Where did N korea get it's nukes from????

[Popmartijn]

I know I'm grossly misquoting here, changing words that were not in the original post. But still, imagine this 15 or 20 years ago...

Some people here forgot how important Iraq has been in fighting Iran. At the current time Iraqi cooperation to fight Iran is more important than allegations about how Iraq might have a nuclear program. Iraq is not involved in the war on terrorism by the way. Also, a lot of these events happened long before the Bush Administration was in office, so your blame, if it is warrented, is partly mis-placed.
[...]
To the best of my knowledge, Iraq has never used WMD before (1988 that is).

And I only (mostly) substituted 'Pakistan' with 'Iraq' and 'finding Al Qaeda' with 'fighting Iran'...



Marty

(edited to correct the explanation of the substitution)

 

[STING2]

Arun V,

Was it wrong to send Stalin Supplies and cash during World War II?

One should not be held hostage to unrealistic notions of idealism. The World is not black and white, its gray. The problems are complex and require complex solutions to deal with them.

Stalin was a mass murder, perhaps the worst in history. But it was more vital to the USA and the world, that he and his military successfully prevent the Germans from overruning their country, then the idealistic notion of "never under any circumstances supply anything of use to a genocidal muderer".

The current regime in Pakistan did not commit the autrocities you talk about from 30 years ago. Finding Al Quada is a must, a more important objective for the USA and world instead preventing funds from reaching the Pakistani regime or completely solving the problem of Kashmire.

 

[STING2]

Anitram,

Do you remember what happened on 9/11, these are NOT just some Terrorist! 3,025 people were killed in the space of 2 hours. The American people demand that this terror organization that has more global reach than any terrorist organization ever, be destroyed. I think thats a more important goal at the CURRENT TIME for the rest of the world in solving then trying to completely solve a decades old dispute in Kashmire.

I understand the problems that exist in Pakistan and Kashmire and they are difficult ones to solve. But at the current time they do not threaten the USA in the way that Al Quada does.


"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."

There have been terror training camps in Pakistan for over 50 years. Your fantasy story has never happened and there is no reason to suspect that it will in the future because their fight is with India over Kashmire, not with the USA. I'm sorry, but all terrorist are not the same.

Actually its the Anti-War crowd that only likes to deal with consequences and not problems themselves. Remember, were supposed to wait until tens of thousands are dead on the streets of a US city or European City before the USA or another country can do anything about it. "The USA cannot not justify its attack on Iraq because Iraq has not attacked it yet".

It is the Bush administrations that has dealt with the problem of Iraq's refusal to disarm itself rather than waiting for the consequences to happen like the Anti-war crowd would have the USA do!

"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."

Ah, yes, more references to how the USA helped the SOVIET UNION's client state in the 1980s. Very little was done since the Soviet Union gave 80% of all the weapons that Iraq used in addition to training its military extensively in Soviet tactics. China and France are number 2 and 3 on the list of helpers. The USA would not make the top 10. I could get more detailed if you'd like.

But it was certainly in the USA's best interest that Iraq prevent Iran from overruning it after Saddam foolishly attacked Iran in 1980. But too many people don't understand that because THEY only look at the problems of today and make incorrect connections between today and the past. Did they ever ask themselves if it was in the best interest of the region and the world to have the Iranians overrun Iraq and push into the persian gulf region? What many of these critics fail to remember is the overall context of what was happening back then. They criticize the policies back then without considering the costs of the alternatives. But as you say "mentally challenged and 2+2=6"
Then again, most of them fail to know or even give an alternative.

 

[STING2]

Popmartijn,

Iraq was the Soviets Client State, not the USA's. It was in US interest though, that Iran not succeed in overrunning Iraq. By your recent posts, sounds like you wish Iran had won that war eh? Over 90% of the supplies and money to help Iraq fight that war came from the Soviet Union, China, France, Saudia Arabia, Kuwait and other Gulf States. The USA had a smaller role than those countries. But perhaps your upset over those other countries aid to Iraq. Do you think it would have been in Kuwaits or Saudia Arabia's best interest to not help Iraq, see Iraq be defeated, and then become the next victims of Iranian aggression? If you were in charge and doing things differently, what would you have done, and oh, what would the costs have been?

 

[V Nura]

Arun V,

Was it wrong to send Stalin Supplies and cash during World War II?

One should not be held hostage to unrealistic notions of idealism. The World is not black and white, its gray. The problems are complex and require complex solutions to deal with them.

Stalin was a mass murder, perhaps the worst in history. But it was more vital to the USA and the world, that he and his military successfully prevent the Germans from overruning their country, then the idealistic notion of "never under any circumstances supply anything of use to a genocidal muderer".

The current regime in Pakistan did not commit the autrocities you talk about from 30 years ago. Finding Al Quada is a must, a more important objective for the USA and world instead preventing funds from reaching the Pakistani regime or completely solving the problem of Kashmire.

Yeah...but the US did nothing 30 years ago..but apprantly since this is outside teh 20 year time limit I should just forget about it. And it has nothing to do with kashmir.


It's about a stance that the Us has taken on terrorism ....didn't bush say any country that harbors terrorists will not be safe???
huh...that must have been BS.

Sting you fail to recognize the base hypocrisy here. Pakistan harbors groups that are on the state departments terrorist list..but as long as they hand over al qaeda it's ok??? Those terrrorists also have contempt for the US and will bring the war here at some point.


Ok lets' say that the regime is different and didn't commit the attorcities of 30 years ago


what about the refugee crisis today that pakistan has caused? the ethnic cleansing? It's still going on.

And what about WMD"S and proliferation....they have them..and they have terror camps..whose to say that they wont' find their way into the hands of terror groups??? Let's say the pakistani government decides to proliferate it to country like syria which has ties to hezbollah...which has serious contempt for the US...what's going to happen.



we overlooked the attrocities saddam was commiting against his own people we overlooked when he used chem weapons against the iranians in fact we provided the ntellgience for saddam to attack the iranians knowing he would use chem weapons.

you can't use 9/11 as the only model for which the US will be attacked.


Sting this breaks down one or two ways 1.) The Us can take a tough stance on pakistan and say that it has to do more and just handing over al qaeda leaders isn't enough it has to prove it's truly an ally in the war on terror...and close all the terrorist camps. Which in and of itself has nothing to do with kashmir just being consistent with the stand the US has taken

or 2.) We allow the same mistake to happen twice..and we build saddam number 2. Sort of interesting that they way saddam and mushareff came to power was similair...and just like saddam we keep mushareff around because he's our ally...could history be repeating itself?



But if 2.) happens to take precedence...let's stop calling it a war on terror...it's then either "the war on al qaeda"...or " the war on countries that have terrorists..but dont' hand over the specific ones we want.




You can't blame me for asking that the US be consistent...it doesn't ahve to mediate in kashmir it doesn't ahve to solve it....all it has to do is pressure pakistan into closing other terror camps.



A rogue nation ...with nukes terror ties and the willingness to sell nuclear tech.....I think this falls under the security interests of teh US.

 

[anitram]

Sting this breaks down one or two ways 1.) The Us can take a tough stance on pakistan and say that it has to do more and just handing over al qaeda leaders isn't enough it has to prove it's truly an ally in the war on terror...and close all the terrorist camps. Which in and of itself has nothing to do with kashmir just being consistent with the stand the US has taken

or 2.) We allow the same mistake to happen twice..and we build saddam number 2. Sort of interesting that they way saddam and mushareff came to power was similair...and just like saddam we keep mushareff around because he's our ally...could history be repeating itself?

And STING, re-read what I wrote. I said that a terrorist trained in a Pakistani terror camp could cause damage/fatalities to the US in the future. You responded that terrorists in Kashmir have no problem with the USA, and that their problem lies with India. At no point did I talk about Kashmiri terrorists, I talked about anybody who is getting terror training within Pakistani borders. You can't tell me that you honestly believe that all terror training facilities in Pakistan only exist to pump out men who will go kill Hindus. No, there are Sadis, Yemenis, hell there was your very own John Walker Lindh in Pakistan. If you don't believe these people are a future threat to your country, fine, so be it. I think you're sincerely and sorely mistaken.

 

[STING2]

Arun V,

Listen, as I have said so many times before, do you think supplying Stalin with billions of dollars of supplies would be something the USA would want to do any day of the week. We had a very realistic and important reason to supply Stalin during World War II, just as we have an important reason to have Pakistans fool cooperation to root out Al Quada. But first answer my Question! Do you think it was wrong for the USA to supply Stalin during World War II?

Look, ethnic cleansing is going on in a lot of places around the world and Pakistan has WMD primarily because they need it to deter India. Most of the terror camps in Pakistan train people for fighting in Kashmire. Not to fight on a global scale like Al Quada.

"we overlooked the attrocities saddam was commiting against his own people we overlooked when he used chem weapons against the iranians in fact we provided the ntellgience for saddam to attack the iranians knowing he would use chem weapons"

Again, did you read my post! Do you know the context in which the attrocities under Saddam occured? What was going on at that point? We provided intelligence to Saddam about Iranian troop positions because we wanted to help prevent Iran from overruning Iraq and then the rest of the Persian Gulf! Your failing to understand US actions because your not looking at them in light of the full context of what was going on at that time.

"Sting this breaks down one or two ways 1.) The Us can take a tough stance on pakistan and say that it has to do more and just handing over al qaeda leaders isn't enough it has to prove it's truly an ally in the war on terror...and close all the terrorist camps. Which in and of itself has nothing to do with kashmir just being consistent with the stand the US has taken"

Cooperation with Pakistan is key to catching other members of Al Quada and Bin Ladin. The USA is working hard with Pakistan on this and has prevented the Kashmire dispute from errupting into full scale war. To a certain degree, the Kashmire dispute is so imbedded with the people that it would be impossible for the Pakistani government to fully destroy all the terrorist camps. In any event, unless the USA were to invade Pakistan, the USA is not going to get any more cooperation out of Pakistan than were getting now. The cooperation has been very helpful in rounding up terrorist that are targeting the USA. The USA is not going to sacrifice those gains just so we can fit your definition of what would be a consistent foreign policy in regards to terrorism.

Realism demands that you do the best you can to achieve what is more important realizing sometimes you will not get everything you want and sometimes there are tradeoffs. The USA cannot invade every country on the planet and kill every terrorist or supposed terrorist in every country. The USA does what is in its best interest, and its in the best interest of the USA to cooperate with Pakistan in order to get the most dangerous terrorist in history. Being able to do that right now is far more important then catching terrorist who are tied up in a conflict that has been going on for decades, or other "terrorist" not apart of Al Quada that one dreams will come back to haunt you some day.

"or 2.) We allow the same mistake to happen twice..and we build saddam number 2. Sort of interesting that they way saddam and mushareff came to power was similair...and just like saddam we keep mushareff around because he's our ally...could history be repeating itself?"

THE USA DID NOT BUILD SADDAM! Again, Iraq was a client state of the Soviet Union. The USA did not put Mushareff in power either.

The USA is very consistent but it doesn't define terrorist or being consistent in the way that you do which basically lumps people places and things that are often unrelated.

Pakistan is not anything like Iraq. It has not invaded any countries in over 50 years. I'm talking about independent recognized countries, and not civil wars.

Iraq has invaded and attacked four different countries, independent countries, in the past 20 years. All of this occured under THE SAME REGIME!

There are definitely problems in Pakistan, but it is light years away from Iraq.

The US currently has the correct policy toward Pakistan that we'll yield the most positive results. Catching Al Quada is the #1 operation for the USA in that region. The USA is concerned about Pakistans alleged dealings with North Korea, and the problems with Kashmire. It continues to work with Pakistan on trying to settle these issues.

 

[STING2]

Anitrim,

"And STING, re-read what I wrote. I said that a terrorist trained in a Pakistani terror camp could cause damage/fatalities to the US in the future. You responded that terrorists in Kashmir have no problem with the USA, and that their problem lies with India. At no point did I talk about Kashmiri terrorists, I talked about anybody who is getting terror training within Pakistani borders. You can't tell me that you honestly believe that all terror training facilities in Pakistan only exist to pump out men who will go kill Hindus. No, there are Sadis, Yemenis, hell there was your very own John Walker Lindh in Pakistan. If you don't believe these people are a future threat to your country, fine, so be it. I think you're sincerely and sorely mistaken."

Certainly there are elements in Pakistan and maybe 150 different countries around the world that could had some point have the potential to cause harm to the USA. But is it likely, is it the most serious and urgent threat that Al Quada is, NO. Most terror training camps in Pakistan are for Kashmire, and John Walker Lindh, Saudi's and others were there for Al Quada. Al Quada is who were after and Pakistan has been enormously helpful in rounding up Al Quada. Your failing to understand and acknowledge that. You seem to underestimate the known threats and create or overestimate threats that at most are small and may not even exist. You worry about the future John Walker Lindh, I'll worry about Bin Ladin.

 

[Popmartijn]

OK, I'll bite.

Listen, as I have said so many times before, do you think supplying Stalin with billions of dollars of supplies would be something the USA would want to do any day of the week. We had a very realistic and important reason to supply Stalin during World War II, just as we have an important reason to have Pakistans fool cooperation to root out Al Quada. But first answer my Question! Do you think it was wrong for the USA to supply Stalin during World War II?

First, Stalin is ancient history. It did not happen in the last 20 years.
Second, yes I do think it was wrong for the USA to supply Stalin during WWII. Stalin was just as bad as Hitler, killing millions of Sovjets. Would the Sovjet Union have lost the war with Hitler's Germany when he wasn't supplied? We never know for sure, but I think not. Hitler made some serious planning mistakes when he began Operation Barbarossa (the invasion of the USSR), which made the invasion doomed from the start (although with a very high death toll).

"we overlooked the attrocities saddam was commiting against his own people we overlooked when he used chem weapons against the iranians in fact we provided the ntellgience for saddam to attack the iranians knowing he would use chem weapons"

Again, did you read my post! Do you know the context in which the attrocities under Saddam occured? What was going on at that point? We provided intelligence to Saddam about Iranian troop positions because we wanted to help prevent Iran from overruning Iraq and then the rest of the Persian Gulf! Your failing to understand US actions because your not looking at them in light of the full context of what was going on at that time.

Does the context in which the atrocities happened have any significance? If so, then you can stop saying things like "Iraq has invaded 4 countries in 20 years" and "Saddam used WMD on 'his own people' (the Kurds)". Because, in your view, considering the situation those things were not bad enough for the USA to take some action then, so why should they have been relevant 15 years later?
Many in this thread state that by helping/supporting a dictator will in the long run cause that you've created a new enemy.

Realism demands that you do the best you can to achieve what is more important realizing sometimes you will not get everything you want and sometimes there are tradeoffs. The USA cannot invade every country on the planet and kill every terrorist or supposed terrorist in every country. The USA does what is in its best interest, and its in the best interest of the USA to cooperate with Pakistan in order to get the most dangerous terrorist in history. Being able to do that right now is far more important then catching terrorist who are tied up in a conflict that has been going on for decades, or other "terrorist" not apart of Al Quada that one dreams will come back to haunt you some day.

Realism also demands that you take into consideration what the result will be of your actions. As I said above, supporting a tyrant will increase the possibility that the tyrant becomes so powerful that it can/will turn against you. It's nice that the USA gets cooperation from Pakistan to get the most dangerous terrorist in history. But in the meantime the USA is supporting a regime that might also develop the second most dangerous terrorist in history.

"or 2.) We allow the same mistake to happen twice..and we build saddam number 2. Sort of interesting that they way saddam and mushareff came to power was similair...and just like saddam we keep mushareff around because he's our ally...could history be repeating itself?"

THE USA DID NOT BUILD SADDAM! Again, Iraq was a client state of the Soviet Union. The USA did not put Mushareff in power either.

Maybe the USA did not build Saddam, but they did fully support him. The USA also did not build Musharraf, but now they are fully supporting his regime. And building does not only mean helping someone get into power, but also keeping someone in power and making him more powerful. IIRC, Musharaf's position was quite weak before the USA started supporting him (after all, he did came into power in an unlawful way, through a military coup), but now he's securely in power. That's also a way of building a dictator.

Pakistan is not anything like Iraq. It has not invaded any countries in over 50 years. I'm talking about independent recognized countries, and not civil wars.

Iraq has invaded and attacked four different countries, independent countries, in the past 20 years. All of this occured under THE SAME REGIME!

There are definitely problems in Pakistan, but it is light years away from Iraq.

Are you saying the same when eventually Pakistani terrorists will attack the USA? Besides, the Taliban initially came from Pakistan and they harboured Bin Laden. Just because a country hasn't invaded before does not mean it will not do so in the future. For more than 18 months we are talking about the USA tackling the cause of the 9-11 terrorist attacks instead of just it's consequences. Some argued for an attitude change, but preventing 'terrorist dictators' to gain/increase power is just as important.

C ya!

Marty

 

[STING2]

"First, Stalin is ancient history. It did not happen in the last 20 years.
Second, yes I do think it was wrong for the USA to supply Stalin during WWII. Stalin was just as bad as Hitler, killing millions of Sovjets. Would the Sovjet Union have lost the war with Hitler's Germany when he wasn't supplied? We never know for sure, but I think not. Hitler made some serious planning mistakes when he began Operation Barbarossa (the invasion of the USSR), which made the invasion doomed from the start (although with a very high death toll)."

I know it irritates you, but I bring up Iraq's actions of the past 20 years, because it has violated international law 4 times in the most serious of ways, all of it under the same regime. I never stated that something was ancient history because it happened longer than 20 years ago.

The example I use with Stalin and the Soviet Union is applicable regardless of what time period were talking about. Its an example which shows that sometimes, in order to survive or secure something that is more valuable, you have to compromise and be willing to do things that under ordinary circumstances you would not do.

Having studied extensively the conflict on the Eastern front and knowing how quickly modern military's will collapse without a strong logistical base, I know that without the massive aid that the Soviet Union recieved from the west in the form of raw materials, food, clothes, etc. It would have been impossible for the Soviet Union to defeat Germany. The Lend-lease supply operation is the largest supply operation in the history of warfare. Despite Hitlers mistakes in the begining, the Soviets could not have sustained a resistence for several more years without the massive aid from the west.

"Does the context in which the atrocities happened have any significance? If so, then you can stop saying things like "Iraq has invaded 4 countries in 20 years" and "Saddam used WMD on 'his own people' (the Kurds)". Because, in your view, considering the situation those things were not bad enough for the USA to take some action then, so why should they have been relevant 15 years later?
Does the context in which the atrocities happened have any significance? If so, then you can stop saying things like "Iraq has invaded 4 countries in 20 years" and "Saddam used WMD on 'his own people' (the Kurds)". Because, in your view, considering the situation those things were not bad enough for the USA to take some action then, so why should they have been relevant 15 years later?
Many in this thread state that by helping/supporting a dictator will in the long run cause that you've created a new enemy.
."

First its the cumulative total of Saddam's behavior plus his possession of WMD that makes him the dangerous threat that had to be overthrown. The USA had strong reasons to overthrow him in 1991, but it was felt at that time that it would be better politically to try and disarm Saddam peacefully and that he would most likely not survive another 12 years in power. Sanctions and other constraints were put on him. But all these efforts to contain or resolve the threat over the pass 12 years without going to war failed. Saddams increasing ability to evade the sanctions and his pursuit of WMD and the possibility that he may only have been a year or two away from building a nuclear weapon were the reasons that finally forced the USA to ensure that he was disarmed by using military force.

Another reason why the USA did not overthrow Saddam say in the 1980s, was the context in which events were taking place. I'll say it again, we did not want to weaken Iraq so that it would be unable to prevent the Iranians from overruning the country and then Kuwait and Saudi Arabia. Despite Saddam's bad behavior it was more important at the time to contain Iran. Also Saddam at that point had only invaded one country and the full extent of his WMD program was not known yet, like it would be after the 1991 Gulf War. Again, not only do you have to look at the context in which things happen, but you also have to remember what was known and had happened at certain points in time say 1988. Saddam in 1988 was a dictator who had invaded and attacked only 1 country rather than 4.

Not the USA had much of a choice though in the situation, since the biggest suppliers of Iraq were, the Soviet Union, China, France, and other Gulf States. The USA was not even in the top 10 and the minor aid it sent to Saddam had very little effect on the outcome of the Iran/Iraq war.


"Realism also demands that you take into consideration what the result will be of your actions. As I said above, supporting a tyrant will increase the possibility that the tyrant becomes so powerful that it can/will turn against you. It's nice that the USA gets cooperation from Pakistan to get the most dangerous terrorist in history. But in the meantime the USA is supporting a regime that might also develop the second most dangerous terrorist in history."

Exactly, and your failing to realize that not supporting certain regimes will have consequences as well! Your not realizing the costs of not engaging in the actions the USA is currently engaged. Realism demands that you look at the costs of not acting as well as acting. A Judgment is then made on what to do based on the likely costs, chance of success, and future benefits. It is more beneficial for the USA to help Pakistan and thereby catch the most dangerous terrorist on the planet rather than not have Pakistans cooperation, fail to catch the worst terrorist on the planet, all because you do not want to in any way support a regime that supports terrorist fighting in Kashmire who some dream will suddenly start showing up in the USA despite the fact that the fighting in Kashmire will not be over. Al Quada is the most serious terror threat to the USA in Pakistan. Working with Pakistan will and has resulted in capturing many of them. Not working with Pakistan will prevent the USA from catching its #1 terrorist, and will do nothing to prevent the hypothetical threat you think is going to come from some Pakistani not aligned with Al Quada. The support the USA has given the regime in Pakistan has helped to catch more terrorist than it has created, if indeed it has created any. The terrorist and fighting in Kashmire exist independent of who ever is in control of the central government in Pakistan.

"Maybe the USA did not build Saddam, but they did fully support him. The USA also did not build Musharraf, but now they are fully supporting his regime. And building does not only mean helping someone get into power, but also keeping someone in power and making him more powerful. IIRC, Musharaf's position was quite weak before the USA started supporting him (after all, he did came into power in an unlawful way, through a military coup), but now he's securely in power. That's also a way of building a dictator."

Your going to have to clarify what you mean by fully supporting? The USA has very little ties to Iraq in terms of money, weapons, etc. , so "fully supporting Saddam" is not a phrase that fits with what the USA actually did to Saddam. It does fit the SOVIET UNION that still had 2,000 troops stationed in Iraq a few months prior to the first gulf war.

Again, with Mucharaf, what do you mean by "full Support". The USA ended some sanctions that had very little effect on Pakistan and decided to let a few F-16s that Pakistan bought, finally be delivered to them. If anything, I might say the USA has not supported Musharaf enough. You also forget that the person he deposed had more ties to terrorism than Musharaf and was far than being a white Knight in Armor.

To sum up the USA has done very little to support either regime, although it has had an interest in working with or seeing either regime survive at certain points in history because of other more important events.

"Are you saying the same when eventually Pakistani terrorists will attack the USA? Besides, the Taliban initially came from Pakistan and they harboured Bin Laden. Just because a country hasn't invaded before does not mean it will not do so in the future. For more than 18 months we are talking about the USA tackling the cause of the 9-11 terrorist attacks instead of just it's consequences. Some argued for an attitude change, but preventing 'terrorist dictators' to gain/increase power is just as important."

Who or what Pakistani Terrorist is going to attack the USA and when. The only thing you can say is you never know. It is more likely that a terrorist from the USA will launch an attack on the USA rather than some non-aligned terrorist in Pakistan who cares much more about what is happening in Kashmire.

What will you be saying when such a terror attack does not occur, the USA captures the rest of Al Quada with Pakistans cooperation, and Pakistan develops again into a democracy? The USA can't predict the future and you fail to offer a reasonable alternative to working with Pakistan in capturing members of Al Quada. What is your alternative to working with Pakistan that will help the USA capture Al Quada members in Pakistan faster than it is doing now? The only thing you have said is that you don't like the fact that the USA is helping the current regime in Pakistan. You would like the USA to obviously give up the gains it has made in capturing members of Al Quada and not cooperate with Pakistan. What does that achieve? NOTHING.

Al Quada will be successfully hiding in Pakistan, and the terrorist you dream exist that are not Al Quada will still be there. Thats why cooperating with Pakistan, unless you favor an invasion, is the only way to achieve the our most important security goals.

 

[FizzingWhizzbees]

What will you be saying when such a terror attack does not occur, the USA captures the rest of Al Quada with Pakistans cooperation, and Pakistan develops again into a democracy?

Pakistan was a democracy, until General Musharaf launched a military coup and deposed the democratically elected leader. If the US supports democracy, is it really acceptable for them to work so closely with, and praise so highly, a man who took power through military force, not through the ballot box?

And I'm wondering on what basis you predict that the US will capture members of Al Qaeda and Pakistan will return to democracy?

Al Quada will be successfully hiding in Pakistan, and the terrorist you dream exist that are not Al Quada will still be there. Thats why cooperating with Pakistan, unless you favor an invasion, is the only way to achieve the our most important security goals.

So you're saying it's okay to co-operate with regimes which violate all the principles that (at least in theory) the United States supports. That was exactly the justification the US used in supporting Iraq, it was exactly the justification they used in supporting death squads in El Salvador and supporting the Contras in Nicaragua. They didn't agree with what the US theoretically believed in, but at least they weren't communists, even if they did go around villages murdering people in the most disgusting ways imaginable, at least they weren't communists, so it was accceptable to support them as it was the only way to stop communism.

 

[sulawesigirl4]

The ethical gymnastics needed to sustain the argument make me dizzy.

 

[STING2]

Fizzing,

Was it wrong to aid Stalin and Russia during World War II?

"Pakistan was a democracy, until General Musharaf launched a military coup and deposed the democratically elected leader. If the US supports democracy, is it really acceptable for them to work so closely with, and praise so highly, a man who took power through military force, not through the ballot box?"

Certainly, but only under extreme conditions in which there is a threat to US national security. The threat is Al Quada and one of the best ways to to capture Al Quada operatives is through cooperation with Pakistan. An Unknowable number of lives have been saved because of US and Pakistani cooperation on this issue. Musharaf has as his goal, the restoration of democracy. The government that was overthrown was not innocent and may have helped North Korea with its Nuclear Program. But the fact of the matter is, an urgent US National Security problem currently trumps any attempt at rebuilding democracy quickly in Pakistan for the time being. The lives of innocent people around the world are at stake.

"And I'm wondering on what basis you predict that the US will capture members of Al Qaeda and Pakistan will return to democracy?"

If you have been following the news in Pakistan for the last 18 months, you will know that many important Al Quada members have been captured because of Pakistani cooperation and work. This has saved an unknowable number of lives and is the basis for why continued cooperation with Pakistan in the future will succeed in capturing more of Al Quada.

An eventual return to democracy is in the best interest of Musharaf in the long term.


"So you're saying it's okay to co-operate with regimes which violate all the principles that (at least in theory) the United States supports. That was exactly the justification the US used in supporting Iraq, it was exactly the justification they used in supporting death squads in El Salvador and supporting the Contras in Nicaragua. They didn't agree with what the US theoretically believed in, but at least they weren't communists, even if they did go around villages murdering people in the most disgusting ways imaginable, at least they weren't communists, so it was accceptable to support them as it was the only way to stop communism"

With Iraq, the USA was not even in the top 10 of Iraq's supporters during the 1980s. Iraq was a client state of the Soviet Union. The Soviets trained, and built the Iraqi Army that Saddam had been using for the past two decades.

Working with thugs and dictators is alway justified if it is to meet an important urgent security goal and there is simply not a better alternative to meet that security goal. Again, do you think it was wrong to help Stalin and Russia during World War II considering that if Russia had been defeated, victory for the allies would have been impossible?

Do you think the middle east situation would have been better off if the countries that did most of the supplying and support for Saddam had not done so? Would an Iranian victory and occupation of Iraq been in the interest of the world? With Iraq defeated and occupied, how long do you think it would be before the Iranians would grab huge chunk of the worlds oil in Kuwait and Saudi Arabia? Probably one of the worst security nightmares in the 1980s was an Iranian victory over Iraq and then Iranian occupation of most of the smaller Gulf States. But because Iraq was heavily supported by the Soviet Union, China, France and others, it prevented this from happening. The war finally ended with Iraq having a slight victory over Iran.

 

[Popmartijn]

Sting,

You keep saying continually that the USA was not in the top 10 of Iraq supporters in the 80s. But why did they then still support Saddam? If you're such a small supporter then withdrawing your support because of the regime does not change much for Iraq. It is, however, a political signal, one that says that the USA does not work with dictators. As you imply, it wouldn't have mattered in the Iraq-Iran conflict (since Iraq was heavily supported by other countries).

Now I still have the feeling that the USA is arbritrarily targetting countries. We target Iraq now because of Saddam, but Pakistan is OK because Musharraf says he supports us. We'll target Syria later because we're in the neighbourhood, but talking with North Korea is enough. I (and maybe others) don't see a clear line in this, a clear idea behind these actions.

C ya!

Marty

P.S. A short answer to your "what if's": I already said before that without US support Stalin still would have held strong against Hitler. And should an Iranian victory have occurred then it would have cost less lives than what Saddam has killed the past 25 years. Maybe the Iraq-Iran war would never have happened when Saddam would not have had any support (as he attacked first).

 

[FizzingWhizzbees]

Working with thugs and dictators is alway justified if it is to meet an important urgent security goal and there is simply not a better alternative to meet that security goal.

Sorry but I just cannot agree with that. It's like saying it's okay for the people of other countries to live under a US-backed dictatorship, just so long as the people of the United States are okay. I believe all people are equal, whether they're from America, Nicaragua, El Salvador, Pakistan, Iraq or any other country - the United States does NOT have the right to consign the people of another country to a life of misery just to ensure that its people will be safe.

 

[anitram]

the United States does NOT have the right to consign the people of another country to a life of misery just to ensure that its people will be safe.

Thank you!

How callous can one be to state that it is fine to support dictators in the name of American security, when those dictators slaughtered their own people, gassed them, threw them out of airplanes into the Pacific while they were still alive, stole their babies. It baffles the mind.

I guess some people are more equal than others in this world. What a joke.

 

[STING2]

Popmartijn,


"Now I still have the feeling that the USA is arbritrarily targetting countries. We target Iraq now because of Saddam, but Pakistan is OK because Musharraf says he supports us. We'll target Syria later because we're in the neighbourhood, but talking with North Korea is enough. I (and maybe others) don't see a clear line in this, a clear idea behind these actions."

The USA does not arbritrarily target countries. Iraq became a target because of its past behavior and WMD. Its past behavior included the attacking and invading four different countries in vital region of the world over a small space of time. Iraq was required to disarm by the United Nations and Resolution 678 approved the "Use of All means Necessary" to bring about compliance with "All subsequent resolutions". These resolutions were of coursed passed under chapter VII rules of the United Nations which allow the use of force!

Saddam failed to disarm peacefully as he was required to do, so he had to be disarmed by force! I don't see how there is anything confusing or mysterious about that. Its rather obvious.

Pakistan has not invaded or attacked four different countries. They are not required under any UN resolutions to disarm anything! The same goes for Syria and even North Korea.

In regards to Stalin, I have found that few people understand or realize the importance of logistics and supplies to any Military, especially one the size of Russia's. Where do you think most of raw materials to build new weapons came from? The USA! Deny Russia this, and you cut way down the number of tanks that can be produced. Who do you think clothed and fed the Russian Army and population during World War II. The USA and UK! The Lend Lease Supplies was vital to the Russian War effort. You can't fight for very long if your hungery, ill clothed, and do not have weapons. You should look up more on the Lend Lease supply effort to Russia, it is the largest supply effort in history!

On the Iran/Iraq war a huge percentage of the people that were killed during Saddams reign of power were killed as the result of the war that he started. Iranian victory in such a war would have led to Iranian slaughter and repression of the Sunni and Kurdish populations of Iraq and the rape of Saudi Arabia and Kuwait as well as other Gulf States. Far more people would be killed in this senerio which would be followed potentially by a worldwide economic depression worse than the one in the 1930s due to the total disruption of most of the worlds energy supplies. But this could be partly averted by what would most likely be a counter attack by US forces to retake Saudia Arabia, Kuwait and would have to continue you on to retake Iraq and perhaps even occupy Iran. Such an operation would mean the deaths of even more people.

Nearly every government in the region and the world new that this would be the price of Iranian victory. Iraq as the Soviet Unions client state already, was already supplying Iraq with most of its needs.

Saddam came to power at a time when the Soviets were the only ones dealing with Iraq at all. Its after Saddams attack on Iran and military failures that weakened Iraq's position that the flood of financial aid from the Gulf States and more weapons from China and France in addition to continued mass Soviet support started to come in.

 

[STING2]

FizzingWhizzbees,

"Sorry but I just cannot agree with that. It's like saying it's okay for the people of other countries to live under a US-backed dictatorship, just so long as the people of the United States are okay. I believe all people are equal, whether they're from America, Nicaragua, El Salvador, Pakistan, Iraq or any other country - the United States does NOT have the right to consign the people of another country to a life of misery just to ensure that its people will be safe."

In supporting Anti-Communist force or dictatorships on a temporary basis, the USA did not consign anyone to live a life of misery to ensure only Americans were safe.

US strategy in the Cold War was about far more than just keeping Americans safe. Rolling back Communism to prevent World War III or a Communist dominated planet with no way to reverse that situation was the most important thing. It has allowed democracy to grow and prosper and will allow people who continue to live under dictatorship to eventually be free. If Soviet Communism had taken over the planet, it would of consigned the whole planet to misery and slavery. Anything to weaken or oppose this most dangerous threat was justified considering the cost of failure! The ends do justify the means!

Would you have supported Stalin and Russia in World War II knowing that if the Russian front had failed it would have been impossible for the allies to defeat the Axis. Don't you think temporarily supporting Stalin for a few years to ensure and Allied victory was worth it considering the alternative was for the planet to live under Nazi control?

The point is that the world is a complicated mess with many problems that require solutions that are not chained and constrained by naive idealism. Those ideals have a much better chance of surviving and achieving a universal following, if realism is adopted to achieve the current problems. The World War II example is a good one!

 

[STING2]

Anitrim,

"Thank you!"

"How callous can one be to state that it is fine to support dictators in the name of American security, when those dictators slaughtered their own people, gassed them, threw them out of airplanes into the Pacific while they were still alive, stole their babies. It baffles the mind."

"I guess some people are more equal than others in this world. What a joke."

The only joke here is people that would prefer to live in Nazi controlled planet, where everyone would be a slave, simply because they refused to send aid to a dictator(who had murdered and gassed and enslaved many of this own people) who was fighting the same enemy and vital to winning a war and preventing Nazi domination of the planet. You have to be realistic if you seriously desire in eventually achieving a world where everyone is equal in their freedom. Some need to inject their Healthy Idealism with a dose of Realism.

 

[anitram]

In supporting Anti-Communist force or dictatorships on a temporary basis, the USA did not consign anyone to live a life of misery to ensure only Americans were safe.

Yeah, right.

I'm sure the mothers of the disappeared agree with you. Their sons and daughters were throw ALIVE into the Pacific out of airplanes. You think this isn't misery?

These people mourn to this day. The actions of the USA government, which you say were "temporary", in fact consigned these poor people to a lifetime of pain, anguish and tears. To deny that is to slap them in the face again and again; it is the final insult. Have they not suffered enough?

My mother worked with a person from Chile about a decade ago. She knew some of these elderly women, and their stories are heartbreaking. And anybody who tries to deny the fact these people WERE consigned to a life of misery has obviously never thought about what it would be like to walk a mile in their shoes. We should feel so lucky that no superpower felt the need to install and/or support dictatorships in our backyards, or we might be sleeping with the fishes too.

Unbelievable.

 

[FizzingWhizzbees]

I was going to reply to your post seperately, STING, but I think actually anitram said it all perfectly already.

I'd really urge you to do some research on what happened in El Salvador especially - the death squads there, who were trained and supported by the United States, did absolutely horrific things to innocent people. They didn't just murder people, they murdered them in some of the most disgusting ways you can imagine. I don't even want to write about that here because I think it's too shocking to make people read if they don't want to do so.

Fizz

 

[STING2]

anitram,

Yeah, and you can undisputibly show that if there had been no US involvement Chile none of this would of happened? As long as there was any US involvement in any way in Chile, every cruel thing that happened there was directly the fault of the US government. Thats utter rubish.The fact is, with the political unrest down there, violence and innocent suffering was going to happen. You have to realize that non-intervention and not taking action has a costs as well. To be honest the USA intervened very little in South America compared to Europe and Asia during the Cold War.

I do not deny that many people were consigned to a life of misery! I deny that it was the fault of the US government!

Europeans and the Americans fought two World Wars against Super Powers and nearly fought a third one. Thankfully the US strategy of containment prevented World War III and the Soviet Empire eventually crumbled. Its impossible to count how many lives were saved and allowed to live in freedom because of this. Its unbelievable that some people fail to recognize this.

 

[STING2]

FizzingWhizzbees,

While the USA supported those opposed to the government in El Salvador at the time, they did not support the mis-use of the training and supplies they were given. I'm sure you don't believe the mayor of your town is at fault when a policeman commits and act of brutallity. Individuals can do evil things, but that does not mean their supporters are guilty of things they would never approve of.

If you think what they did in El Salvador was sick, I'd encourage you to research the regime you were opposed to overthrowing in Iraq.

 

[ishkash]

Pak continues to support terrorists: CIA

http://server1.msn.co.in/completecoverage/indopak/


The proposed visit of US Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage to the sub-continent, aiming to initiate steps to ease Indo-Pak tension and cross-border infiltration into Jammu and Kashmir will be a good sign especially in the wake of Prime Minister Atal Behari Vajpayee's offer of a ? hand of friendship? to Pakistan. But on the eve of his visit to India and Pakistan, the CIA has stated: "Pakistan continues to support groups that resist India's presence in Kashmir in an effort to bring India to the negotiating table." CIA director George Tenet said in a recent speech that even though India's recent military redeployment away from the border reduced the danger of imminent war, the underlying cause of tension was unchanged. "The cycles of tension between India and Pakistan are growing shorter," he added. "Indian frustration with continued terrorist attacks, most of which it attributes to Pakistan, causes New Delhi to reject any suggestion that it resume a dialogue with Islamabad," Tenet said. In the same speech, Tenet said that Chinese firms "remain key suppliers of ballistic- and cruise missile-related technologies to Pakistan, Iran and several other countries". He complained that India and Pakistan continued to develop and produce nuclear weapons and the means to deliver them. Click here for the Related News

According to the States Department sources, though Armitage's exact itinerary was still being worked out, he is planning to travel from May 5 to 11 to India, Pakistan and Afghanistan and preparations were underway. Contrary to the belief held by some nations that after the Iraq war, the US will focus on Pakistan since it is a Muslim fundamentalist nation, the US indirectly admitted that it had no such intention with Pakistan. On the other hand, the US is most concerned about the growing nuclear tension between India and Pakistan because it felt as always that a war between the two nuclear powers will have a catastrophic effect in the sub-continent. It may be recalled that the US administration had taken a painstaking effort to avoid a clash between the two neighbouring countries.

State department spokesman Richard Boucher has said India is looking for more steps that can be taken to ease the tensions, stop the infiltration and look towards a dialogue between the two. "So without getting more specific, at this point we will see where we are when he actually goes. But there is always ways to further that process that I am sure he will want to discuss," he said. "We have a strong and continuing interest in our relationships with South Asian countries and in promoting peace and stability in the region. Deputy Secretary Armitage will travel to further those goals," he said. Each of his individual stops, said Boucher, is important for the relationships (of the US with those countries). He has a chance to push forward the political and reconstruction process that is ongoing in Afghanistan, he added.

In another strategic development between India and the United States, Bush has expressed his plan to establish military bases in India. Some of the worst fears of the anti-US camp in India may become a reality in the not so distant future. A strategy paper prepared for the US Department of Defence foresees the setting up of American military bases in India, particularly airbases. Senior MEA officials acknowledged the existence of this paper, but played it down. The official Indian stand is that no such proposal has been taken up officially by Washington with New Delhi. But given the sensitive nature of the issue as well as knowing the American way of operating, many experts say that such American moves are preceded by many papers prepared by non-official US think tanks first, as in this case, and later aggressively pursued by official channels.

Prepared by Booz Allen Hamilton, the report is based on views expressed by 42 important Americans in the policy loop, including 23 military officers, 10 serving Indian military officers and five senior government officials. "India's strategic location in the centre of Asia, astride the frequently traveled sea lanes of communication (SLOCs) linking the Middle East with East Asia makes India particularly attractive to the US military," the report states. It quotes officials to argue that the US needs to develop alternatives in Asia. "For many, India is the most attractive alternative... eventual access to Indian military infrastructure represents a critical 'strategic hedge' against dramatic changes in traditional US relationships in Asia," it states.

But the Indian government is not in a position to risk a domestic backlash against such a proposal, given the strong anti-US sentiment prevailing in the country, especially in the wake of the US-led invasion of Iraq, which was condemned nationwide. The U.S. on its part might be thinking on the lines of reigning in Pak-sponsored terror groups by using its clout with the Pakistani administration. US Secretary of State Colin Powell had already mentioned that after the war on Iraq, the US would spend more time to deal with the Indio-Pak stand off. Sharing of technical (military) resources would be another carrot the Americans would dangle to get a military foothold in the India's landscape. Though various Indian and Pakistani leaders have talked about the need for dialogue in the recent past, the chances for a resumption of dialogue between the hostile neighbours are still considered remote, given the deep distrust between the Indian and Pakistani administration. This is where the U.S. would hope to cash in. If the U.S. succeeds in bringing the foes to the negotiating table, albeit through backdoor, then it would be able to leverage on it and subsequently bargain for "more space" for its military activities in the subcontinent.

 

[V Nura]

I just saw a PBS documentary on N korea and an CIA official said they had sattelite photos of N korea shipping nuclear parts from pakistani facilities.


I think this is open and shut....so...N korea builds weapons that can strike the US because of pakistan...and suddenly pakistan is no threat to the US?.

 

[V Nura]

this is an article from another thread


Pearl killed 'for finding terror links'

Paul Webster, Paris
Thursday April 24, 2003
The Guardian

The American journalist Daniel Pearl was kidnapped and murdered in Pakistan because he uncovered links between the British terrorist Richard Reid and the Pakistani secret service, according to an investigation by the French philosopher and author Bernard-Henri L?vy.
L?vy's book Who Killed Daniel Pearl? traces the Wall Street Journal correspondent's last investigation after he was persuaded to go to Pakistan by a London-born double agent, Omar Saeed Sheikh.

Sheikh has since been sentenced to death in Pakistan for overseeing the murder, in which the reporter's body was cut into 10 pieces.

L?vy spent several weeks in Pakistan and described it as "the most delinquent of delinquent nations". He said Muslims such as Reid who were linked to al-Qaida were being manipulated by "the most violent and most anti-American faction" inside the Pakistani intelligence service.

Sheikh, a London School of Economics graduate, reportedly invited Pearl, who was then in India, to visit him in Pakistan as part of an inquiry into the background of Reid.

Reid is now in prison in the US after trying to blow up a flight from Paris to Miami.

L?vy said "an odour of the apocalypse" floated over cities in Pakistan where there was a struggle between moderate and radical Muslims recruited by the intelligence service. He accused Pakistani extremists of transferring nuclear secrets to Iran and helping North Korea to develop the atomic bomb.

Claiming that Pakistan was the real key to all Islamic-led international terrorism, he said that the US had solved only 1% of the problem by deposing Saddam Hussein.










apparantly everyone sees this problem except bush

 

[Rono]

The two faces of Rumsfeld Donald Rumsfeld, the US defence secretary, sat on the board of a company which three years ago sold two light water nuclear reactors to North Korea - a country he now regards as part of the "axis of evil" and which has been targeted for regime change by Washington because of its efforts to build nuclear weapons.




Rumsfeld was a non-executive director of ABB, a European engineering giant based in Zurich, when it won a $200m (?125m) contract to provide the design and key components for the reactors. The current defence secretary sat on the board from 1990 to 2001, earning $190,000 a year. He left to join the Bush administration.


http://www.guardian.co.uk/korea/article/0,2763,952289,00.html

 

[Red Ships of Scalla-Festa]

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.

very well put.

interesting how sting2, even when corned and has his back to the wall still defends bush as though he were the president himself. all the evidence stacked up against him means nothing.

terrifying, really.

 

[STING2]

Red Ships of Scalla-Festa,

Because most of this so called evidence is fluff! Not even worthy of an Oliver Stone movie.

 

[FizzingWhizzbees]

Actually the Guardian article Rono linked to isn't fluff. It's fact. If you go and do your research at whatever conservative sites you do trust you'll find that the comments it makes regarding Donald Rumsfeld's previous employment are accurate.

That aside, I'm amused at how many times people dismiss articles as "biased" or "fluff" or "speculation" simply because they don't like what they're saying. It seems that rather than debating the issues, it's simpler to diss those who disagree with you. Nice.