Pakistani scientist 'offered Saddam nuclear designs'

[Sava]

yeah missile defense let's waste billions on getting rid of Mutually Assured Destruction so that we can provoke someone into a first strike.

Proliferation is the craze because everyone is following the US's example.

[Imran Siddiqui]

And pray tell, who did we give nuclear technology to?

[Sava]

And pray tell, who did we give nuclear technology to?

the highest bidder

[Imran Siddiqui]

Ah, no proof... as usual for you.

[Sava]

no proof of what, exactly? dude, the US is the biggest arms dealer in the world... anyways, both the US and the Soviet Union got their nuclear programs going from German (Nazi) programs. Everyone else with nukes has gotten them from either the US or Russia.

[Gatekeeper]

I'd rather have some sort of backup plan than having to rely on the assurances of, say, North Korea that they wouldn't be the first to fire a nuclear warhead at the West Coast if, say, our conventional forces were kicking NK's ass in all the way to Pyongyang.

On a side note, I bet it's only a matter of time before the U.S. military pulls mostly (if not completely) out of Europe and redeploys to the Pacific and Middle Eastern parts of the world.

Gatekeeper

[Imran Siddiqui]

the US is the biggest arms dealer in the world

The US has never given anyone nuclear weapon technology. Never.

For me to believe otherwise, I'll need a cite.

[Shi Huangdi]

1) There is no proof Pakistan's government was behind this.

2) The Musharaff Regime was not in power when this happened.

3) This was before we solidified our post 9/11 alliance with Pakistan

4) Pakistan has been an invaluable ally to us in the war on terrorism, helping us to arrest many Al Qaeda suspects and providing a base for us to attack the Taliban. It is unlikely we will ever get a regime more friednly to us in Pakistan then the Musharaff one.


This Pakistan bashing is bull****. While leftists like to take any excuse they can to bash US foreign policy, the fact is the Musharaff regime has been one of our most valubale allies in the war on terrorism.

[Edan]

Originally posted by Pekka
edit: Who proved that is ready and able to use nukes for real.

How exactly did Mussaref prove that he would use it (any differently than any other nuclear power, anyway, who would all be willing to use nukes for real if the situation warrented it)?

[Ned]

Originally posted by Shi Huangdi
1) There is no proof Pakistan's government was behind this.

2) The Musharaff Regime was not in power when this happened.

3) This was before we solidified our post 9/11 alliance with Pakistan

4) Pakistan has been an invaluable ally to us in the war on terrorism, helping us to arrest many Al Qaeda suspects and providing a base for us to attack the Taliban. It is unlikely we will ever get a regime more friednly to us in Pakistan then the Musharaff one.


This Pakistan bashing is bull****. While leftists like to take any excuse they can to bash US foreign policy, the fact is the Musharaff regime has been one of our most valubale allies in the war on terrorism.

Agreed!

[Ramo]

1) There is no proof Pakistan's government was behind this.

Musharraf's gov't has denied that the transaction ever took place. Which indicates either he's right or he's hiding something... And frankly, I trust the UN weapons inspectors much more than Musharraf.

2) The Musharaff Regime was not in power when this happened.

3) This was before we solidified our post 9/11 alliance with Pakistan

How long do you think Musharraf'll be singing the same tune? He used to be a patron of Islamic militants. And how long do you think Pakistanis will stay relatively secular while this alliance is maintained?

4) Pakistan has been an invaluable ally to us in the war on terrorism, helping us to arrest many Al Qaeda suspects and providing a base for us to attack the Taliban. It is unlikely we will ever get a regime more friednly to us in Pakistan then the Musharaff one.

I'm sure the fact that some thugs get to rule Afghanistan, instead of other thugs being able to rule Afghanistan is a lot of comfort to workers who are crushed by the state when they try to organize, to people who are locked up and tortured because they oppose the gov't's militarism on Kashmir, to Hindus, Sikhs, and Shiite's who are marginalized, to people who are imprisoned because Musharraf destroyed the independence of the judiciary, etc.

And he doesn't have that much leverage over al-Qaeda members hiding in Pakistan any more, given that fundies now control the NWFP, largely due to Musharraf's actions (secular parties are associated with regional autonomy, and Musharraf doesn't like regional autonomy).

This Pakistan bashing is bull****. While leftists like to take any excuse they can to bash US foreign policy, the fact is the Musharaff regime has been one of our most valubale allies in the war on terrorism.

This cozying up to Musharraf is bull****. While convervatives like to blindly follow questionable policy objectives without regard to human rights, the fact is that the Musharraf regime is extremely repressive, regardless of whether the West considers him a military thug, or a liberal reformist. Thus, instead of Western pressure preventing Musharraf from defying the legal constraints on his tyranny, we have the lack of Western pressure enabling him to do whatever the hell he wants.

**** him. I don't care if you think he's "valuable"; the welfare of the Pakistani people is more important than finishing off a half-dead terrorist organization.

[Ned]

So, Ramo, what you propose we should do? Shoot Musharraf in the back? Attack our own ally? Assured that an anti U.S. opposition is elected?

[Ramo]

So, Ramo, what you propose we should do? Shoot Musharraf in the back? Attack our own ally?

Yes. Pressure him into giving up power. He's an ally we should do without.

Assured that an anti U.S. opposition is elected?

Anti-US? In which ways?

Currently, the main Islamist party (the others are insignificant) is only the third-largest in the country.
By far, most of the elected government is secular.

Assuming Pakistan makes a transition to a democracy, the secular parties certainly would no longer be repressed. So that means a large increase in secular power, and a large decrease in Islamist power from the status quo.

Furthermore, a lot of fundamentalist support stems directly from US' use of Pakistani bases. End the arrangement, and you undermine much of the their power.

[Ned]

Somehow, Ramo, I think the more than we interfere in Pakistan, the more we began to select the government of Pakistan, the worse things will be for United States. If we overthrow Musharraf and install instead a secular government, the Islamists would undermine the new government by calling it a puppet of the United States, which in truth it would be. This could be Iran repeating itself all over again.

[Ramo]

1. The Islamists simply don't have that much support in Pakistan. They're milking the Afghanistan situation, and Musharraf's political incompetence. Besides, a small core support, their influence is temporary.
2. I never said anything about overthrowing or installing governments, and certainly nothing about puppets. I only mentioned pressuring Musharraf into following the law and his promises, and step down. The same thing we were doing before 9/11.
3. Yes, it will turn into Iran Part II if we don't change our policy (like how we supported the Shah).