Jump to content

Bush's Pakistan Contradiction


Recommended Posts

Bush's Pakistan contradiction

By Seema Sirohi

http://www.atimes.com/atimes/South_Asia/FB13Df04.html

** Post Removed Due to Copyright Infringment **

Let's remember not to post entire articles in the forums.

Copyright infringement is illegal on these forums. Therefore, please do not post articles in their entirety. When posting copyrighted material, please use the quote (

&
) feature to highlight the important parts of the article and provide a throughout summary for others. You must also provide sufficient credit to the author and a link to the original article in your post. If the article cannot be found online, then at the end of the post provide an appropriate cite using any of the available citing formats, MLA, APA, etc.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The US always serves the goal of more power and wealth for the US.

Unlike all other nations on earth who only exist to give, and give and give. France has given so much in order to keep Saddam in power so that they could keep their contracts. Tell me Lonius, is there really a country on this planet that does not exist for any other reason than to serve the people that live in it?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...

Dear KK,

Unlike all other nations on earth who only exist to give, and give and give. France has given so much in order to keep Saddam in power so that they could keep their contracts.
Gee whiz, France acted exactly as unto the almighty USA. Abetting evil dictators in the name of profit.

Was TotalFinaElf profiting for themselves, or fighting the 'red menace' so that Russia would not be the beneficiaries of Iraq's (and the world's largest) oil reserve?

I guess the US showed France, the US invaded and took the contracts by force.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hello, D4DEV - may I ask that you repost on this topic and make your points with a few quotes from the article. This is an important topic and needs discussion.

What should the US do about Pakistan? How far has "Johnny Appleseed" Khan spread nuclear knowledge?

Should the US bring down the President and gamble that the fanatics of the ISI will not take power?

Should Pakistan and India be forced to surrender their nuclear weapons?

It appears that the US has knowledge of all "known" Pakistan Nukes and has forced adoption of Command and Control measures to insure that they can not be used without release from the Presidents Office. Is this sufficient or should these weapons be seized under threat of nuclear attack?

The Pakistan situation illustrates the danger of Islamic Nuclear weaponry; can Iran and others be allowed to progress this far?

Some hard choices must be made - what are your thoughts?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What should the US do about Pakistan?

Sanctions?? Whatever it does, it shouldn't show double standards.

Should the US bring down the President and gamble that the fanatics of the ISI will not take power?

Did the US worry about that when it took down Saddam or when it helped take down Salvador Allende?

It appears that the US has knowledge of all "known" Pakistan Nukes and has forced adoption of Command and Control measures to insure that they can not be used without release from the Presidents Office. Is this sufficient or should these weapons be seized under threat of nuclear attack?

The US does not have the authority to seize WMD's of any other country. It can move a motion, however, in the UN to ask Pakistan to submit to IAEA inspections.

The Pakistan situation illustrates the danger of  Islamic Nuclear weaponry; can Iran and others be allowed to progress this far?

Why do we call it 'Islamic weaponry?' Do we call the US' nukes Christian weaponry, Israel's nukes Jew weaponry or India's as Hindu weaponry?

Some hard choices must be made - what are your thoughts?

Sanctions. And a UN mandate to ask Pakistan to give up it's WMDs.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Pakistan situation illustrates the danger of Islamic Nuclear weaponry; can Iran and others be allowed to progress this far?

As d4dev said, why "Islamic" weaponry. After all, Isreal, India and other non-Islamic nations have nukes too. What's good for the goose....

Some hard choices must be made - what are your thoughts?

Global nuclear disarmament monitored by an international, multilateral body.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Nuclear disarmament will never occur, even under an 'international, multilateral body', until after the US unilaterally disarms itself.

My argument that this could actually occur stems from the (I think...) fairly widely accepted fact that the US will never again use a nuclear weapon. The only time it would ever would have happened in the first place, after the nuclear genie was let out, would have been against another nuclear power, in an increasingly intensifying standoff. But now we all know, if the next nuclear war ever occurs, it doesn't matter. We're all dead.

The United States will never use a nuclear weapon against terrorists; there's just too much collateral damage. So any nuclear bombs being held by terrorists simply don't matter, we would never respond in kind, even if they were used.

A nuclear war against another nuclear-capable state is, at this point, unthinkable. Neither side would allow a confrontation to progress that far. The only consideration left, then, is whether somebody else would be tempted to use their nuclear weapons against the US, knowing there will be no MAD. (mutually assured destruction)

I believe, however, that the United States could effectively wipe out an entire country with nearly the same effectiveness using conventional weapons. Simply replace all nuclear warheads on the ICBMs with large conventional warheads, and make sure to launch them all.

All the US needs to do to prevent a preemptive nuclear strike against them, is to convince other nuclear powers that they don't in fact NEED nuclear weapons to blow everyone into oblivion. Just convince China and Russia and whoever else, that if an attack were ever launched, there would indeed still be MAD, it would simply be with conventional weapons. Convince everyone that MAD does not rely on nuclear capability.

If the US can do this, and disarm themselves, no prompting, other nations, beginning with Russia and China I imagine, will try to look all macho or whatever and say, "hey, we don't need nukes either, we can kill y'all anyway too".

Maybe I'm an optimist. Or maybe it would work. Either way, somebody's gotta be the first. And who better than the undisputed most powerful nation on the planet? Simply convince everyone that the power is not reliant on nukes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Unfortunately, your content contains terms that we do not allow. Please edit your content to remove the highlighted words below.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Tell a friend

    Love Repolitics.com - Political Discussion Forums? Tell a friend!
  • Member Statistics

    • Total Members
      10,698
    • Most Online
      1,403

    Newest Member
    IPEM Group of Institutions
    Joined
  • Recent Achievements

    • Ethan Wylde earned a badge
      First Post
    • Yakuda went up a rank
      Experienced
    • QuebecOverCanada went up a rank
      Grand Master
    • Jeary went up a rank
      Rookie
    • Gator earned a badge
      Week One Done
  • Recently Browsing

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...