report scams here at scam.com dont get scammed Scams and Scammers - Expose hypocrisy and spread respect ! Don't get ripped off! REGISTER
Go Back   scams > Scam Message Board > Political Chat
Register FAQ Register To Post Member List Promote Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read
Reply
 
Thread Tools
  #1  
Old 07-08-2011, 06:07 PM
sojustask's Avatar
sojustask sojustask is offline
Lady Moderator- Just call me Your Majesty
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: East Texas
Posts: 13,894
Counter Terrorism or Counter Nukes?

I thought I would share something that my political reporter/turned blogger friend, Stephen Pizzo, wrote today.
Makes sense to me.



Counter Terrorism or Counter Nukes?


Whenever we Americans get on one of our "anti" kicks we end up hooking up with all the wrong kinds of people in order to do what we believe is the right thing.



For fifty years, for example, we got in bed with dictators, drug and arms dealers and outright crooks, all in the name of anti-communism. All third-world butchers needed to say was they were anti-communists and we put them on the payroll.



After propping up regimes often many times worse than the Commies, communism's string ran out, very much due to its own internal contradictions and abuses.



In 2001 we replaced that boogieman with al Qaida and launched ourselves, like some old fashioned western lynch mob, into our latest anti; anti-terrorism.






And again the first thing we did was climb in bed with genuine bone-fide assholes. Again all these crooks and liars had to do was say the new magic word to get the keys to the US Treasury; "We're anti-terrorism. You betchya." And we started shipping them pallets stacked high with billions in US hundred dollar bills -- literally.



And this is a good point to remind you that it was US dollars and US arms that created the anti-Soviet Mujahideen, which later morphed into al Qaida. We just seem to have a knack ... if you get my drift.


Now, before I tell you how I'd fix everything, let me share with you an example of what I'm talking form today's NY Times:





US: Pakistan sanctioned journalist's killing



By Associated Press,: July 8 -- The allegation by the top U.S. military officer that Pakistan's government sanctioned the killing of a journalist who wrote about the country's powerful security establishment was "extremely irresponsible," the Pakistani state-run news agency said.

The verbal sparring over the death of Saleem Shahzad has added even more strain to U.S.-Pakistani relations, which have teetered badly since the American raid that killed Osama bin Laden on May 2 in a northwest Pakistani army town.

Shahzad's tortured body was found in late May after he'd told friends he'd been threatened by Pakistan's Inter-Services Intelligence agency, a spy unit that is notorious for harassing reporters in a country considered one of the deadliest in the world for journalists. ( Full Story )





So, what should we do with our decrepit batch of "anti-terrorism allies?" We've wasted something between $2- and $4-trillion trying to "fix" backward, tribal countries, particularly Pakistan. And we've accomplished nothing lasting. Instead, like our anti-communist buddy-dictators, the Pakistanis have played us like a fiddle, pretending and promising, while going their chosen, dark-ages way.



When US policy makers run out of excuses for why we have to continue cultivating our relationship with Pakistan, they finally admit its largely because the Paks have nukes. And, they quickly warn, "If Pakistan becomes a failed-state, terrorists would likely get their hands on those nukes."



They're right, of course, that is scary. In fact it's a helluva lot more scary than the kind of terrorism we've been obsessing over since 9/11. So here's a thought;



Instead of wasting more time, treasure and US lives chasing semi-primitive tribesmen around the scorched mountains of Pakistan and Afghanistan, why not use some of that money and considerable military power to take Pakistan's nukes away from them? Because, as long as there's a nuclear-armed Pakistan, there will be a very real threat that terrorists will, someday, get their hands on nuclear weapons. And then there will, literally, be hell to pay.



The kind of terrorism we saw on 9/11, as bad as it was, is nothing compared to nuclear terrorism. And, should it happen, it will because we did not denuclearize the already failed state of Pakistan. Once that's done we can go back to playing whack-a-mole with the guys in robes and sandals.


So, my "crazy-ass" solution is to set in motion a full-scale convert operation to denuclearize Pakistan swiftly. If we can't accomplish a mission like that in country like Pakistan then, seriously folks, why are we f.und.ing all this high-tech military gear in the first place?



Oh sure, we'd get hell from the usual suspects; Russia and China in particular. But a denuclearized Pakistan should be a relief for China, which has its hands full already managing their nutty nuclear-armed neighbor, North Korea. A successful nuclear cleansing in Pakistan would serve as a wakeup call for North Korea that when world powers say, "no new nukes," they not only mean it, but can enforce as well.



If we really want to see a world without nuclear weapons someday, we must first be ready, able and willing to prevent any new members in this uber-deadly club. The perfect place to start is Pakistan, a nation that already proliferated nuclear technologies to Iran and North Korea and then released the guy who did it, A.Q. Khan.



So, for now, let's put anti-terrorism on the back burner for a bit and instead go get those Pakistan nukes. Oh, and while we're at it, "deal" with A.Q. Khan as well.













.
__________________
.
When an honest man/woman who is mistaken learns the truth, at that exact moment, he/she ceases to be mistaken or he/she ceases to be honest.

When we are unable to find tranquility within ourselves, it is useless to
seek it elsewhere.
---= Francois de La Rochefoucauld



Last edited by sojustask : 07-08-2011 at 06:13 PM.
Reply With Quote

  #2  
Old 07-08-2011, 10:12 PM
Kelderek's Avatar
Kelderek Kelderek is online now
Diamond Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 2,156
Re: Counter Terrorism or Counter Nukes?

Interesting thoughts, but how do you actually denuclearize a country? Military intervention? I don't think that would go very well with the international community. I know there's a lot of people in this forum that doesn't give a damn about what the international community thinks, but in political reality (the reality that goes on outside this forum) it matters quite a lot. As an example, the credit rating of the US would go down the drain if you started to attack nations just because you think it's a "good idea", effectvely cutting off the funding for such adventures.

Also, I'm not in full agreement with the author's opinion that Pakistan just faces two options: Support you or give nukes to al-Qaeda.

Pakistan is one of the countries that has suffered most from al-Qaeda and other Islamic radical terrorism. Why should they suddenly hand over their nukes to terrorists? The fact that they have not done so already is not because they are co-operating with the US on anti-terrorism, it's because it would not make sense to do so.

I don't think Pakistan as such is the problems, it's radical fractions within Pakistan. Those fractions are fighting Pakistan itself as much as they are fighting us in the Western world. Dealing with those fractions is a matter for Pakistan. Isolating and alienating Pakistan, or getting in direct conflict with the country, will not help. It will only make the radical fractions stronger.



Reply With Quote

  #3  
Old 07-09-2011, 12:10 AM
thistle thistle is offline
Most Valued Gold Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 6,600
Re: Counter Terrorism or Counter Nukes?

US (or any country) being the final decisionmaker in terms of what another country can do? No thanks.

Reply With Quote

  #4  
Old 07-09-2011, 04:18 AM
Mike!'s Avatar
Mike! Mike! is offline
Swingdickery!
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: You can't get there from here.
Posts: 919
Re: Counter Terrorism or Counter Nukes?

Yeah, that'd end well.


Stop the spin!
__________________
Who's running this popcorn stand anyway?

Reply With Quote

  #5  
Old 07-09-2011, 06:20 PM
sojustask's Avatar
sojustask sojustask is offline
Lady Moderator- Just call me Your Majesty
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: East Texas
Posts: 13,894
Re: Counter Terrorism or Counter Nukes?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kelderek View Post
Interesting thoughts, but how do you actually denuclearize a country? Military intervention? I don't think that would go very well with the international community.
.

I don't think their opinions mattered when we removed "weapons of mass destruction" out of Iraq during the Bush administration.

I reckon if someone on high decided to use military intervention to remove nuclear weapons from Pakistan that we wouldn't give 2 figs for International opinion then either.

Lady Mod

.
__________________
.
When an honest man/woman who is mistaken learns the truth, at that exact moment, he/she ceases to be mistaken or he/she ceases to be honest.

When we are unable to find tranquility within ourselves, it is useless to
seek it elsewhere.
---= Francois de La Rochefoucauld

Reply With Quote

  #6  
Old 07-09-2011, 09:13 PM
Kelderek's Avatar
Kelderek Kelderek is online now
Diamond Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 2,156
Re: Counter Terrorism or Counter Nukes?

Quote:
Originally Posted by sojustask View Post
I don't think their opinions mattered when we removed "weapons of mass destruction" out of Iraq during the Bush administration.
.
Iraq was with the consent of a large portion of the international community. It was not a US mission, it was the "Coalition of the (in some cases un-) willing".

I think we have learned something from Iraq. I doubt it will be possible to rally international support based on such vague foundations again. If that is good or bad is another question, but I believe it to be the truth. The case against Pakistan is even weaker than against Iraq.

Pakistans nukes are there because India has nukes. Are you really prepared to rock the balance between Pakistan and India? Using military force against a country that has issued no threat whatsoever towards you doesn't sit well with the international community. You can't afford to jeopardize your credit rating, it would be economical suicide. You debt cieling will not matter much when nobody will take the risk to lend you money on decent terms anymore.


Last edited by Kelderek : 07-09-2011 at 09:21 PM.
Reply With Quote

  #7  
Old 07-12-2011, 07:25 AM
brywilson2's Avatar
brywilson2 brywilson2 is offline
Hating everyone equally since 1966
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 1,586
Re: Counter Terrorism or Counter Nukes?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kelderek View Post
Interesting thoughts, but how do you actually denuclearize a country? Military intervention? I don't think that would go very well with the international community.
Agreed. That whole' Remove your nukes or we'll bomb you' mentality was the basis for the cold war, which led to Reagan, recession, and amazingly, Al Gore inventing Darpa (The internet)
Quote:
I know there's a lot of people in this forum that doesn't give a damn about what the international community thinks, but in political reality (the reality that goes on outside this forum) it matters quite a lot. As an example, the credit rating of the US would go down the drain if you started to attack nations just because you think it's a "good idea", effectvely cutting off the funding for such adventures.
Not caring what other nations think doesn't mean bombing them. I could g.a.f. what other nations think, but I don't advocvate bombing them. Just the opposite. If say, the U.K. gets pissed at us, big deal. Same with China, etc. They need the US more than the US needs them. If they choose to break ties with us, it's on them. [quote]
__________________

Reply With Quote

  #8  
Old 07-12-2011, 09:35 AM
Kelderek's Avatar
Kelderek Kelderek is online now
Diamond Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 2,156
Re: Counter Terrorism or Counter Nukes?

Quote:
Originally Posted by brywilson2 View Post
Not caring what other nations think doesn't mean bombing them. I could g.a.f. what other nations think, but I don't advocvate bombing them. Just the opposite. If say, the U.K. gets pissed at us, big deal. Same with China, etc. They need the US more than the US needs them. If they choose to break ties with us, it's on them.
True, but the question was what they think when you attack other nations just because you think it's a "nice idea". Or because you want to stop them from having nukes.

You can definately give a fuck about what other nations think, you're right about that.
But when your credit rating goes bust and you can't loan the money needed to continue that policy, then it's not just what others "think" anymore, then it's reality.

Your current economy depends on other nations willingness to buy your bonds. If they suddenly consider you an risk nation to lend to, that lending will be very expensive. The lenders will laugh their ass off, because they make more money from it, but your economy will go down the drain. Are you ready for that?

Borrowing money is always done at a price. That price is dependent on the risk the lender perceives. It's as easy as that. Pissing off your lenders is never a good idea.


Reply With Quote

Reply

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Latest New Age Gourmet Kitchen Tool:Geiger Counter dchristie Political Chat 1 04-06-2011 06:08 PM
More information to counter conspiracy danrush1966 Conspiracy Theories 35 12-19-2010 11:09 AM
No more over the counter drugs Tulip Political Chat 6 10-29-2010 07:18 PM
Over The Counter Bulletin Board why me? Corporate Scams 2 01-03-2007 02:30 AM
Dems Counter Bush Attack With Iraq Ads Connecticut Victim Political Chat 1 10-31-2006 06:12 AM

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On
Forum Jump




This site may contain advice, opinions and statements of various information providers. Scam.com does not represent or endorse the accuracy or reliability of any advice, opinion, statement or other information provided by any information provider, any User of this Site or any other person or entity. Reliance upon any such advice, opinion, statement, or other information shall also be at the Userís own risk. Neither Scam.com nor its affiliates, nor any of their respective agents, employees, information providers or content providers, shall be liable to any User or anyone else for any inaccuracy, error, omission, interruption, deletion, defect, alteration of or use of any content herein, or for its timeliness or completeness, nor shall they be liable for any failure of performance, computer virus or communication line failure, regardless of cause, or for any damages resulting therefrom. Just because a business, person, or entity is listed on scam.com does not necessarily constitute they are scammers. This is a free open forum where people can debate the merits from the consumer's or business owner's perspective. Registration and participation is always FREE.


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 02:19 AM.




Scam.com Is Proudly Hosted By Rackco and Protected By CloudFlare


Scams Message Board - Copyright 2004-2013 Scam.com , All Rights Reserved.