Pakistan
Posted by: ErikL on 05 February 2004
I think this is generally correct:
- One of few nations to recognize the Taliban as a legitimate government
- Western regions still ruled by Taliban leaders and supporters (you know, the regions bordering the area where Osama and his cronies are hiding out)
- Primary outlet for Afghanistan's heroin trade
- Funded Al-Qaeda and the Taliban
- Provided manpower for Al-Qaeda
- Provided training sites for Al-Qaeda
- Redirected funds from the US government to build nuclear capabilities
- Shared nuclear technology with North Korea, Libya, and Iran
- Leader enjoyed increasing friction around the Kashmir issue
- Prior to 9/11, was seen as an evil nation on the US' shit list
- Days after 9/11, sanctions lifted by the US and loans provided by the US, when its shady leader promised to fight terrorism
- Isn't winning the fight against fundamentalist thinking domestically
Houston, we have a (typical US foreign policy) problem.
Posted on: 11 February 2004 by Justin
Also, I'm not convinced that the US is responsible for the destability of all unstable countries.
This line of reasoning can get murky in a hurry. For instance, arguably Pakistan has been unstable since partition. Certainly, in addition to the war in Aphganistan, Kashmir has quite a bit to do with the geopolitical climate along the Indo-Pakistani axis.
Judd
Posted on: 11 February 2004 by Haroon
I meant that it might be easy for you or us to dismiss the US use of nukes as having only rhetorical value and none much further, but not to to a japanese person whose family has suffered as a result. Im not japanese, so i guess I cant comment on their behalf, but if it was my family involved id be pretty upset if someone said what you wrote, and thats why i said i couldnt tell what you said to the japanese - it would be some nerve.
Are you saying either USA or Syria/Iran? Given that US have used them then I would say Iran or Syria. Fact is the world views Iran or Syria as being unstable or opressive regiems, but you got to ask what lead to that? US and UK foriegn policy thats what - if the west didnt bugger things up royally around the world we wouldnt have half as much grief with terrorists as we do now. So yeah id go with Iran/Syria, as it would probably make a swift change in US foriegn policy and a better world for us all.
Total non-capacity of nukes world-wide is the way forward - not non-proliferation (thats just saying the countries who do have it keep it to themselves). To tell the truth I wouldnt be happy with any one country having nukes - its only a deterent if your willing to use them, and any use of nukes is bad. If one country has it then another will want to have it, then what are france/uk supposed to do in that case use their nukes because another country challenges their position - no good. And what if the politics of France/UK take a change to the far right?
Posted on: 11 February 2004 by Haroon
quote:
Originally posted by Justin:
Also, I'm not convinced that the US is responsible for the destability of all unstable countries.
Judd
Not all but a heck of a lot e.g. include Iran/Iraq, South america - Bolivia, Chile, Cuba, Far East - vietnam, laos. Along with UK and France - damage they have casued in their former empires/colonies, China and Russia to some extent too in far east and estern europe. Whoops there the 5 permanaent security council members now thats a coincidence - NOT!
Posted on: 11 February 2004 by Justin
quote:
Originally posted by Haroon:
Are you saying either USA or Syria/Iran? Given that US have used them then I would say Iran or Syria. Fact is the world views Iran or Syria as being unstable or opressive regiems, but you got to ask what lead to that? US and UK foriegn policy thats what - if the west didnt bugger things up royally around the world we wouldnt have half as much grief with terrorists as we do now. So yeah id go with Iran/Syria, as it would probably make a swift change in US foriegn policy and a better world for us all.
Fair enough. You'd feel safer with Syria/Iran having nukes rather than the US.
Judd
Posted on: 11 February 2004 by Haroon
Im also assuming there that the other countries that have nukes would keep them, just usa and iran/syria switch. Might also if i can put on the condition that syria/iran eliminate terrorism and opression in exchange for the nukes
Well we'd be here all day with what-if's ....
Posted on: 11 February 2004 by Justin
quote:
Originally posted by Haroon:
Im also assuming there that the other countries that have nukes would keep them, just usa and iran/syria switch. Might also if i can put on the condition that syria/iran eliminate terrorism and opression in exchange for the nukes Well we'd be here all day with what-if's ....
Takes the wind out of it, don't it, Haroon. As you say,
Judd
Posted on: 12 February 2004 by Tim Jones
Ludwig -
'Lighten up'? Oh I see. All these things where you remind us how much you dislike GWB are jokes. That explains it then.
PS I never criticise my own Government because everything it does is simply marvellous.
Tim-lite
Posted on: 12 February 2004 by ErikL
No, my GW comments in general are not jokes. The response to Simon's post, though, was in humor. Got it now? Can one not criticize a foreign government and criticize how one's own government deals with it? Or did I miss the sign on the door here?
It appears you have a little hard-on for me Jones. Get over it.
Posted on: 13 February 2004 by Tim Jones
Ludwig.
Yes I get it. Gee you're funny. And cute too.
Tim
Down boy!
