did not possess a nuclear weapons program. Pakistan paid for the undelivered aircraft until 1996 and then demanded the return of about $620 million.

Islamabad had also approached Belgium for two squadrons of used F-16s, a deal that needs U.S. approval under an agreement between Brussels and Washington.

Pakistan, however, had rejected Indian objections as “incomprehensible,” saying that its modest defense requirements should not irk New Delhi.

A Pakistani Foreign Ministry spokesman said in Islamabad that India itself had an ambitious arms buying program.

“These statements (from India) are disturbing,” Foreign Ministry spokesman Masood Khan told a news conference. “India’s weapons acquisition and weaponization program is very ambitious. They have been buying weapons and sophisticated technology from all over the world.”

Khan described Pakistan’s program as modest compared to that of New Delhi, which it said spends billions of dollars on weapons. “We do not want to match India gun-for-gun, missile-for-missile, aircraft-for-aircraft,” he said.

Besides the F-16 jets, Pakistan also wants to acquire P-3 Orion surveillance planes, Phalanx rapid-fire guns, and TOW missiles, but New Delhi says the weapons could also be against India.

The Pentagon, however, argues that the weapons it intends to provide would enhance Pakistan’s search surveillance-and-control capability in support of maritime interdiction operations and increase their ability to support the U.S. Operation Enduring Freedom operations.

It’s a watershed case for Washington on how to keep Islamabad in good humor without annoying New Delhi.

Washington keeps playing a seesaw game in the region, depending on the timings. During the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan in the 1980s, Washington offered F-16s to Pakistan on an exclusive basis. But in the early 1990s, it imposed restrictions under the Pressler amendment.

After 2000, Washington warmed up to India by offering a next generation “strategic partnership.” Then, post 9/11, it designated Pakistan a major non-NATO ally, taking India by surprise.

And now, the United States wants to sell deadly weapons to both India and Pakistan.

“It’s downright foolhardy for Washington both to supply new weapons to India and Pakistan and then expect them to negotiate peace,” newspaper columnist Praful Bidwai said in an article. “The logic of the first process – escalation of military preparations and hostility – sharply differs from the logic of dialogue and reconciliation.

“Washington’s double standards have harmful strategic consequences. They aggravate India-Pakistan rivalry. In particular, they could put a spoke in the current peace process,” Bidwai said.