Rumors of Saudi Arabia - Pakistan Defence Agreement

Thx for the link. I'll check it out more when I get home. I really fear that nukes might go off in the Mid-East in the not-so-distant future. I hope I'm wrong.

 

glynch:

Why do you keep saying that the "blowback" from Bush's policies has these states trying to get nukes? You know, unless they all have time travel technology as well, that is simply not possible.

Saudi has had these missiles for over a decade - long before Bush became President. Syria has had WMD programs for over a decade - long before Bush became President. Iran's nuke program is at least a decade old - long before Bush became President. Pakistan tested its first nuke in the 90s - long before Bush became President. Saudi and Pakistan have had a close relationship since the Afghan-Soviet war - long before Bush became President.

In fact, much of this sh*t happened on Clinton's watch.

So, unless they all have access to time travel technologies (in which case, we are truly fu*ked), your "blowback" theory is a load of crap.

Just felt like pointing that out.

 

i agree that the KSA is trying to get a weapon just incase Bush points his finger towards them and says u are now a part of the "axis of evil". and invades em... its like a little saying. better safe than sorry

 

glynch, don't you get tired of 'everything is Bush's fault?'

Saudi Arabia is concerned about continuing ramifications in the US from so many Sep 11 terrorists being Saudi, along with probably the fanning the flames of US hatred internally to avoid criticism of the royal family rule. In effect, they don't feel that they can trust us to come to their aid under all circumstances anymore.

That's not Bush's fault, unless you're claiming that he hired the Saudi terrorists.

 

The ill advised Iraq War was Bush's doing. It is not some sort of wierd fixation or mindless hatred of Bush to blame Bush for bad side effects due to the war. He pushed for it against overwhelming world opinon. It was also widely predicted even by Bush Senior and other mainstream conservatives that it could destablize the Middle East with unforseen side effects.

As the cartoon said on the conservative's guide to defending the Iraq War always lead with: "Why do you hate American (or Bush) so much"

 

Nonresponsive.

None of that addressed the specific items I listed, did it? Have a lot of folks in DC lambasted the Saudis...post 9-11...or not? Do you not think this would raise Saudi concerns over our willingness or lack thereof to support Saudi Arabia against all it's external threats? Finally, is Bush responsible for that?

 

I think Bush has mishandled North Korea by lumping them and the other countries we all know about into his "axis of evil" while deciding to invade Iraq, which we had in a box, giving North Korea what they see as an opportunity to publicly go nuclear while we are tied down there.

It has been a spur to those, and any other countries who might see themselves on our radar screen, to acquire nukes if at all possible. Have some of these countries been trying to develop the ability for years? Of course... not all for the same reasons.

Saudi Arabia may have had an interest for years due to Israel developing nukes with our acquiescence. I would think that would spur any of the countries with the potential of a war with Israel to get nukes if they could. But Israel took care of Iraq's program. Gulf War I removed Iraq from being a clear and present danger to Iran, but not Israel. Our close military relationship with the Kingdom discouraged them from giving it serious consideration.

Now, with our invasion of Iraq and withdrawal from the Kingdom, they feel vulnerable... more vulnerable than they have in a very long time. They may think it's worth the risk to acquire nukes, if they can pull it off without bringing on a US invasion first. Iran sees itself as possibly the next target for a preemptive strike by the US.

But ask yourself. What set off this chain of events and possible developments we don't want to see occur? Bush's foreign policy. A series of clumsy diplomatic blunders that has created more instability in the Middle East and Northeast Asia than we have seen in years.

That's my opinion, of course. Bush can do no wrong in the eyes of some of you, and some of you use rhetoric from both sides that isn't helpful to any civil discussion. It doesn't surprise me any, but it is a shame.

 

Perfect, Deckard. *applause*

My feelings, exactly. Foreign policy was always considered a Bush weakness to some. Interesting how CFR's views regarding Iraq, 9/11, and US foregin policy afterwards all kinda came together. Things that make you say hmmmmmmm.....

 

You do understand that I am criticizing Bush, right?

 

"Yourself" and "you" aren't you! You just gave me a chance to expound on what I think about some of this. treeman and some others are who I speaking to. Sorry if it came off as aimed at you, JeffB.

Maybe I should go to bed.

 

Deckard:

You have essentially recapped glynch's "blowback" theory. Read my response to him to see why I think it is silly to think that Bush's actions have increased proliferation threats (only a fool could possibly think that removing Saddam and the Taliban could do anything other than reduce proliferation threats). It has something to do with the lack of availability of time travel technology...

To summarize it: glynch = blowback theory = load of crap. Read the post for more detail.

Since he was apparently not capable of responding to my "glynch = load of crap" theory, maybe you could?

 

even without 'fundamentalist' in power, pakistan is scary. actually, the current regime is too fundamentalist already. they supported the taliban (created it, funded it, gave them arms) and they support many terrorist outfits that operate freely out of pakistan with the sole purpose of trying to "liberate" kashmir from india. not only that, but General Musharraf routinely makes claims that if india attacks those terrorist training camps in pakistan, he has no issues with using nuclear weapons to retaliate. Recently, he stated that (even if india doesnt attack), he reserves the right to use nuclear weapons if he feels any threat whatsoever.

then theres the whole issue of its nuclear scientists having links to al-queda and trying to give al-queda its nuclear technology. theres also reports of pakistan's intelligence community, the ISI, having links to al-queda as well. also, didnt anyone find it strange that Khalid Sheikh Muhammed, a top lieutenant in al-queda, was captured living in a resedential neighborhood reserved for retired pakistani generals and government officials??

 

treeman, I'm just being consistent. I've said, oh, forever, that we didn't need to invade Iraq at this time and that North Korea was far more a clear and present danger to the US and our Allies than Iraq, who we had in the proverbial "box". I still believe that.

I still believe that Bush's clumsy diplomacy robbed us of the allies on the ground and in the "bank" that we so desperately desire now. Iraq could have waited until we had those lined up. He was too impatient. Not always a good trait for diplomacy.

As far as the rest of my post... have you ever kicked a fire ant bed? Bush did that with Iraq. Israel did that when she developed nukes. We did that when we looked the other way. It's no surprise that the countries in the region want to respond to Israel's nukes if they can. It is up to us to stop them. If we can. And Israel isn't helping a damn bit with their extremist government. Bush isn't helping a damn bit with his "America will do what she wants... **** you!" diplomacy.

As far as Glynch "blowing back"... that's between him and you. You two can blow all you want to. I have my own opinions.

 

Deckard:

Again, you have essentially repeated glynch's "blowback" theory. It's still a load of crap. The anthill was broken when we got there.

I am so sick of this "It's our fault, our foreign policy caused this/Israel is evil" BS. I am normally pretty civil with you, Deckard, but this tripe is not worth responding to.

 

Then don't.
(I don't like tripe myself!)

 

The ISI would be nothing today if it wasn't for American training. I don't like the ISI either, but it takes time to break it down. Musharaff has been trying hard during his time in power. Where did you get the idea that the people in power are fundamentalist? Just because they are muslims, they are fundamentalists? Pakistan had gone through several regimes since the formation of the Taliban, and this Kashmir business has been going on since the partition.

Empty threats between India and Pakistan and between politicians within the countries the are the norm and happen all the time. This isn't the 1970s: Pakistan and India have too much to lose to go into a full fledged war. Even though it may not seem like it to you, they have common sense and wont destroy their countries to settle a grudge.

Also, where did you get the idea that he was arrested in a neighborhood "reserved for retired pakistani generals and government officials"? He was arrested in an apartment in an area called Defense. ANYONE can live there.