Apparently US foreign policy is that it’s okay to be a dictator, if you’re the right kind of dictator. Although Saddam Hussein is portrayed as an evil, oppressive dictator, who needs to be removed in the name of democracy, etc. etc., the US is bolstering the position of military dictator General Musharraf, President of Pakistan. Musharraf recently consolidated his dictatorship by wiping out the last remnants of the constitution with barely a peep from the US, which considers him a key ally in it’s “war on terror.” Pakistan’s appalling human rights record is set to get even worse. But the US wants Musharref’s cooperation in hunting down the thousands of Al-Qaeda operatives now in his country and in return is lifting anti-nuclear weapons and pro-democracy sanctions, rescheduling loans and providing billions of dollars in aid. The US has stated (in whispers, it seems) that it expects to see a return to democracy, but also that it’s not something that it expects at this time. It’s supreme hypocrisy. But the US has an agenda, and needs Iraq, not Pakistan, to be the bad guy, whatever the facts. What really baffles me though, is the shortsightedness of the US in courting Musharraf’s favour. It only fans the existing (and widespread) anti-American sentiment felt by the ordinary people in Muslim Pakistan and eslewhere. As well as Al-Qaeda cells, there are numerous and substantial fundamentalist Islamic groups in Pakistan. So, in order to fight against terrorism, the US has made a move – supporting Musharraf – that can only ignite further hatred and terrorism down the road. To prevent that from happening, the US will have to (a) ensure Musharraf and his military regime remains in power for some time or (b) remove Musharraf and replace him. But with what? Far too dangerous, on the back of anti-American feeling, to let the Pakistani people have a leader of their own choosing. And they have actual nuclear weapons too.
Very good, MacZ. I was starting to think I was the only one that noticed what happened in Pakistan. And it truly is "American Style". Your whole post reeks of a long standing American policy. Practiced on many, many occasions. The only real difference, is that NOW we have truly christian fanatics in charge of the country, and a congress that's too afraid of them to do anything about it. It wouldn't surprise me if George W. Bush is the next leader of a democratic country to declare himself president for life and burn the constitution. We can joke about it now, but it's got some scary implications that go along with it.
I agree with you. Of course I also have to point out that we have to start somewhere. After Saddam is deposed we will move on to the next opressive power and go from there.
Agreed, adam. Eventually you will also bring up that the US and russia have both also proven ourselves to be irresponsible with nukes as well and again I would have to agree with you. Sadly neither power would ever let go. Of course nukes do wear out. Many of the ones currently in operation will be dead in ten years and a few probabally allready are. I wouldnt use a computer twenty years old, much less a nuke. Circutry is fragile.
Wrong. Pakistan has stockpiled enough materials for at least 30 - 40 nuclear weapons and has all the facilities needed for enrichment, heavy water extraction, etc. in place. In addition, it has facilities for reprocessing plutonium from it's energy plants which alone are producing enough to produce at least one nuclear weapon per year, plus it has thousands of nuclear scientists employed in the ongoing expansion of Pakistan's nuclear programme.
some really good points raised there Macz... all this time everyone completely overlooked the volatile situation in the indian subcontinent... besides what has been mentioned, the tension btw india and pakistan is also of great concern... both have nuclear capabilities and a spark is required to see fireworks happening on both sides... ---Too many folks around here would prefer the world to be governed by their mommies.--- what's ur problem G?
Actually this is probably a correct statement. It's not so much that circutry is fragile, though, even though that IS true. But the real kicker is that plutonium is extremely radioactive all by itself. Just sitting there in a missile (or anywhere else for that matter) it works rapidly to change the molecular structure of everything around it. So to maintain a reliable nuclear arsenal, you'd probably have to continue to build new missiles to replace the old ones every now and then, forever and ever. Otherwise those missiles either won't launch, won't find their proper destination or simply won't explode. Unfortunately, I'm sure that our nuclear physicists thought of this a long time ago, and that our nuclear arsenal has been rebuilt probably a couple of times.
Well, she wouldn't want the job, but my mommy is certainly a much more honorable person than the f--ks that are running the USA right now. So you bet your ass I'd prefer it.
