Where did N korea get it's nukes from???? - Page 2 - U2 Feedback

Go Back   U2 Feedback > Lypton Village > Free Your Mind > Free Your Mind Archive
Click Here to Login
 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
Old 04-14-2003, 11:11 PM   #16
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 8,876
Local Time: 04:52 PM
Arun V,


"I love you sting but your clearly out of your area of expertise here"

Really, and just what is my area of expertise? I don't personally know anyone here at FYM except one person and so I don't make any claims to know more or less than anyone here about anything. I approach FYM from the position that everyone here is equal and opinion should be considered.

"Pakistan has occupied indian territory in kashmir and continues to do so...so your wrong about the invasion issue."

I never said Pakistan had not invaded any countries in its entire history, just that they had not invaded any countries in the past 20 years regardless of ones position on whether their occupation of part of kashmir is legal or not. By the way, when Pakistan invaded Kashmire in 1947, it was actually not part of India at the time, although its leader quickly decided to unite with India in the hopes of getting India's help to push Pakistan out.

"There is a reason that you find those al qaeda terrorists in pakistan most of them were trained in pakistan and al qaeda is still rumored to be training in concert with other terror camps. There is MASS popular support for bin laden and al qaeda in pakistan."

Most Al Quada personal were trained in Afghanistan not Pakistan. Its true that the Taliban grew out of religious schools in West Pakistan, but not Al Quada. The reason many Al Quada have been found in Pakistan is because they have fled the US invasion of Afghanistan. There is popular support for bin laden and al qaudea in certain area's of Pakistan, but most of the militant support is really found among about 10% of the population. I know this from having spoke to a Pakistani women I met the last time I was in Dublin and other things I have read. The Government of Pakistan has been a huge help in rooting out Al Quada. Pakistan was also supportive of US efforts against the Soviet Invasion of Afghanistan in the 1980s.

"General mushareff in his address to the pakistani people openly said that his major reason for helping the US was for mediation on the kashmir issue."

Well mediation of the Kashmir issue would not be a bad thing at all, but realize there are many other reasons why Mushareff is helping the USA to include succeeding in destroying radical elements that threaten his government and peace in Kashmir.

"Like I said....all the reasons you invaded iraq for...are visibly present in pakistan."

Uh no, not even close. Were talking past behavior, geographic proximity to important area's, and military capability.

Past behavior, Pakistan has not invaded and attacked 4 countries with its armed forces in the past 20 years like Iraq has. Yes, in the first months of its formation, always a chaotic period for any country, Pakistan invaded Kashmire, that was in 1947. So if you want to go back 60 years, you can list one unprovoked invasion by Pakistan. Iraq has done 4 of these in the past 20 years.

Has Pakistan ever used WMD on the battlefield? I'm not totally sure but I think the answer to that is NO. Has Iraq used WMD on the battlefield, YES. In fact, Iraq has used WMD on the battlefield more times than any country in history.(with the possible exception of some countries during World War I)

Another difference that Pakistan has with Iraq is that it is not geographically situated close to nearly 70% of the worlds energy supplies like Iraq is. It is one reason why for the world at large, stability and security is more important in the Persian Gulf than on the Indian Sub-Continent. Not that its not important in Pakistan or India, but one has to pick where they apply limited resources and the Persian Gulf is higher up in terms of security importance for most of the rest of the world.

In the last area of military capability, Iraq prior to the recent 2003 Gulf War was roughly comparable to Pakistans military in terms of numbers. Pakistan has not been under a worldwide weapons embargo so it does have some better quality weapons. In addition, Pakistan does have nuclear weapons which were built to counter India's rather than terror and aggression like Saddam would use his. But despite having WMD, there is one huge difference with Iraq on this issue, Pakistan has never used WMD while Iraq has used WMD more times than any country in history.

Pakistan is also not in violation of 17 UN resolutions passed under the most serious rules that allow the use of force to bring about compliance of those resolutions, CHAPTER VII RULES.

So clearly, most of the reasons the USA invaded Iraq are NOT visibly in Pakistan at all.



"terror camps....pakistan has 10x ( conservative number...very conservative number) more terror camps than iraq. And still has failed to stop cross border terror. They dont' want to stop cross border terror because in fact in orcer for mushareff to stay popular he can't do it. So they are a terrorist state"

This might be true to some extent, but they are involved in a 50 year old dispute, their not trying to destroy all things Western and create an Islamic super state like Al Quada. Were concerned about International Terrorist first and formost. Most of these terrorist in Pakistan are still fighting over the chaos that came about from the independence of India and Pakistan 56 years ago from the UK.

More importantly, the invasion of Iraq was not because of the number of terror camps that existed in Iraq or because of Saddams past support of terrorism, it was because of Saddams own use of terror and aggression in conjunction with his possession of weapons of mass destruction.

"Repressive military dictatorship...they got one."

Saddam's regime in Iraq makes Pakistans current "military dictatorship" look like the Mickey Mouse Club. For a full in depth look at Saddam's regime, pick up a copy of Kenneth Pollack's THE THREATENING STORM.

"support for rogue regimes....originally put up the taliban so that they would have a "strongly islamic neighbor" "

Actually put up the Taliban to take care of or keep at bay the Northern Alliance so Pakistan could concentrate on its security problems with India.


"nuclear proliferation...guilty"

Possibly with a country that has also not invaded anyone in 50 years.



"So sting are you telling me that pakistan can harbor other terrorists...as long as they hand over al qaeda terrorists? They can proliferate nukes as long as they hand over al qaeda terrorists...they can support regimes that actually will harbor terrorists as long as they hand over al qaeda members?"

Realistically, the answer to the first question right now is yes. Al Quada threatens the west, the terrorist in Kashmire although evil do not threaten the west or the rest of the world in the way that Al Quada does. More attention can be payed to Kashmire terrorist once the USA has gotten everything it needs from Pakistan in regards to Al Quada. Catching Al Quada is far more important from a security point of view to the west then the Kashmire terrorist.

2nd part of the question, I have seen no evidence that Pakistan is currently in 2003, helping anyone develop a nuclear weapon.

3rd part of the question, Pakistan is not currently supporting any regimes that harbor terrorist. In fact Pakistan just helped us to destroy one called the Taliban.


".....I thought this was a war on terror?..not just al qaeda..maybe we should change the name to "war on countries that don't hand over the specific terrorists we're looking for"."

Its a war on international terror directed against the west. It is not a war on every single local dispute that could be construed as involving some type of terrorism. We would be sending troops into Spain if that was the case.

"sting..I blame bush for clearly being a hypocrite when it comes to dealing with pakistan plain and simple."

The Bush administration has not been hypocritical in regards to its relations with Pakistan. It has precisely the right policy in regards to Pakistan and has made great gains in its pursuit of Al Quada because of this. This has saved an unknowable number of lives from terrorism.
__________________

__________________
STING2 is offline  
Old 04-14-2003, 11:30 PM   #17
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 8,876
Local Time: 04:52 PM
Arun,

"in 1971..in order to create bangladesh Pakistan muredered 3 million indians.....your telling me that's worse than anything saddam did?...guess who was head of the CIA when that happened....Bush sr."

Actually, the 1971 war was essentially a civil war between what was West Pakistan and East Pakistan(later Bangladesh). That is not at all the same as an unpovoked attack on an independent country, something that Saddam has done 4 times in the past 20 years. 3 million Indian citizens surely were not killed in the fighting as India was only involved in the war for two weeks after which Pakistan surrendered. I have heard that over a million people total died in the fighting and the blame for that can be shared by both sides to some degree. Definitely not in the same category as crimes that Saddam is solely responsible for.


"guess who was head of the CIA when that happened....Bush sr."

That has no relevance to the break up of Pakistan in 1971. Unless you want to believe Bush Sr. directed all of President Yahay Khans moves or incited East Pakistani's to demonstrate or fight for an independent Bangladesh.
__________________

__________________
STING2 is offline  
Old 04-14-2003, 11:41 PM   #18
Blue Crack Addict
 
anitram's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: NY
Posts: 16,297
Local Time: 11:52 AM
What is this 20 year rule thing?

Seriously, I think it's arbitrary. Take a look at Israel/Palestine, that is an ongoing 50+ year conflict, but it is also the root of much of the trouble in the Middle East. Whether a country invaded somebody or acted aggressively 20 years ago vs. 30 or 40, it is all still recent history.
__________________
anitram is offline  
Old 04-15-2003, 12:14 AM   #19
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 8,876
Local Time: 04:52 PM
I think there is a difference in relevance to something that happened in 1983 or later as opposed to 1948. Also the 20 years covers most of the time Saddam has been in power. With these other countries were going back nearly 50 years to a clearly different time and leadership, to find the one time they might have invaded and attacked another country vs. the 4 times Iraq has done that with the same leader in the past 20 years. I do think its a clear and important distinction.
__________________
STING2 is offline  
Old 04-15-2003, 08:39 AM   #20
Refugee
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Posts: 1,760
Local Time: 05:52 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by STING2
Arun,

"in 1971..in order to create bangladesh Pakistan muredered 3 million indians.....your telling me that's worse than anything saddam did?...guess who was head of the CIA when that happened....Bush sr."

Actually, the 1971 war was essentially a civil war between what was West Pakistan and East Pakistan(later Bangladesh). That is not at all the same as an unpovoked attack on an independent country, something that Saddam has done 4 times in the past 20 years. 3 million Indian citizens surely were not killed in the fighting as India was only involved in the war for two weeks after which Pakistan surrendered. I have heard that over a million people total died in the fighting and the blame for that can be shared by both sides to some degree. Definitely not in the same category as crimes that Saddam is solely responsible for.


"guess who was head of the CIA when that happened....Bush sr."

That has no relevance to the break up of Pakistan in 1971. Unless you want to believe Bush Sr. directed all of President Yahay Khans moves or incited East Pakistani's to demonstrate or fight for an independent Bangladesh.

What??? in the 1971 war Bush sr put in his report that pakistan was the aggressor when EVER y other independant source and intelligence agency dobumented pakistan as teh aggressor.


Who do you think gave troops to support the insurgency??? your telling me Pakistan is innocent????..your sorely mistaken. Perhaps my use of the word "Indians" was too broad as not every one killed was of indian ethnicicty though A GOOD AMOUNT were hindus...and this was one of the goals of that genocidal campaign.




The human death toll over only 267 days was incredible. Just to give for five out of the eighteen districts some incomplete statistics published in Bangladesh newspapers or by an Inquiry Committee, the Pakistani army killed 100,000 Bengalis in Dacca, 150,000 in Khulna, 75,000 in Jessore, 95,000 in Comilla, and 100,000 in Chittagong. For eighteen districts the total is 1,247,000 killed. This was an incomplete toll, and to this day no one really knows the final toll. Some estimates of the democide [Rummel's "death by government"] are much lower -- one is of 300,000 dead -- but most range from 1 million to 3 million. ... The Pakistani army and allied paramilitary groups killed about one out of every sixty-one people in Pakistan overall; one out of every twenty-five Bengalis, Hindus, and others in East Pakistan. If the rate of killing for all of Pakistan is annualized over the years the Yahya martial law regime was in power (March 1969 to December 1971), then this one regime was more lethal than that of the Soviet Union, China under the communists, or Japan under the military (even through World War II). (Rummel, Death By Government, p. 331.)


There is no doubt that the mass killing in Bangladesh was among the most carefully and centrally planned of modern genocides. A cabal of five Pakistani generals orchestrated the events: President Yahya Khan, General Tikka Khan, chief of staff General Pirzada, security chief General Umar Khan, and intelligence chief General Akbar Khan. The U.S. government, long supportive of military rule in Pakistan, supplied some \\$3.8 million in military equipment to the dictatorship after the onset of the genocide, "and after a government spokesman told Congress that all shipments to Yahya Khan's regime had ceased." (Payne, Massacre, p. 102.)


On December 3, India under Prime Minister Indira Gandhi, seeking to return the millions of Bengali refugees and seize an opportunity to weaken its perennial military rival, finally launched a fullscale intervention to crush West Pakistani forces and secure Bangladeshi independence. The Pakistani army, demoralized by long months of guerrilla warfare, quickly collapsed. On December 16, after a final genocidal outburst, the Pakistani regime agreed to an unconditional surrender. Awami leader Sheikh Mujib was released from detention and returned to a hero's welcome in Dacca on January 10, 1972, establishing Bangladesh's first independent parliament.

None of the generals involved in the genocide has ever been brought to trial, and all remain at large in Pakistan and other countries. Several movements have arisen to try to bring them before an international tribunal

So..pakistan who essentially played the role of a stalinest regime in 1971....which was ignored by the CIA and by nixon...is now an ally. Wonderful. And it's ok to slaughter millions of people...as long as you don't try to take away their land.?
__________________
V Nura is offline  
Old 04-15-2003, 08:59 AM   #21
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Popmartijn's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Netherlands
Posts: 32,543
Local Time: 05:52 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by Arun V
So..pakistan who essentially played the role of a stalinest regime in 1971....which was ignored by the CIA and by nixon...is now an ally. Wonderful. And it's ok to slaughter millions of people...as long as you don't try to take away their land.?
No, just as long as you do not violate 17 CHAPTER VII RULES!!!
And as long as you do not invade 4 COUNTRIES IN 20 YEARS!!!

Just stating the 'obvious' here...



Marty

P.S. Remember that the enemy of your enemy is your friend...
__________________
Popmartijn is offline  
Old 04-15-2003, 10:08 AM   #22
Rock n' Roll Doggie
ALL ACCESS
 
sulawesigirl4's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Virginia
Posts: 7,416
Local Time: 11:52 AM
lol, marty. touche.
__________________
"I can't change the world, but I can change the world in me." - Bono

sulawesigirl4 is offline  
Old 04-15-2003, 11:28 AM   #23
Refugee
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Posts: 1,760
Local Time: 05:52 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by Popmartijn


No, just as long as you do not violate 17 CHAPTER VII RULES!!!
And as long as you do not invade 4 COUNTRIES IN 20 YEARS!!!

Just stating the 'obvious' here...



Marty

P.S. Remember that the enemy of your enemy is your friend...

Lmao


The enemy of my enemy is my friend... is a philosophy that hasn't gotten us very far


I really hope the Us goes to more neutral positions in the future...I dont think its wise for the worlds only superpower to be so partisan in these issues....especially when it's clear hypocrisy
__________________
V Nura is offline  
Old 04-15-2003, 10:27 PM   #24
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 8,876
Local Time: 04:52 PM
Arun,

"What??? in the 1971 war Bush sr put in his report that pakistan was the aggressor when EVER y other independant source and intelligence agency dobumented pakistan as teh aggressor."

So whats your point, Bush and everyone else said Pakistan was the aggressor? Re-read your sentence, I think you might of mis-typed something.

The Civil War in Pakistan would have happened with or without 3.8 million dollars in military aid supplied by the USA to the government of Pakistan. 3.8 million dollars in 1971 would have been enough to buy maybe 10 tanks.

As with any civil war, crimes are committed on boths sides. But this situation is far different from Saddam's crimes which include invading and attacking independent countries without any provokation. For other countries around the world, that is a far more serious concern than the internal problems associated with political and economic development that a new nation like Pakistan was going through. This is an internal conflict and not the same as Saddam's invasions of independent countries.

"So..pakistan who essentially played the role of a stalinest regime in 1971....which was ignored by the CIA and by nixon...is now an ally. Wonderful. And it's ok to slaughter millions of people...as long as you don't try to take away their land.?"

3,025 people died in the space of 2 hours on Sept. 11, 2001. The USA is doing its best to bring those responsible to justice. By working with the Pakistani government, we have caught dozens of important leaders and members of Al Quada and brought down the Taliban regime that had oppressed the people in Afganistan. But it looks like you would be willing to give up all the aid we have recieved from Pakistan in helping to save lives from further attacks by Al Quada. Your reason, is a 30 year old internal conflict in Pakistan, a conflict where crimes were committed by people who are no longer in power. How long do you want the current regime of Pakistan to pay for the crimes of another regime from 30 years ago? What is your alternative solution to NOT working with Pakistan and please explain how it will lead to catching more members of Al Quada?

"The enemy of my enemy is my friend... is a philosophy that hasn't gotten us very far"


"I really hope the Us goes to more neutral positions in the future...I dont think its wise for the worlds only superpower to be so partisan in these issues....especially when it's clear hypocrisy"

Do you think it was wrong to send Billions of dollars of aid to Joseph Stalins Soviet Union in World War II?

Its not so much enemy of my enemy is my friend but being realistic about solving certain difficult problems. The USA used to have a neutral, isolationist foreign policy which contributed to the starting and duration of World War I and World War II. Since 1945, the USA has been on the right track foreign policy wise because it has realized that a neutral, isolationist policy is far to costly when one looks at World War I and World War II.

There are many difficult problems that can often make strange bed fellows if one wants to have a realistic chance of solving them. I do not see how any leader could state that he would not work with Pakistan to catch members of Al Quada because a different regime from 30 years prior committed gross human rights abuses. Considering how much has been gained from working with the current regime of Pakistan following 911, that excuse not to work with Pakistan would never work with the majority of Americans who want to see the members of Al Quada caught or destroyed, preventing them from harming any more innocent people.

Do you think it was wrong to let Germany become apart of NATO in 1955, only 10 years after World War II? By your logic with Pakistan, It would seem that you would think it was a bad idea.
__________________
STING2 is offline  
Old 04-16-2003, 06:22 AM   #25
Rock n' Roll Doggie
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Song of the week "sentimental" by Porcupine Tree
Posts: 3,854
Local Time: 04:52 PM
i remember just few days ago australia banned two pakistani terrorist groups. - 27 pakistani nationals arrested in italy on terrorist charges.

Also no prizes for guessing the heaquarter of al-qaeda or possible hideout of osama or even the question mentioned in the subject line..


acrobatman
__________________
AcrobatMan is offline  
Old 04-16-2003, 06:27 AM   #26
Rock n' Roll Doggie
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Song of the week "sentimental" by Porcupine Tree
Posts: 3,854
Local Time: 04:52 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by STING2
the current regime of Pakistan
and how did it become current regime...

by THROWING OUT A DEMOCRATICALLY ELECTED GOVERNMENT...
__________________
AcrobatMan is offline  
Old 04-16-2003, 08:36 AM   #27
Refugee
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Posts: 1,760
Local Time: 05:52 PM
woops yes sting I mistyped that sentance. Bush said India was the aggressor...he essentially lied on a CIA report because America was allies with pakistan during the cold war

And sting I'm not saying iraq isn't a threat to the security of the mid east...In fact I'll concede it to you


but can you tell me it's not even slightly hypocritical to not only morrally...but financially support pakistan.The Us needs to lay down the law and say If you want to be a US ally...you have to do more...this isn't enough.


Or slap sanctions on them..instead of lifting them becuase you need them to turn over bin laden. You don't have to invade them...but you shouldn't be handing over cash.




If you want to calim righteousness on the war on terror...you can't have double standrads like this.

Also Pakistani militants and uprisings have killed countless indians...and displaced more into refugee camps that perhaps any other refugee crisis this century.


Yet...they are an ally
__________________
V Nura is offline  
Old 04-16-2003, 09:52 AM   #28
Blue Crack Addict
 
anitram's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: NY
Posts: 16,297
Local Time: 11:52 AM
STING, what you are saying sounds so familiar.

Pakistan is now helping the USA, wonderful, so we'll overlook what else they're doing internally, what's going on in the madrasas, how many people are killed by terror attacks in Kashmir, the fact they have a dictatorship. It's all good so long as it's helping you catch some terrorists.

In 20 years, when some guy trained in a Pakistani terror camp takes out Bloomingdales and 3 city blocks with it, then of course it will be time to invade, to liberate those poor people from dictatorship, to bring them democracy, to stop them from threatening the poor Indians next door. Why? because this government of Bush & co. only deals with consequences and not with the problems themselves.

And so it goes and so it goes. And so it went with Iraq in the 80s and so it went with Afghanistan in the 80s, and so it goes again and again like the politicians are all mentally challenged and 2+2=6 to them.
__________________
anitram is offline  
Old 04-16-2003, 10:36 AM   #29
New Yorker
 
Scarletwine's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Outside it's Amerika
Posts: 2,746
Local Time: 11:52 AM
__________________
Scarletwine is offline  
Old 04-16-2003, 10:43 AM   #30
Rock n' Roll Doggie
ALL ACCESS
 
sulawesigirl4's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Virginia
Posts: 7,416
Local Time: 11:52 AM
anitram, I believe you nailed it. If anything makes me uneasy about this administration it is its shortsightedness...both in looking to the past and learning from it and to the future and being realistic about long-term consequences.
__________________

__________________
sulawesigirl4 is offline  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 11:52 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Design, images and all things inclusive copyright © Interference.com