Saudi Arabia and nuclear proliferation
-
Just when the Iranian situation seems to be improving... Pakistan and Saudi Arabia have concluded a secret agreement on "nuclear cooperation" that will provide the Saudis with nuclear-weapons technology in exchange for cheap oil, according to a ranking Pakistani insider. ... "Apart from proliferation concerns, Washington likely harbors more general fears about what would happen if either of the regimes in Riyadh or Islamabad became radically Islamic," according to Mr. Henderson. Pakistan, Saudi Arabia in secret nuke pact[^] It looks like Saudi Arabia and Pakistan are becoming bigger problems. (It was also Pakistan that helped North Korea with their nuclear program.) -- Also, I looked up information on this because I was surprised: Saudi officials also are still chafing over a closed meeting — later well publicized — of the U.S. Defense Policy Board in 2002, where an expert explained, with a 16-slide Powerpoint presentation, why and how the United States should seize and occupy oil fields in the country's Eastern Province. And came up with this: The man delivering the briefing, Laurent Murawiecz, is no American government official, in fact, he’s not even American. Murawiecz is a Frenchman working for the private RAND Corporation, and his PowerPoint presentation to the Defense Policy Board was very much his own creation and his own responsibility. http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=2355[^] ------------------------------------------ The ousted but stubbornly non-dead leader reportedly released an audiotape this weekend, ending by calling on Iraqis to, quote, "resist the occupation in any way you can, from writing on walls, to boycotting, to demonstrating and taking up arms." adding, "you know, pretty much anything I used to kill you for." - The Daily Show
Brit wrote: It looks like Saudi Arabia and Pakistan are becoming bigger problems <gomer_pyle> sur-prise sur-prise sur-prise </gomer_pyle> i expect we'll be invading them any day now. ImgSource | CheeseWeasle
-
Brit wrote: It looks like Saudi Arabia and Pakistan are becoming bigger problems. Yes they are bigger problem but the biggest problem is the "Axis of Evil" i.e (USA + Israel + India). IMO, both Pak and Saudis are not members of NPT or CTBT, so they are not bound by any international treaty, related to nuclear technology transfer. Brit wrote: It was also Pakistan that helped North Korea with their nuclear program Bah, it was also US, that approved the Israeli sales of air-bone radar system to India. And when Pak asked for same system, it was answered by Bush that he require "Senate" approval :mad:
-
Don't call names. "I disagree" or "that is a stupid thing to say" would have been better seeing as he went to the trouble of posting using his name. :|
David Wulff The Royal Woofle Museum
Putting the laughter back into slaughter
-
Don't call names. "I disagree" or "that is a stupid thing to say" would have been better seeing as he went to the trouble of posting using his name. :|
David Wulff The Royal Woofle Museum
Putting the laughter back into slaughter
A rose by any other name... I don't mince words with people like this. He hates India because he's from Pakistan. This is just stupid. Then he says the US and Israel are evil for some dumb reason. The US has friendlier relations with Pakistan than India at times. He's an idiot.
"It is better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to open one's mouth and remove all doubt." - Abraham Lincoln
-
A rose by any other name... I don't mince words with people like this. He hates India because he's from Pakistan. This is just stupid. Then he says the US and Israel are evil for some dumb reason. The US has friendlier relations with Pakistan than India at times. He's an idiot.
"It is better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to open one's mouth and remove all doubt." - Abraham Lincoln
Oh, I don't know. I'm an American and I tend to agree with him. A good deal of this country's problems in the world arena result from the jingoistic attitude engendered in it's citizens by government BS like labeling as 'evil' countries whose policies aren't in accord with the US's right wing reactionary policies. Good little sheeep like yourself jump on the bandwagon and call names when they know only the side of the story told by their own government. If idiocy exists in this thread, I'd suspect the first to use the word 'idiot'. :|
-
Saudi Arabia is a country that always helped Pakistan in tough times. In 1965 war with India, USA stopped the arms and financial supplies to Pakistan while on the other hand U.S.S.R didn't stopped its aid to India during peak war days. In 80s, USA used Pakistani territory to "deal" with Russia in Afghanistan and then left countless number of refugees in Pakistan and then suddenly stopped the aid related to those refugees. Talibans and Osamas were used by US against Russia in Afghanistan. The deal of F16s was done with USA and Pakistan paid the entire money, but in the end USA again turned her face and refused to give F16s, instead providing soyabean oil to compensate the paid money. Interestingly, during the same periond India obtained Mairaj 2000 and other latest jets from various countries. Today India obtained the Israel made radar system after the "approval" of USA. And when Pakistan asked for same US made system, the reply was negative. It was Saudi Arabia that helped Pakistan in all those tough times when "testing time friend" turned his face.
Anonymous wrote: It was Saudi Arabia that helped Pakistan in all those tough times when "testing time friend" turned his face. So are you saying that the US should go to war with Pakistan? Are you saying the US and Pakistan should no longer be buddies? OR are you crying in your spilled milk? Eat some scrapple! It is good!
Have you answered an MTQ? Check out the stats!
-
Brit wrote: It looks like Saudi Arabia and Pakistan are becoming bigger problems <gomer_pyle> sur-prise sur-prise sur-prise </gomer_pyle> i expect we'll be invading them any day now. ImgSource | CheeseWeasle
Chris Losinger wrote: i expect we'll be invading them any day now. We won't need to. We'll just flip the switch that disables all of the equipment we sold them.
Have you answered an MTQ? Check out the stats!
-
Oh, I don't know. I'm an American and I tend to agree with him. A good deal of this country's problems in the world arena result from the jingoistic attitude engendered in it's citizens by government BS like labeling as 'evil' countries whose policies aren't in accord with the US's right wing reactionary policies. Good little sheeep like yourself jump on the bandwagon and call names when they know only the side of the story told by their own government. If idiocy exists in this thread, I'd suspect the first to use the word 'idiot'. :|
Hmm, this coming from someone that calls themself a lunatic? LunaticFringe wrote: A good deal of this country's problems in the world arena result from the jingoistic attitude engendered in it's citizens by government BS like labeling as 'evil' countries whose policies aren't in accord with the US's right wing reactionary policies. Can I take it from your statement that you approve of the regimes in NK, Iran, and formerly Iraq? Regimes that brutally mistreat their own citizens either through starvation (NK), oppressive theocratic policies (Iran), or torture and chemical weapons (Iraq). I consider these "evil" acts, maybe you don't. In that case, you're an idiot too. LunaticFringe wrote: Good little sheeep like yourself jump on the bandwagon and call names when they know only the side of the story told by their own government. If idiocy exists in this thread, I'd suspect the first to use the word 'idiot'. You tell me who is most likely the least informed: a person from Pakistan, or a person from a western country who has free access to multiple news sources and is a history buff. Call me an idiot or a sheep if you like, but you're only fooling yourself.
"It is better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to open one's mouth and remove all doubt." - Abraham Lincoln
-
Hmm, this coming from someone that calls themself a lunatic? LunaticFringe wrote: A good deal of this country's problems in the world arena result from the jingoistic attitude engendered in it's citizens by government BS like labeling as 'evil' countries whose policies aren't in accord with the US's right wing reactionary policies. Can I take it from your statement that you approve of the regimes in NK, Iran, and formerly Iraq? Regimes that brutally mistreat their own citizens either through starvation (NK), oppressive theocratic policies (Iran), or torture and chemical weapons (Iraq). I consider these "evil" acts, maybe you don't. In that case, you're an idiot too. LunaticFringe wrote: Good little sheeep like yourself jump on the bandwagon and call names when they know only the side of the story told by their own government. If idiocy exists in this thread, I'd suspect the first to use the word 'idiot'. You tell me who is most likely the least informed: a person from Pakistan, or a person from a western country who has free access to multiple news sources and is a history buff. Call me an idiot or a sheep if you like, but you're only fooling yourself.
"It is better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to open one's mouth and remove all doubt." - Abraham Lincoln
All right, history buff, perhaps you can tell us - which was the first country to gas thousands of Iraqi Kurds? Who was in charge of that country's policy at that time? The number of children living in poverty in the US has increased by (IIRC) over 20% during Dubya's tenure. (But we have a booming defense industry!) Clowns in the Pentagon preach religious intolerance before hordes of conservative Christians. The current Amerikan government is attempting to link social services to 'faith-based' organizations. But that's all different, I'm sure.
-
Don't call names. "I disagree" or "that is a stupid thing to say" would have been better seeing as he went to the trouble of posting using his name. :|
David Wulff The Royal Woofle Museum
Putting the laughter back into slaughter
Oh My Go Stand in the corner. I think "politically correct" is more of an insult than "idiot". One can't be helped - the other is self inflicted. Richard "The man that hath not music in himself and is not moved with concord of sweet sounds is fit for treasons, stratagems and spoils; Let no man trust him." Shakespeare
-
Chris Losinger wrote: i expect we'll be invading them any day now. We won't need to. We'll just flip the switch that disables all of the equipment we sold them.
Have you answered an MTQ? Check out the stats!
-
Oh My Go Stand in the corner. I think "politically correct" is more of an insult than "idiot". One can't be helped - the other is self inflicted. Richard "The man that hath not music in himself and is not moved with concord of sweet sounds is fit for treasons, stratagems and spoils; Let no man trust him." Shakespeare
Oh my, how different it is when the boot is on the other foot. :sigh:
David Wulff The Royal Woofle Museum
Putting the laughter back into slaughter
-
All right, history buff, perhaps you can tell us - which was the first country to gas thousands of Iraqi Kurds? Who was in charge of that country's policy at that time? The number of children living in poverty in the US has increased by (IIRC) over 20% during Dubya's tenure. (But we have a booming defense industry!) Clowns in the Pentagon preach religious intolerance before hordes of conservative Christians. The current Amerikan government is attempting to link social services to 'faith-based' organizations. But that's all different, I'm sure.
Anonymous wrote: All right, history buff, perhaps you can tell us - which was the first country to gas thousands of Iraqi Kurds? Who was in charge of that country's policy at that time? In 1988, Saddam Hussein gassed the Kurdish city of Halabja. Whether or not he did it to kill Iranians that occupied the city is of no consequence. If he were concerned for his own citizens, he would not have tried to kill them all. Anonymous wrote: The number of children living in poverty in the US has increased by (IIRC) over 20% during Dubya's tenure. Dubya took over during a recession which, logically, would account for the increase in poverty. However, we have been out of said recession for quite some time so we should be seeing increased employment and a lower poverty rate once the business sector regains its confidence. Anonymous wrote: Clowns in the Pentagon preach religious intolerance before hordes of conservative Christians. One general spoke to a church. That's it. It doesn't mean the whole lot at the DoD are rabid hordes of conservative Christians hell-bent on Arab conquest. Anonymous wrote: The current Amerikan government is attempting to link social services to 'faith-based' organizations. If you consider that small local churches can distribute charity much better than any government bureacracy can, then I think you would realize that the plan isn't such a bad idea. BTW, be a grown up and post using your CP id.
"It is better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to open one's mouth and remove all doubt." - Abraham Lincoln
-
Brit wrote: It looks like Saudi Arabia and Pakistan are becoming bigger problems. Yes they are bigger problem but the biggest problem is the "Axis of Evil" i.e (USA + Israel + India). IMO, both Pak and Saudis are not members of NPT or CTBT, so they are not bound by any international treaty, related to nuclear technology transfer. Brit wrote: It was also Pakistan that helped North Korea with their nuclear program Bah, it was also US, that approved the Israeli sales of air-bone radar system to India. And when Pak asked for same system, it was answered by Bush that he require "Senate" approval :mad:
Jahangir Jamshed wrote: IMO, both Pak and Saudis are not members of NPT or CTBT, so they are not bound by any international treaty, related to nuclear technology transfer. (1) Saudi Arabia is a member of NPT. http://www.pakistanidefence.com/Nuclear&Missiles/NPT.html[^] (2) Irregardless of whether Pakistan is a member of NPT or not, they should still act responsibly by not transfering nuclear technology. Pakistan seems to treat nuclear technology as just another bargaining piece to get missle technology or oil. Just because they haven't signed an agreement saying they wouldn't do so doesn't mean they aren't acting recklessly and deserve all the shit (and more) that they get for their nuclear transfers. Jahangir Jamshed wrote: Bah, it was also US, that approved the Israeli sales of air-bone radar system to India. And when Pak asked for same system, it was answered by Bush that he require "Senate" approval I'm unsure about why you're comparing nuclear technology to air-borne radar systems - they're nowhere near the same class. Second, I'm guessing that you're mad that the US treats India and Pakistan differently (implicitly arguing that the US should treat everyone equally). But, Pakistan transfers nuclear technology and then wants to be treated like everyone else? Give me a break. ------------------------------------------ The ousted but stubbornly non-dead leader reportedly released an audiotape this weekend, ending by calling on Iraqis to, quote, "resist the occupation in any way you can, from writing on walls, to boycotting, to demonstrating and taking up arms." adding, "you know, pretty much anything I used to kill you for." - The Daily Show
-
Anonymous wrote: All right, history buff, perhaps you can tell us - which was the first country to gas thousands of Iraqi Kurds? Who was in charge of that country's policy at that time? In 1988, Saddam Hussein gassed the Kurdish city of Halabja. Whether or not he did it to kill Iranians that occupied the city is of no consequence. If he were concerned for his own citizens, he would not have tried to kill them all. Anonymous wrote: The number of children living in poverty in the US has increased by (IIRC) over 20% during Dubya's tenure. Dubya took over during a recession which, logically, would account for the increase in poverty. However, we have been out of said recession for quite some time so we should be seeing increased employment and a lower poverty rate once the business sector regains its confidence. Anonymous wrote: Clowns in the Pentagon preach religious intolerance before hordes of conservative Christians. One general spoke to a church. That's it. It doesn't mean the whole lot at the DoD are rabid hordes of conservative Christians hell-bent on Arab conquest. Anonymous wrote: The current Amerikan government is attempting to link social services to 'faith-based' organizations. If you consider that small local churches can distribute charity much better than any government bureacracy can, then I think you would realize that the plan isn't such a bad idea. BTW, be a grown up and post using your CP id.
"It is better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to open one's mouth and remove all doubt." - Abraham Lincoln
You didn't answer the question. The first country to gas Iraqi Kurds was England, under the policy guidance of Winston Churchill. The reason? They weren't paying their taxes. Churchill was quoted at the time as saying he'd like to eradicate them as a race. <edit> Perhaps you're less of a 'history' buff than you think, and more of a 'propaganda' buff.</edit> Dubya can't blame his economic woes on previous administrations - he inherited a budget surplus and turned it into a record deficit. The general you refer to spoke to a sizable number of churches on the same theme - only one video tape has made the rounds. And if you think he's the only right-wing religious nut in the Pentagon, you're naive. Sure, small local churches can distribute wealth - under a cross, handed out with a healthy dose of Christian guilt. BTW, I was logged in - I don't know why it came up as anonymous. As for being grown up, take a look in the mirror. You seem unable to treat differing viewpoints as anything other than a personal assault.
-
Just when the Iranian situation seems to be improving... Pakistan and Saudi Arabia have concluded a secret agreement on "nuclear cooperation" that will provide the Saudis with nuclear-weapons technology in exchange for cheap oil, according to a ranking Pakistani insider. ... "Apart from proliferation concerns, Washington likely harbors more general fears about what would happen if either of the regimes in Riyadh or Islamabad became radically Islamic," according to Mr. Henderson. Pakistan, Saudi Arabia in secret nuke pact[^] It looks like Saudi Arabia and Pakistan are becoming bigger problems. (It was also Pakistan that helped North Korea with their nuclear program.) -- Also, I looked up information on this because I was surprised: Saudi officials also are still chafing over a closed meeting — later well publicized — of the U.S. Defense Policy Board in 2002, where an expert explained, with a 16-slide Powerpoint presentation, why and how the United States should seize and occupy oil fields in the country's Eastern Province. And came up with this: The man delivering the briefing, Laurent Murawiecz, is no American government official, in fact, he’s not even American. Murawiecz is a Frenchman working for the private RAND Corporation, and his PowerPoint presentation to the Defense Policy Board was very much his own creation and his own responsibility. http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=2355[^] ------------------------------------------ The ousted but stubbornly non-dead leader reportedly released an audiotape this weekend, ending by calling on Iraqis to, quote, "resist the occupation in any way you can, from writing on walls, to boycotting, to demonstrating and taking up arms." adding, "you know, pretty much anything I used to kill you for." - The Daily Show
-
You didn't answer the question. The first country to gas Iraqi Kurds was England, under the policy guidance of Winston Churchill. The reason? They weren't paying their taxes. Churchill was quoted at the time as saying he'd like to eradicate them as a race. <edit> Perhaps you're less of a 'history' buff than you think, and more of a 'propaganda' buff.</edit> Dubya can't blame his economic woes on previous administrations - he inherited a budget surplus and turned it into a record deficit. The general you refer to spoke to a sizable number of churches on the same theme - only one video tape has made the rounds. And if you think he's the only right-wing religious nut in the Pentagon, you're naive. Sure, small local churches can distribute wealth - under a cross, handed out with a healthy dose of Christian guilt. BTW, I was logged in - I don't know why it came up as anonymous. As for being grown up, take a look in the mirror. You seem unable to treat differing viewpoints as anything other than a personal assault.
LunaticFringe wrote: You didn't answer the question. The first country to gas Iraqi Kurds was England, under the policy guidance of Winston Churchill. The reason? They weren't paying their taxes. Churchill was quoted at the time as saying he'd like to eradicate them as a race. Perhaps you're less of a 'history' buff than you think, and more of a 'propaganda' buff. History buff does not mean I know all history, but I do think I have a thorough knowledge of the history of the region (with a few holes here and there). I did not know that the British gassed Iraq (I didn't find where they gassed the Kurds in particular, just the southern part of Iraq was all I found). However, despite the fact that the Brits did use gas in Iraq, Saddam Hussein also used gas to kill Kurds. Can you prove otherwise? LunaticFringe wrote: Dubya can't blame his economic woes on previous administrations - he inherited a budget surplus and turned it into a record deficit. Budget surpluses have very little to do with the economy. If surpluses were a requirement for economic growth, the United States would have been in a depression since the 70s. THE FACTS ARE that the economy began to faulter before Bush took office. Don't you remember the dot.com bubble bursting in early 2000, or is your memory failing you? LunaticFringe wrote: The general you refer to spoke to a sizable number of churches on the same theme - only one video tape has made the rounds. And if you think he's the only right-wing religious nut in the Pentagon, you're naive. If you think there are no leftist ideologs in the Pentagon then you are beyond naive. LunaticFringe wrote: Sure, small local churches can distribute wealth - under a cross, handed out with a healthy dose of Christian guilt. BTW, I was logged in - I don't know why it came up as anonymous. As for being grown up, take a look in the mirror. You seem unable to treat differing viewpoints as anything other than a personal assault. Most churches aren't that pushy. I can take being called an idiot. Can you?
"It is better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to open one's mouth and remove all doubt." - Abraham Lincoln
Jason Hende
-
A question I hope interesting: why have some countries the right to build nuclear weapons when others haven't? :confused:
Silence Means Death Stand On Your Feet Inner Fear Your Worst Enemy
It's like this: If you don't have them, you think everyone should have them. Once you acquire them you feel the rest of the world is a dangerous and unstable lot and cannot handle it, so no one else should have them. Unless you want to sell it to someone.
Regards,Rohit Sinha
Meet Browsy
Do not wait for leaders; do it alone, person to person.
- Mother Teresa -
A question I hope interesting: why have some countries the right to build nuclear weapons when others haven't? :confused:
Silence Means Death Stand On Your Feet Inner Fear Your Worst Enemy
The problem for me is that nuclear weapons are like cigarettes. Once you start, it's harder to stop. So, let's say you have a population of people where a few people smoke. You'd like to eliminate smoking altogether. You want the smokers to stop. But, even more crucial than getting the smokers to stop is preventing more people from starting in the first place. And since "not starting" is easier than "stopping", it is worrying that we can't even accomplish the easier task - much less the harder one. Bringing us back more directly to nuclear weapons, there is impetous for nuclear weapons outside of "countering other people's nuclear weapons". Israel, for example, has a better argument for its possession of nuclear weapons than does Iran. This is because Israel's entire neighborhood hates them. The nuclear deterent helps preserve their existence. Other countries, say Saddam's Iraq, cannot be trusted with nuclear weapons. I worry about countries like Saudi Arabia and Pakistan because they could have Islamic revolutions, meaning that even if their current governments were responsible with their weapons, the next one might not. Some people will fail to consider differences, and simply ask "if country X can have them, why not us?" Here in the US, most adults can buy guns. But, convicted felons cannot. This is similar to nuclear weapons. We prefer that criminal or expansionistic nations not possess nuclear weapons in the same way that we prefer that criminals not have them. Once people's subjectivity and emotions get involved, the whole thing can look rather slanted ("Why can those criminal Israelis have them, but not the Muslim nations of Iran and Saudi Arabia?") ------------------------------------------ The ousted but stubbornly non-dead leader reportedly released an audiotape this weekend, ending by calling on Iraqis to, quote, "resist the occupation in any way you can, from writing on walls, to boycotting, to demonstrating and taking up arms." adding, "you know, pretty much anything I used to kill you for." - The Daily Show
-
LunaticFringe wrote: You didn't answer the question. The first country to gas Iraqi Kurds was England, under the policy guidance of Winston Churchill. The reason? They weren't paying their taxes. Churchill was quoted at the time as saying he'd like to eradicate them as a race. Perhaps you're less of a 'history' buff than you think, and more of a 'propaganda' buff. History buff does not mean I know all history, but I do think I have a thorough knowledge of the history of the region (with a few holes here and there). I did not know that the British gassed Iraq (I didn't find where they gassed the Kurds in particular, just the southern part of Iraq was all I found). However, despite the fact that the Brits did use gas in Iraq, Saddam Hussein also used gas to kill Kurds. Can you prove otherwise? LunaticFringe wrote: Dubya can't blame his economic woes on previous administrations - he inherited a budget surplus and turned it into a record deficit. Budget surpluses have very little to do with the economy. If surpluses were a requirement for economic growth, the United States would have been in a depression since the 70s. THE FACTS ARE that the economy began to faulter before Bush took office. Don't you remember the dot.com bubble bursting in early 2000, or is your memory failing you? LunaticFringe wrote: The general you refer to spoke to a sizable number of churches on the same theme - only one video tape has made the rounds. And if you think he's the only right-wing religious nut in the Pentagon, you're naive. If you think there are no leftist ideologs in the Pentagon then you are beyond naive. LunaticFringe wrote: Sure, small local churches can distribute wealth - under a cross, handed out with a healthy dose of Christian guilt. BTW, I was logged in - I don't know why it came up as anonymous. As for being grown up, take a look in the mirror. You seem unable to treat differing viewpoints as anything other than a personal assault. Most churches aren't that pushy. I can take being called an idiot. Can you?
"It is better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to open one's mouth and remove all doubt." - Abraham Lincoln
Jason Hende
Let's review, shall we? First you called Jahangir an idiot because you didn't agree with his statements. Then, in your role as 'well informed history buff with access to multiple news sources' you call me an idiot for suggesting his viewpoint might have some merit. When your ignorance of the regions history is exposed, along with your confusion about the facts concerning General Boykin (?) you again resort to childish name-calling. BTW - it's funny how often ignorance and arrogance go hand in hand. Jason Henderson wrote: I can take being called an idiot. I don't see the need to call you an idiot. You seem to be doing a more than adequate job of proving that point on your own.