Ramana,
Sorry - this thread's been moving so fast this got lose.
[/QUOTE]Tim, why the lack of interest on either side and the officialdom? What could be the drivers?Isnt Non Prolif important anymore or are there other interests driving it? If so what are they? Would help clarify the situation a little bit. Thanks, ramana[/QB][/QUOTE]
I think (my opinion) nonproliferation is much less important in this administration. The role of diplomacy, treaties, conventions, etc. in nonproliferation activities was generally downgraded (see John Bolton), and military options and intelligence cooperation given much higher priority. The administration is tinkering with this mix of tools (so did Bush 1, and Clinton), but it's clear they're placing a lot less emphasis on norms and broad agreements. We'll see how much less at 1430 EST, I guess.
The reason for the lack of response is the lack of a perceived alternative. In this case - again, just my interpretation - Washington's problem is that the "devil we know", that just indicated how nasty and anti-social it can be, remains much preferable to "the devil we don't." We don't know how to fix the Pakistan problem, but we have a memory of what happened with Iran, and consider the alternative to the current elite a much more serious threat.
If this were peacetime, we'd have more Pressler-type sanctions. But it's not, and the President (as he said Sunday) considers himself a wartime president, and Pakistan a necessary ally.
That's only a partial answer, but I wanted to at least respond. Sorry for the delay. I'll try to post more later.
Tim
Pakistan Nuclear Proliferation - 07 Feb 2004
Re: Pakistan Nuclear Proliferation - 07 Feb 2004
Thanks Tim. Lets touch base after the speech.
Re: Pakistan Nuclear Proliferation - 07 Feb 2004
I don't find any news reports about the speech, or a report to the text. Could whoever has more information start a new thread with it?
Pre-speech reports said he will be asking the 40 nuclear supplierrs group countries to not provide nuclear fuel or fuel producing technology to other countries.
Pre-speech reports said he will be asking the 40 nuclear supplierrs group countries to not provide nuclear fuel or fuel producing technology to other countries.
Re: Pakistan Nuclear Proliferation - 07 Feb 2004
From this link:
So now, this phrasing of (Mush was) "courageous to take down the most popular man in Pakistan" will be added to the cut & paste arsenal of every copy editor at every newsdesk. In such way are such too-convenient myths made...A senior Bush administration official praised Musharraf's actions, saying they were "critical and courageous to take down the most popular man in Pakistan" and "steps to unravel that network."
But Bush's remarks are also meant to prod Pakistan to finish the job of dismantling the black market weapons network, the senior official said.
Re: Pakistan Nuclear Proliferation - 07 Feb 2004
Pravin Sawhney wonders.....
Mysterious Dr Q
Mysterious Dr Q
Pravin Sawhney
The US-Pakistan-India triangle never ceases to surprise. Just when the world concluded that this time President Musharraf had landed himself in the quicksand of nuclear proliferation, he proved that he indeed had nine lives. Quickly jumping to safety, he put the blame on the US for Pakistan's nuclear proliferation. Admitting he had suspected since, at the very least, three years that Dr Abdul Qadeer Khan was sharing nuclear technology with other countries, he pointed out that he could do very little as the US did not give him enough proof against the scientist. So, on his own initiative, he removed Dr Khan as head of Khan Research Laboratories in March 2001. Agreeing with the Pakistani President, and conceding their fault, an apologetic US spokesman said that new proposals are being framed to deal with proliferation, rogue states and nations which have not signed the NPT (which includes India and Pakistan).
But this is just the beginning of a drama which promises to get murkier by the day. To begin with, it has thrown up a few important questions: Does President Musharraf need to know what his scientists were doing from the US? Why has the US let him off the hook? What is the significance of the timing of US disclosures? And, what does all this mean for India? The answers to these questions are to be found in the US-led war in Iraq which has gone terribly wrong for President Bush.
For President Bush, awe is over and shock is underway. The regular killings of US soldiers in Iraq do not augur well in the election year. Though he still tops the popularity charts in the US, he has been steadily slipping since the Iraq war was officially over. Second, his administration has failed to produce evidence of Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD) in Iraq, which ostensibly was the reason to go to war in the first place. To get over the first problem, President Bush is seeking a larger role for the United Nations, which is resisting biting the bait. He has also instituted a commission to go into pre-war US intelligence, a political manoeuvre which would amount to nothing if internal stability does not come in Iraq. The Bush Administration is now justifying the war on the ground that it was necessary to pre-empt Saddam as he had the potential to develop WMDs.
Meanwhile, following the Bush doctrine of preemption, Iran, Libya and North Korea admitted to their own nuclear programmes. While Iran told the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) that its nuclear programme is more than peaceful, Libya offered to dismantle its elementary nuclear weapons programme. And North Korea started flexing its muscle by admitting a new uranium enrichment programme. Unfortunately, they also admitted their acquisitions came from Pakistan, thereby forcing the US to make a clean breast of things by spilling the beans on Dr Khan.
By a natural corollary, these startling revelations should have enlisted Pakistan as a rogue state. However, much the opposite seems to be happening. Now President Musharraf wants the world to believe that as the head of the army, the armed forces, and the ISI, he was only partially aware of what his top scientist was doing. He found this out only after the US told him recently. However, in national interest, President Musharraf has pardoned Dr Khan and allowed him to retain his ill-gotten wealth. Interestingly, the US has accepted this line of action. Both the US and Pakistan are trying to put a lid on the disclosures made by the three rogue nations. Is it not surprising that China does not figure anywhere in these disclosures?
\With its hands full with the fall-out of the Iraq war and the impending elections, the Bush Administration does not want trouble with China. The latter is helping the US deal with North Korea's nuclear weapons programme. Moreover, the US hopes that China, as a major power and an important member of the Proliferation Security Initiative of May 2003, has finally agreed to renege on its two decades old proliferation activities.
The other reason the US has accepted President Musharraf's flimsy argument is that the military dictator is strategically important. More than his helping the US in its war against terror in Afghanistan, the Pakistani leader appears sincere about reversing fundamentalism within his own army. This, the US feels, is necessary for the safety of Pakistan's nuclear arsenal. Therefore, the way out for the US is to continue supporting the General, provided he permits the US to debrief his scientists for possible links with Al Qaeda and its ilk.
For President Musharraf, it is necessary that the image of his army is not tarnished. He is, therefore, making the implausible argument that the scientists know more about Pakistan's nuclear weapons programme than the army. The fact is since the inception of the nuclear weapons programme, it has been firmly under the control of the army. Pakistan's civilian leadership has remained out of the nuclear weapons loop, and the majority of scientists are in the loop on a need-to-know basis. It is impossible that anything would have gone out of the KRL and the National Development Complex (another strategic weapons establishment) without the knowledge of the Army chief.
The present cooption of civilian leadership into Pakistan's National Command Authority, which looks after the command, control and development of strategic weapons, is largely ceremonial. Notwithstanding the reality that the Pakistan Army had been actively involved in selling nuclear weapons technology, the US has allowed General Musharraf to concentrate on the de-Talibanisation of his army.
Where does this all leave India? First, the so-called Trinity talks between India and the US, and the "Glide Path" enunciated by General Colin Powell, will get stalled indefinitely. The seemingly growing Indo-US cooperation in areas of space, nuclear energy and transfer of dual-use technology will not happen in a hurry. Considering the US has decided to support President Musharraf, it will do nothing that will weaken his position within his country. He has already said that any transfer of high technology to India by the US will tilt the precarious military balance in the region, forcing Pakistan to take corrective measures - read, a resort to nuclear weapons.
Worse, the US has resolved to review various control regimes. This will put pressure on India to make its strategic technology control regime more transparent, and also to bring more nuclear establishments under IAEA safeguards. This means that, on the one hand, the US will not part with its high technology to India, and on the other, it will be more intrusive in its strategic dialogue with India. The US will seek to know more about India's command and control of its strategic arsenal, it will desire to understand our nuclear weapons programme better, and offer us help for security of our nukes. Clearly, India will be hard-pressed to resist such overtly friendly gestures.
(Pravin Sawhney is editor, FORCE)
Mysterious Dr Q
Mysterious Dr Q
Pravin Sawhney
The US-Pakistan-India triangle never ceases to surprise. Just when the world concluded that this time President Musharraf had landed himself in the quicksand of nuclear proliferation, he proved that he indeed had nine lives. Quickly jumping to safety, he put the blame on the US for Pakistan's nuclear proliferation. Admitting he had suspected since, at the very least, three years that Dr Abdul Qadeer Khan was sharing nuclear technology with other countries, he pointed out that he could do very little as the US did not give him enough proof against the scientist. So, on his own initiative, he removed Dr Khan as head of Khan Research Laboratories in March 2001. Agreeing with the Pakistani President, and conceding their fault, an apologetic US spokesman said that new proposals are being framed to deal with proliferation, rogue states and nations which have not signed the NPT (which includes India and Pakistan).
But this is just the beginning of a drama which promises to get murkier by the day. To begin with, it has thrown up a few important questions: Does President Musharraf need to know what his scientists were doing from the US? Why has the US let him off the hook? What is the significance of the timing of US disclosures? And, what does all this mean for India? The answers to these questions are to be found in the US-led war in Iraq which has gone terribly wrong for President Bush.
For President Bush, awe is over and shock is underway. The regular killings of US soldiers in Iraq do not augur well in the election year. Though he still tops the popularity charts in the US, he has been steadily slipping since the Iraq war was officially over. Second, his administration has failed to produce evidence of Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD) in Iraq, which ostensibly was the reason to go to war in the first place. To get over the first problem, President Bush is seeking a larger role for the United Nations, which is resisting biting the bait. He has also instituted a commission to go into pre-war US intelligence, a political manoeuvre which would amount to nothing if internal stability does not come in Iraq. The Bush Administration is now justifying the war on the ground that it was necessary to pre-empt Saddam as he had the potential to develop WMDs.
Meanwhile, following the Bush doctrine of preemption, Iran, Libya and North Korea admitted to their own nuclear programmes. While Iran told the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) that its nuclear programme is more than peaceful, Libya offered to dismantle its elementary nuclear weapons programme. And North Korea started flexing its muscle by admitting a new uranium enrichment programme. Unfortunately, they also admitted their acquisitions came from Pakistan, thereby forcing the US to make a clean breast of things by spilling the beans on Dr Khan.
By a natural corollary, these startling revelations should have enlisted Pakistan as a rogue state. However, much the opposite seems to be happening. Now President Musharraf wants the world to believe that as the head of the army, the armed forces, and the ISI, he was only partially aware of what his top scientist was doing. He found this out only after the US told him recently. However, in national interest, President Musharraf has pardoned Dr Khan and allowed him to retain his ill-gotten wealth. Interestingly, the US has accepted this line of action. Both the US and Pakistan are trying to put a lid on the disclosures made by the three rogue nations. Is it not surprising that China does not figure anywhere in these disclosures?
\With its hands full with the fall-out of the Iraq war and the impending elections, the Bush Administration does not want trouble with China. The latter is helping the US deal with North Korea's nuclear weapons programme. Moreover, the US hopes that China, as a major power and an important member of the Proliferation Security Initiative of May 2003, has finally agreed to renege on its two decades old proliferation activities.
The other reason the US has accepted President Musharraf's flimsy argument is that the military dictator is strategically important. More than his helping the US in its war against terror in Afghanistan, the Pakistani leader appears sincere about reversing fundamentalism within his own army. This, the US feels, is necessary for the safety of Pakistan's nuclear arsenal. Therefore, the way out for the US is to continue supporting the General, provided he permits the US to debrief his scientists for possible links with Al Qaeda and its ilk.
For President Musharraf, it is necessary that the image of his army is not tarnished. He is, therefore, making the implausible argument that the scientists know more about Pakistan's nuclear weapons programme than the army. The fact is since the inception of the nuclear weapons programme, it has been firmly under the control of the army. Pakistan's civilian leadership has remained out of the nuclear weapons loop, and the majority of scientists are in the loop on a need-to-know basis. It is impossible that anything would have gone out of the KRL and the National Development Complex (another strategic weapons establishment) without the knowledge of the Army chief.
The present cooption of civilian leadership into Pakistan's National Command Authority, which looks after the command, control and development of strategic weapons, is largely ceremonial. Notwithstanding the reality that the Pakistan Army had been actively involved in selling nuclear weapons technology, the US has allowed General Musharraf to concentrate on the de-Talibanisation of his army.
Where does this all leave India? First, the so-called Trinity talks between India and the US, and the "Glide Path" enunciated by General Colin Powell, will get stalled indefinitely. The seemingly growing Indo-US cooperation in areas of space, nuclear energy and transfer of dual-use technology will not happen in a hurry. Considering the US has decided to support President Musharraf, it will do nothing that will weaken his position within his country. He has already said that any transfer of high technology to India by the US will tilt the precarious military balance in the region, forcing Pakistan to take corrective measures - read, a resort to nuclear weapons.
Worse, the US has resolved to review various control regimes. This will put pressure on India to make its strategic technology control regime more transparent, and also to bring more nuclear establishments under IAEA safeguards. This means that, on the one hand, the US will not part with its high technology to India, and on the other, it will be more intrusive in its strategic dialogue with India. The US will seek to know more about India's command and control of its strategic arsenal, it will desire to understand our nuclear weapons programme better, and offer us help for security of our nukes. Clearly, India will be hard-pressed to resist such overtly friendly gestures.
(Pravin Sawhney is editor, FORCE)
Re: Pakistan Nuclear Proliferation - 07 Feb 2004
why the lack of interest on either side and the officialdom? What could be the drivers?Isnt Non Prolif important anymore or are there other interests driving it? If so what are they? Would help clarify the situation a little bit. Thanks, ramana
Ramana, I will try answering it with a big picture in mind. The current situation has evolved after 10 years of near anarchy in many parts of the world. This phase requires a response of power and show of power and action on the ground.
The world is currently undergoing a major shift in global geo-political alignment. After that alignment is complete the new broad based agreements will be negotiated and signed ( after 5-10 years).
The old tools have become outdated with WMD and stateless actors taking a prominent role in the current subsurface anarchy. Bush may be needed for the second term to complete that alignment and hence the importance of his administration.
Ramana, I will try answering it with a big picture in mind. The current situation has evolved after 10 years of near anarchy in many parts of the world. This phase requires a response of power and show of power and action on the ground.
The world is currently undergoing a major shift in global geo-political alignment. After that alignment is complete the new broad based agreements will be negotiated and signed ( after 5-10 years).
The old tools have become outdated with WMD and stateless actors taking a prominent role in the current subsurface anarchy. Bush may be needed for the second term to complete that alignment and hence the importance of his administration.
Re: Pakistan Nuclear Proliferation - 07 Feb 2004
So he called Mushy by his full name - first, middle and last ? Some stern line indeed !Originally posted by Vivek A:
Powell takes stern line on Pakistan
Re: Pakistan Nuclear Proliferation - 07 Feb 2004
Stop, Stop, Al Qualin Bin Powell, don't be so harsh on the savior of the muslim world and best friend of all the foes of terrorism.Originally posted by Vikram:
So he called Mushy by his full name - first, middle and last ? Some stern line indeed !
Re: Pakistan Nuclear Proliferation - 07 Feb 2004
Bush urges nations to limit trade in nuclear fuel,
Seeks U.N. agency reforms
after Pakistani disclosures - MSNBC
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4235681/
Seeks U.N. agency reforms
after Pakistani disclosures - MSNBC
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4235681/
Re: Pakistan Nuclear Proliferation - 07 Feb 2004
Acharya:The world is currently undergoing a major shift in global geo-political alignment. After that alignment is complete the new broad based agreements will be negotiated and signed ( after 5-10 years).[QB]
Re: Pakistan Nuclear Proliferation - 07 Feb 2004
Acharya, we usually see things very differently, but I must say we are in complete agreement here.Originally posted by acharya:
Ramana, I will try answering it with a big picture in mind. The current situation has evolved after 10 years of near anarchy in many parts of the world. This phase requires a response of power and show of power and action on the ground.why the lack of interest on either side and the officialdom? What could be the drivers?Isnt Non Prolif important anymore or are there other interests driving it? If so what are they? Would help clarify the situation a little bit. Thanks, ramana
The world is currently undergoing a major shift in global geo-political alignment. After that alignment is complete the new broad based agreements will be negotiated and signed ( after 5-10 years).
The old tools have become outdated with WMD and stateless actors taking a prominent role in the current subsurface anarchy. Bush may be needed for the second term to complete that alignment and hence the importance of his administration.
At the victorious end of the cold war most of us in the West heaved a collective sigh of relief. People like Francis Fukuyama floated 'The End of History' - we must have been out of our minds to seriously consider such a thesis. We collectively asked for a holiday from reality, and we elected people who gave it to us.
There was a very peculiar sentiment that nothing apart from nature itself could really threaten us at home, now that the communists were gone, and with them the threat of a nuclear exchange involving thousands of megaton range weapons. The most we had to do was try to keep idiots elsewhere from massacring each other. It was arrogant and foolish, and it kept us in self imposed darkness.
Things began to change in the late 1990s, but the acceptance of threat from WMD proliferation and Islamic extremism didnt mean that we were willing to fully accept that the threat was current, rather than developing. Anything to extend the holiday. Then of course the attacks of September 11th 2001 came along, and swept away much (but not all) of that complacency.
Re: Pakistan Nuclear Proliferation - 07 Feb 2004
[QB]
May be you should start a new thread on this. Are there any LEADING indicators that tell you where the world is heading?
The currency markets, WTO talks, IMF vs. Argentina (showdown is in March, 2004) all seem to be pointing somewhere.
Acharya,The world is currently undergoing a major shift in global geo-political alignment. After that alignment is complete the new broad based agreements will be negotiated and signed ( after 5-10 years).[QB]
May be you should start a new thread on this. Are there any LEADING indicators that tell you where the world is heading?
The currency markets, WTO talks, IMF vs. Argentina (showdown is in March, 2004) all seem to be pointing somewhere.
Re: Pakistan Nuclear Proliferation - 07 Feb 2004
The only End of History will be some sort of nuclear apocalypse. The fact is that the whole "End of History" line is very convinient for Western govts, sort of a declaration of victory and end of the competition.
Well they talk to the East about, a new phase is just beginning, we will see new centres of gravity in Asia, they won't challege the US till a while, but give it a few decades, anything is possible. Power is moving westward, went from Asia to Europe, then to the US now moving back to Asia.
Well they talk to the East about, a new phase is just beginning, we will see new centres of gravity in Asia, they won't challege the US till a while, but give it a few decades, anything is possible. Power is moving westward, went from Asia to Europe, then to the US now moving back to Asia.
Re: Pakistan Nuclear Proliferation - 07 Feb 2004
There are no leading indicators as such. But the business cycle get extended during such period of flux and uncertainity. The world is trying to adjust along with globalization which is chruning the market forces as never before.Originally posted by Sagar:
May be you should start a new thread on this. Are there any LEADING indicators that tell you where the world is heading?
The currency markets, WTO talks, IMF vs. Argentina (showdown is in March, 2004) all seem to be pointing somewhere.
Tech thread may be a good idea to discuss such topic - global economy may the right one.
Re: Pakistan Nuclear Proliferation - 07 Feb 2004
MSNBC hit it right on the head. Quote from the article:
"After Abdul Vader Khan
confessed last week to transferring nuclear secrets, Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf at first granted him a pardon and then made it dependent on the outcome of an investigation".
The disgraced scientist Abdul Q. Khan is indeed Abdul "Darth Vader" Khan.
R> Krithivas
"After Abdul Vader Khan
confessed last week to transferring nuclear secrets, Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf at first granted him a pardon and then made it dependent on the outcome of an investigation".The disgraced scientist Abdul Q. Khan is indeed Abdul "Darth Vader" Khan.
R> Krithivas
Originally posted by Richard M:
Bush urges nations to limit trade in nuclear fuel,
Seeks U.N. agency reforms
after Pakistani disclosures - MSNBC
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4235681/
Re: Pakistan Nuclear Proliferation - 07 Feb 2004
From Pres Bush's speech:
"The 40 nations of the Nuclear Suppliers Group should refuse to sell enrichment and reprocessing equipment and technologies to any state that does not already possess full-scale, functioning enrichment and reprocessing plants."
AFAIK Pak does not have a functioning reprocessing plant yet, since Chashma has not yet gone online (again AFAIK). Someone please correct me if I am wrong.
On first impression, looks like an initiative that India can support. What do you guys think?
"The 40 nations of the Nuclear Suppliers Group should refuse to sell enrichment and reprocessing equipment and technologies to any state that does not already possess full-scale, functioning enrichment and reprocessing plants."
AFAIK Pak does not have a functioning reprocessing plant yet, since Chashma has not yet gone online (again AFAIK). Someone please correct me if I am wrong.
On first impression, looks like an initiative that India can support. What do you guys think?
Re: Pakistan Nuclear Proliferation - 07 Feb 2004
Vader turns on the Emperor and leads to his downfall. My my, Star Wars is indeed at times almost Shakespearen.
Re: Pakistan Nuclear Proliferation - 07 Feb 2004
YIP,
I'm not sure of that, but China is not part of the Nuclear Suppliers Group.
How convenient...
I'm not sure of that, but China is not part of the Nuclear Suppliers Group.
How convenient...
Re: Pakistan Nuclear Proliferation - 07 Feb 2004
Did you guys see the comedy central program "the Daily show" with John Stewart. He really introduced the lay american to the Pakistani problem.
Now Pakistan is definitely up there ahead of NK as the prima-donna of rogue states.
Now Pakistan is definitely up there ahead of NK as the prima-donna of rogue states.
Re: Pakistan Nuclear Proliferation - 07 Feb 2004
Rangudu
My impression: If this initiative gains momentum, China's proliferation activities will be targetted en passant.
My impression: If this initiative gains momentum, China's proliferation activities will be targetted en passant.
Re: Pakistan Nuclear Proliferation - 07 Feb 2004
Rangudu, to answer your question in the US thread, the Additional Protocol is something that parties to the NPT can sign to allow more intrusive inspections of their nuclear facilities by the IAEA.
May I suggest again that this speech is the right breaking point to start a new thread?
May I suggest again that this speech is the right breaking point to start a new thread?
Re: Pakistan Nuclear Proliferation - 07 Feb 2004
EU chair Ireland today repeated the demand that
India, Israel and Pak sign on NPT as non nuclear-weapon states
f*** off!
India, Israel and Pak sign on NPT as non nuclear-weapon states
f*** off!
Re: Pakistan Nuclear Proliferation - 07 Feb 2004
This call went in like this:Originally posted by Vikram:
So he called Mushy by his full name - first, middle and last ? Some stern line indeed !Originally posted by Vivek A:
Powell takes stern line on Pakistan
POWELL:
Mush: Yes sir.. Yes sir.. We eradicated it completely 3 times 400% each time sir. That means we did it 1500% sir (don't argue about his math)..Colin Powell, US secretary of state, said he had told General Pervez Musharraf, Pakistan's military leader, that the country’s nuclear proliferation network had to be completely eradicated.
Re: Pakistan Nuclear Proliferation - 07 Feb 2004
AQK did the Mushy inspired speak in English to Pakistani audience. So essentially the population in TSP is still ignorant of what AQK actually did.
Mushy then offers his "pardon" in Urdu interspersed in English. If you listen to only the Urdu part then it seems that Mushy is saying AQK is the biggest patriot of Pakistan and pakistan is justifiably proud of having such a son. If you listen to the English part AQK becomes a loose canon that the TSPA has fixed.
Once again Mushy has pulled the wool on both his public and general public in USA.
Mushy then offers his "pardon" in Urdu interspersed in English. If you listen to only the Urdu part then it seems that Mushy is saying AQK is the biggest patriot of Pakistan and pakistan is justifiably proud of having such a son. If you listen to the English part AQK becomes a loose canon that the TSPA has fixed.
Once again Mushy has pulled the wool on both his public and general public in USA.
Re: Pakistan Nuclear Proliferation - 07 Feb 2004
Is there a website that lists all known TSP nuclear facilities?
Thanks
Thanks
Re: Pakistan Nuclear Proliferation - 07 Feb 2004
>>>>>> India, Pakistan and Israel should sign the NPT and CTBT.
I don't know any other way of saying this.
**** OFF!!
I don't know any other way of saying this.
**** OFF!!
Re: Pakistan Nuclear Proliferation - 07 Feb 2004
Maybe this one? FASOriginally posted by Rangudu:
Is there a website that lists all known TSP nuclear facilities?
Thanks
Re: Pakistan Nuclear Proliferation - 07 Feb 2004
Here's Jon Stewart:Originally posted by cshankar:
AQK did the Mushy inspired speak in English to Pakistani audience. So essentially the population in TSP is still ignorant of what AQK actually did.
Mushy then offers his "pardon" in Urdu interspersed in English. If you listen to only the Urdu part then it seems that Mushy is saying AQK is the biggest patriot of Pakistan and pakistan is justifiably proud of having such a son. If you listen to the English part AQK becomes a loose canon that the TSPA has fixed.
Once again Mushy has pulled the wool on both his public and general public in USA.
Wrath of the Khan
Re: Pakistan Nuclear Proliferation - 07 Feb 2004
Source?Originally posted by Rudra Singha:
EU chair Ireland today repeated the demand that
India, Israel and Pak sign on NPT as non nuclear-weapon states
f*** off!
Nonetheless, I second your sentiments.
Re: Pakistan Nuclear Proliferation - 07 Feb 2004
Guys:
Sorry to blow bubbles regarding importance of nookuleear non-proliferation etc.
GOTUS is going full steam ahead with plans for putting nukes in Space, on the Moon etc. where the term "nukes" does not immediately mean "nuclear-armed missiles" .... but eventually that will make no difference.
Every proliferation act is good business for NMD, Space-based defense etc. So - don't hold ur breath waiting for GOTUS to rush in to eliminate proliferation.
And THIS GOTUS, if none else is really about BUSINESS. Through all the noise of Eyerak, and the dismal state of the economy in every other respect, have u guys checked out the price of oil? The Houston newspapers say that Texas-based Oil Companies are facing serious problems: What to do with all the cash pouring in.
Sorry to blow bubbles regarding importance of nookuleear non-proliferation etc.
GOTUS is going full steam ahead with plans for putting nukes in Space, on the Moon etc. where the term "nukes" does not immediately mean "nuclear-armed missiles" .... but eventually that will make no difference.
Every proliferation act is good business for NMD, Space-based defense etc. So - don't hold ur breath waiting for GOTUS to rush in to eliminate proliferation.
And THIS GOTUS, if none else is really about BUSINESS. Through all the noise of Eyerak, and the dismal state of the economy in every other respect, have u guys checked out the price of oil? The Houston newspapers say that Texas-based Oil Companies are facing serious problems: What to do with all the cash pouring in.
Re: Pakistan Nuclear Proliferation - 07 Feb 2004
Here:Originally posted by Richard M:
Source?Originally posted by Rudra Singha:
EU chair Ireland today repeated the demand that
India, Israel and Pak sign on NPT as non nuclear-weapon states
f*** off!
Nonetheless, I second your sentiments.
http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/articleshow/491753.cms
http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/s1043118.htm
Re: Pakistan Nuclear Proliferation - 07 Feb 2004
All,
Please continue in the new thread.
Admins - Please close this one.
Thanks</font>
Please continue in the new thread.
Admins - Please close this one.
Thanks</font>
Re: Pakistan Nuclear Proliferation - 07 Feb 2004
Thanks JRJOriginally posted by jrjrao:
Here:Originally posted by Richard M:
Source?
Nonetheless, I second your sentiments.
http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/articleshow/491753.cms
http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/s1043118.htm