Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by zimv20, Jul 21, 2006.
Corporate puppet, all the republicans and most of the democrats.
I know it's late, but did I read that right? Is this as bad an idea as it seems? I could've sworn I didn't go out drinking tonight with my buddies, but now I'm thinking I should have. Isn't that guy who we've stopped looking for after attacking us somewhere in Pakistan? What was that guys name again?
New US government shipping policy:
This is what I was alluding to in another thread. Many posters here bitch and moan about how evil conservative Iran is for supplying weapons to groups that have known terrorist ties, or that have a penchant for proliferation, and are our enemies. Yet they convienently ignore the fact that our conservative government does the same thing to other people's enemies.
Can we get a definitive answer about whether it's bad to supply countries with ties to terrorists and a history of nuclear proliferation with weapons?
Or is this some kind of relativistic "It's OK if they're our friends, but not if our enemies do it" double standard?
The United States has a somewhat sordid history of taking payment from Pakistan for military aircraft and then not delivering.... Were they ever repaid the $300M or so left from the last time they bought F-16's from the US that were never delivered?
I have mixed feelings about the "definitive answer...." I think geopolitical disenfranchisement is a big issue with Pakistan. If a man steals from the farms in your village everyday because he has no farmland and can raise no food, and all the villagers got together and pooled together a piece of land for him, you could view this as rewarding thievery. But the likelihood may be that the thievery existed only as a contingency of the system.
The portion of the old India that became Pakistan has always been at a number of disadvantages to the rest of the world and has never really been a part of the process. What I mean is that getting them engaged in multilateral international relations and economic development is very important to ending their participation in terrorism. I don't approve of their support of terrorist actions in my ancestral homeland, natch. But I don't really have a problem with them having an adequate legitimate military. The question to me is whether they will come clean over time from their past if they are drawn into the modern world....
Do this mean we have to take out that question about "have you ever been or been involved with terrorists"?
Nice. Pakistan, we're going to adopt a Don't ask, don't tell policy WRT terrorism.
This is an interesting idea, but I would wonder if F-16s are really what Pakistan needs to become a part of the modern world. Wouldn't economic development be a much better use of this money? And furthermore, are we arming a future enemy?
I can't help but think of several F-14s we sold to Iran just before the 1979 revolution and ended up shooting down over the Persian Gulf a few years later.
Also, is this a good way to continue relations with India? By selling Pakistan weapon systems?
This seems like very bad policy.
Welcome to George Bush's foreign policy One Big F........ Mess. Neocon working for the corporation.
You make really good points. I absolutely agree that what Pakistan needs in the long run is a path to economic prosperity and development, and to hook its population into that path so that they themselves will get sick of harboring the small minority of miscreants.
But then, Pakistan is such a strange situation... they've invested themselves so strongly in the cause of Kashmir that anything involving India or Pakistan has an implicit association with the India-Pakistan issues, whereas India is in much more of a position to have wholly unrelated multilateral relationships with other countries. And so any country must be very careful to be tit-for-tat and give Pakistan things so that it appears that some kind of parity is preserved while India gets things that are justified for unrelated reasons (like FDI in the IT sector). As far that goes, to me, jets aren't great, but I also doubt Pakistan will use them much. Much better than portable equipment that can wend its way into the hands of insurgents and terrorists....
My *really* radical suggestion involving Pakistan.... India should give them Kashmir. Or sell it to them for RS1/km^2 or something ridiculous like that. And then let them lie in the bed that they made. Because the situation is so asymmetric. India stopped needing Kashmir to feel good about itself ever since deregulation finally began and the economy started growing. Pakistan, even if they had Kashmir, would still be a mess because of the way things work there. In contrast, the India would lose the economic and human burden related to Kashmir and could readily convert resources to furthering development and infrastructure, which they are already very serious about doign. (While protecting its military-industrial complex's economic contribution with the plentiful potential threats against which they must be armed ).
The biggest problem with that is that Pakistan is to India like certain Middle East states are to the US. Their stability is questionable and yet crucial to Indian domestic safety....
And there you have my mixed feelings on the topic.
I think this is a great idea, I've yet to understand why two countries are fighting over such an inhospitable and dangerous place. India and Pakistani soldiers get to suffer all the effects of altitude sickness and the danger of a full-scale war for a chunk of dirt and a few shepherds.
True, although, before all the violence, Kashmir was a vacation getaway for royalty. In the absence of the fighting and insurgents and hostilities, it's one of the most beautiful places in South Asia, if not the most beautiful place.
hulugu, can you provide links to this? I don't recall ever hearing stories where the US Navy shot down Iranian F-14's, nor could I find anything on the web. I know the Iranian F-14's were not able to fire the Phoenix missile system, and that they are flying on scavenged parts. Also, it has been suggested that the Grumman technicians sabotaged the aircraft prior to leaving the country when the Shah left power.
Secondly, I agree with your policy assessment. How can the US agree to sell Pakistan advanced aircraft, and at the same time strike deals with India regarding nuclear weapons. Sounds a lot like the Warner Brothers cartoon with Foghorn Leghorn, the dog, and Daffy Duck (Daffy is representing the Acme joke company of Walla Walla Washington, and selling each party practical jokes to play on the other. It continues to escalate until both parties turn on Daffy with the Pipe Full of Fun Kit).
I may have been misinformed on this because I'm not finding anything either; I'm blaming the History Channel.
This Link is interesting as it lays out the F-14s use in the Iran-Iraq war as well as a reference to the sabotage of the plane's ability to fire the Phoenix.
And thisLink lays out many of the F-14s use in combat. It also states that the Iranians may have been able to use the Phoenix (although the circumstances of this story seem suspect). I have a feeling that someone, myself included, misunderstood the Iranians loss of two F-4s as two F-14s.
But, this story belies my point, if the F-14As had retained their ability to fire Phoenix missiles than the later engagements might have become very dangerous for the US and others, including the Iraqis.
Really? I've always had the impression that Kashmir was very high-country, fairly desolate, but beautiful in its asterity. Certaintly not a place for a vacation.
Well, a lot of the expense and nuisance of the military effort does come from elevated territory, and yeah, the way I understand it too is that places like Siachen have little redeeming merit beyond tactics.
But the story of the Kashmiri Valley I have always heard from my family is in line with what this says:
That the valley was considered a paradise before all of this....