Indian Congress seeks to declare Pakistan a terror state...

[MovingTarget]

Text

Looks like the new government in Pakistan has released AQ Khan from his house arrest. Considering what he has been convicted of doing, this is obviously a bad move internationally for Pakistan despite its domestic popularity.

It is time for the international community to think whether to declare Pakistan a terrorist country," Manish Tewari, the Congress party spokesman said in New Delhi, in reference to the end from house arrest of Pakistani nuclear scientist Abdul Qadeer Khan.

Khan, the man at the center of the world' most serious nuclear proliferation scandal, was released Friday after five years of house arrest.

Revered by many Pakistanis as the father of the country's atomic bomb, he confessed to selling nuclear secrets to Iran, North Korea and Libya in 2004. He was immediately pardoned by the government, although his movements were restricted.

The last thing we need are India and Pakistan squabblilng at each other again. I personally think that Pakistan was in the wrong here. If Einstien/Oppenhiemer/etc had proliferated nuclear technology to other unstable and/or hostile countries, they would be tried (and possibly convicted) as traitors, despite their popularity and contribution to our own nuclear program.

I honestly don't know where our future relations with Pakistan will go considering things like this. On one hand, they are an invaluable ally for operations in Afghanistan and having them also on our side enables us to be a mediator to keep things cool between them and India. They also don't have the strength to control some of their tribal/boarder areas, so we can't put all the blame on them for what goes on there. Exporter of terror? Seems to be a grey area. On the other hand, it is crap like this why we must be skeptical.

 

[OCGuy]

Have there been any published studies of the effects of a full scale nuclear exchange between them? That would be an interesting read...

 

[RichardE]

Originally posted by: Ocguy31
Have there been any published studies of the effects of a full scale nuclear exchange between them? That would be an interesting read...

I have this one in bookmarks from a while ago, not really anything political related, more casualties.

http://www.nrdc.org/nuclear/southasia.asp


Though this point was interesting

NRDC disagrees. There are major differences between the Cold War and the current South Asian crisis. Unlike the U.S.-Soviet experience, these two countries have a deep-seated hatred of one another and have fought three wars since both countries became independent. At least part of the current crisis may be seen as Hindu nationalism versus Muslim fundamentalism.

A second difference is India and Pakistan's nuclear arsenals are much smaller than those of the United States and Russia. The U.S. and Russian arsenals truly represent the capability to destroy each other's society beyond recovery. While the two South Asia scenarios we have described produce unimaginable loss of life and destruction, they do not reach the level of "mutual assured destruction" that stood as the ultimate deterrent during the Cold War

 

[OCGuy]

Originally posted by: RichardE

Originally posted by: Ocguy31
Have there been any published studies of the effects of a full scale nuclear exchange between them? That would be an interesting read...

I have this one in bookmarks from a while ago, not really anything political related, more casualties.

Thank you.

 

[DealMonkey]

Someone really needs to off that little f**ker, AQ Khan ... in the worst GD way.

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: DealMonkey
Someone really needs to off that little f**ker, AQ Khan ... in the worst GD way.

What if he had obtained nuclear weapons for YOUR country, in a cold war where your enemy had nuclear weapons with which to threaten you? You would call him a hero, right?

Pakistan isn't the first nation to place its own interests in having the power of nukes ahead of the global interest in preventing nuclear war.

There's nothing surprising here - India playing politics with the 'terror' label (who set the precedent for that game?), with the world justifibaly concerned with the nuclear proliferation in the India-Pakistan conflict, while Pakistan is greatful for obtaining nuclear weapons with which to balance India's.

The issue it seems to me is less about assigning blame and wanting to go assassinate a Pakistan patriot for serving his nation's interests - however dangerously for the world - than in dealing with the threat of the nuclear conflict and looking for ways to prevent a nuclear exchange, with whatever combination of reducing tensions, disarming nukes, etc.

Before we see more of the cowboy mentality on this to just call them an enemy for getting nukes, how willing are people to give up our nuclear weapons?

We're part of the problem. One choice is to not have nukes in the world. People who can get them refuse that choice for their own nation. A second choice is to help non-proliferation by guaranteeing the security of non-nuclear states so they don't feel the pressure to get nukes. Nations in a position to violate others refuse that choice and continue to pose a threat to non-nuclear nations, leaving the demand high.

So that leads to the road of ongoing encroachments, ongoing proliferation, until eventually a nuclear exchange is increasingly likely.

 

[MovingTarget]

Originally posted by: Craig234

Originally posted by: DealMonkey
Someone really needs to off that little f**ker, AQ Khan ... in the worst GD way.

What if he had obtained nuclear weapons for YOUR country, in a cold war where your enemy had nuclear weapons with which to threaten you? You would call him a hero, right?

Pakistan isn't the first nation to place its own interests in having the power of nukes ahead of the global interest in preventing nuclear war.

There's nothing surprising here - India playing politics with the 'terror' label (who set the precedent for that game?), with the world justifibaly concerned with the nuclear proliferation in the India-Pakistan conflict, while Pakistan is greatful for obtaining nuclear weapons with which to balance India's.

The issue it seems to me is less about assigning blame and wanting to go assassinate a Pakistan patriot for serving his nation's interests - however dangerously for the world - than in dealing with the threat of the nuclear conflict and looking for ways to prevent a nuclear exchange, with whatever combination of reducing tensions, disarming nukes, etc.

Before we see more of the cowboy mentality on this to just call them an enemy for getting nukes, how willing are people to give up our nuclear weapons?

We're part of the problem. One choice is to not have nukes in the world. People who can get them refuse that choice for their own nation. A second choice is to help non-proliferation by guaranteeing the security of non-nuclear states so they don't feel the pressure to get nukes. Nations in a position to violate others refuse that choice and continue to pose a threat to non-nuclear nations, leaving the demand high.

So that leads to the road of ongoing encroachments, ongoing proliferation, until eventually a nuclear exchange is increasingly likely.

I don't think anyone is faulting AQ Khan for being the father of the Pakistan nuclear program. It really is understandable that he would be thought of highly by Pakistan's population because of what happened. What people are pissed about are the transfer of nuclear secrets to OTHER countries....not his own

 

[sandorski]

Nuclear genious running around a country filled with AQ and he's famous for giving away Nuclear Secrets. Move along folks, nothing to see here.....

 

[RichardE]

Originally posted by: MovingTarget

Originally posted by: Craig234

Originally posted by: DealMonkey
Someone really needs to off that little f**ker, AQ Khan ... in the worst GD way.

What if he had obtained nuclear weapons for YOUR country, in a cold war where your enemy had nuclear weapons with which to threaten you? You would call him a hero, right?

Pakistan isn't the first nation to place its own interests in having the power of nukes ahead of the global interest in preventing nuclear war.

There's nothing surprising here - India playing politics with the 'terror' label (who set the precedent for that game?), with the world justifibaly concerned with the nuclear proliferation in the India-Pakistan conflict, while Pakistan is greatful for obtaining nuclear weapons with which to balance India's.

The issue it seems to me is less about assigning blame and wanting to go assassinate a Pakistan patriot for serving his nation's interests - however dangerously for the world - than in dealing with the threat of the nuclear conflict and looking for ways to prevent a nuclear exchange, with whatever combination of reducing tensions, disarming nukes, etc.

Before we see more of the cowboy mentality on this to just call them an enemy for getting nukes, how willing are people to give up our nuclear weapons?

We're part of the problem. One choice is to not have nukes in the world. People who can get them refuse that choice for their own nation. A second choice is to help non-proliferation by guaranteeing the security of non-nuclear states so they don't feel the pressure to get nukes. Nations in a position to violate others refuse that choice and continue to pose a threat to non-nuclear nations, leaving the demand high.

So that leads to the road of ongoing encroachments, ongoing proliferation, until eventually a nuclear exchange is increasingly likely.

I don't think anyone is faulting AQ Khan for being the father of the Pakistan nuclear program. It really is understandable that he would be thought of highly by Pakistan's population because of what happened. What people are pissed about are the transfer of nuclear secrets to OTHER countries....not his own

Bingo

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: MovingTarget

Originally posted by: Craig234

Originally posted by: DealMonkey
Someone really needs to off that little f**ker, AQ Khan ... in the worst GD way.

What if he had obtained nuclear weapons for YOUR country, in a cold war where your enemy had nuclear weapons with which to threaten you? You would call him a hero, right?

Pakistan isn't the first nation to place its own interests in having the power of nukes ahead of the global interest in preventing nuclear war.

There's nothing surprising here - India playing politics with the 'terror' label (who set the precedent for that game?), with the world justifibaly concerned with the nuclear proliferation in the India-Pakistan conflict, while Pakistan is greatful for obtaining nuclear weapons with which to balance India's.

The issue it seems to me is less about assigning blame and wanting to go assassinate a Pakistan patriot for serving his nation's interests - however dangerously for the world - than in dealing with the threat of the nuclear conflict and looking for ways to prevent a nuclear exchange, with whatever combination of reducing tensions, disarming nukes, etc.

Before we see more of the cowboy mentality on this to just call them an enemy for getting nukes, how willing are people to give up our nuclear weapons?

We're part of the problem. One choice is to not have nukes in the world. People who can get them refuse that choice for their own nation. A second choice is to help non-proliferation by guaranteeing the security of non-nuclear states so they don't feel the pressure to get nukes. Nations in a position to violate others refuse that choice and continue to pose a threat to non-nuclear nations, leaving the demand high.

So that leads to the road of ongoing encroachments, ongoing proliferation, until eventually a nuclear exchange is increasingly likely.

I don't think anyone is faulting AQ Khan for being the father of the Pakistan nuclear program. It really is understandable that he would be thought of highly by Pakistan's population because of what happened. What people are pissed about are the transfer of nuclear secrets to OTHER countries....not his own

Thanks for clarifying. However, even there, the issue isn't *all* that different.

What's really the difference between getting nukes for your own dangerous government that is dangerous proliferation, and getting them for another gdangerous government that's dangerous proliferation? Even when it comes to motive, is it really *that* different to get them for your own government because you are biased for them, and put them ahead of the global interest against nuclear war, and getting them for another government, whether for similar political views and/or money, with the same effect?

Either is somewhat different than the issue of when a citizen of a country helps 'an enemy' obtain such weapons - which is treason.

It might be well-intended treason - such as a belief that both sides having them will creat more stability with MAD where one side might increase the odds of their use - but it's still under the definition of 'treason'. That wasn''t the case with Khan, he did not commit treason against his own nation by helping their enemy Inida; he violated the global desire against proliferation, but that's the same thing with Pakistan and North Korea.

Are we ready to take the same hard line with anyone who helped Israel obtain nukes as with Khan?

Your clarification is useful, but I don't think it really changes the large issues I discussed about the choices we face on global proliferation issues.

 

[tvarad]

Originally posted by: MovingTarget

....

I don't think anyone is faulting AQ Khan for being the father of the Pakistan nuclear program. It really is understandable that he would be thought of highly by Pakistan's population because of what happened. What people are pissed about are the transfer of nuclear secrets to OTHER countries....not his own

I would be in agreement with you here were it not for the fact that Pakistan has been at war since inception, either with itself with the various coups that happen regularly or with it's neighbors India and Afghanistan. It's right up there with North Korea as an anachronistic entity that exists to serve just one institution: the army.

And only the idiots running the State Department would buy the Pakistani army's contention that A.Q.Khan acted alone in his nuclear proliferation activities. Even a bee can't take a s**t in that wretched country without the army's knowledge.

If there is any fault here, it lies with the West for

a) allowing this criminal unfettered access to nuclear technologies in Holland and elsewhere which he pilfered to set up Pakistan's nuke programs.

b) looking the other way when there was clear evidence of Pakistan's feverish race to obtain nukes in the '80s and early '90s. Especially egregious was Reagan and Bush Sr. giving a clean chit to Pakistan in Congress that it was not pursuing nuclear weapons so that they could ply it with all sorts of weaponry that could be used only against India rather than against the Soviets in Afghanistan.

And the more things change, the more they remain the same. Pakistanis have loaded up on "war on terror" money to buy up weaponry to again field against India. That is why they're so ill-equipped to take on the Taliban, an entity that they created and which they have never regarded as an enemy.

Until the U.S. realizes that it is being treated as a chump by the Pakistani establishment and makes the hard decision of treating Pakistan as the real foe in this war on terror rather than as an ally, it's going to be tied up in fighting it perpetually. Simply because it suits Pakistan's purpose rather than the U.S's.

 

[DesiPower]

...The last thing we need are India and Pakistan squabblilng at each other again. I personally think that Pakistan was in the wrong here...

Agree with your views and post, but the sentence quoted above makes you look like a fvcing moron... get your facts straight before writing about India, do you have any idea who many terrorist attacks India have had the last year??? all of them were backed by fvckistan

 

[Farang]

Originally posted by: Ocguy31
Have there been any published studies of the effects of a full scale nuclear exchange between them? That would be an interesting read...

Yes, there was quite an in depth study done on the environmental devastation that would be caused worldwide due to a conflict. Search for the keywords and you should be able to find it.

 

[firewall]

Originally posted by: Craig234

Originally posted by: DealMonkey
Someone really needs to off that little f**ker, AQ Khan ... in the worst GD way.

What if he had obtained nuclear weapons for YOUR country, in a cold war where your enemy had nuclear weapons with which to threaten you? You would call him a hero, right?

Pakistan isn't the first nation to place its own interests in having the power of nukes ahead of the global interest in preventing nuclear war.

There's nothing surprising here - India playing politics with the 'terror' label (who set the precedent for that game?), with the world justifibaly concerned with the nuclear proliferation in the India-Pakistan conflict, while Pakistan is greatful for obtaining nuclear weapons with which to balance India's.

The issue it seems to me is less about assigning blame and wanting to go assassinate a Pakistan patriot for serving his nation's interests - however dangerously for the world - than in dealing with the threat of the nuclear conflict and looking for ways to prevent a nuclear exchange, with whatever combination of reducing tensions, disarming nukes, etc.

Before we see more of the cowboy mentality on this to just call them an enemy for getting nukes, how willing are people to give up our nuclear weapons?

We're part of the problem. One choice is to not have nukes in the world. People who can get them refuse that choice for their own nation. A second choice is to help non-proliferation by guaranteeing the security of non-nuclear states so they don't feel the pressure to get nukes. Nations in a position to violate others refuse that choice and continue to pose a threat to non-nuclear nations, leaving the demand high.

So that leads to the road of ongoing encroachments, ongoing proliferation, until eventually a nuclear exchange is increasingly likely.

Very rational points. Nice post.

I don't see this act by Indian Congress to be anything other than being politically motivated. Elections are coming up and they need to use the anti-Pakistan sentiments to get public support. The Indian economy isn't really that good with all that happened with Satyam and other companies.

For the foreseeable future, at least until the elections, expect elevated levels of rhetoric from India to gain political support.

 

[The Green Bean]

If you declare us a terrorist state we will have more reason for giving our nuclear secrets to Iran Saudi Arabia and eventually every muslim nation on earth. We shouldn't have to be ashamed of giving nuclear information to Iran. America should be ashamed of playing dirty politics against Iran. Iran has every right to to nuclear weapons with constant threats from Israel and America. If you declare us a terrorist state; obviously you will have one more enemy in the region.

Also; there is real proof against AQ. Khan. He says he was forced to confess to "save the nation." Iran denies receiving any help from us.

There is no possibility of us being declared a nuclear state in the foreseeable future. The world needs us more than we need them.

 

[tvarad]

Originally posted by: firewall

Originally posted by: Craig234

Originally posted by: DealMonkey
Someone really needs to off that little f**ker, AQ Khan ... in the worst GD way.

What if he had obtained nuclear weapons for YOUR country, in a cold war where your enemy had nuclear weapons with which to threaten you? You would call him a hero, right?

Pakistan isn't the first nation to place its own interests in having the power of nukes ahead of the global interest in preventing nuclear war.

There's nothing surprising here - India playing politics with the 'terror' label (who set the precedent for that game?), with the world justifibaly concerned with the nuclear proliferation in the India-Pakistan conflict, while Pakistan is greatful for obtaining nuclear weapons with which to balance India's.

The issue it seems to me is less about assigning blame and wanting to go assassinate a Pakistan patriot for serving his nation's interests - however dangerously for the world - than in dealing with the threat of the nuclear conflict and looking for ways to prevent a nuclear exchange, with whatever combination of reducing tensions, disarming nukes, etc.

Before we see more of the cowboy mentality on this to just call them an enemy for getting nukes, how willing are people to give up our nuclear weapons?

We're part of the problem. One choice is to not have nukes in the world. People who can get them refuse that choice for their own nation. A second choice is to help non-proliferation by guaranteeing the security of non-nuclear states so they don't feel the pressure to get nukes. Nations in a position to violate others refuse that choice and continue to pose a threat to non-nuclear nations, leaving the demand high.

So that leads to the road of ongoing encroachments, ongoing proliferation, until eventually a nuclear exchange is increasingly likely.

Very rational points. Nice post.

I don't see this act by Indian Congress to be anything other than being politically motivated. Elections are coming up and they need to use the anti-Pakistan sentiments to get public support. The Indian economy isn't really that good with all that happened with Satyam and other companies.

For the foreseeable future, at least until the elections, expect elevated levels of rhetoric from India to gain political support.

I think the day of reckoning for countries like Pakistan, North Korea and Iran which have no cohesive basis for nationhood other than ideology is fast approaching. Pretty soon, we can start taking bets on which will be turned to glass first.

 

[sciwizam]

Originally posted by: The Green Bean
If you declare us a terrorist state we will have more reason for giving our nuclear secrets to Iran Saudi Arabia and eventually every muslim nation on earth. We shouldn't have to be ashamed of giving nuclear information to Iran. America should be ashamed of playing dirty politics against Iran. Iran has every right to to nuclear weapons with constant threats from Israel and America. If you declare us a terrorist state; obviously you will have one more enemy in the region.

Also; there is real proof against AQ. Khan. He says he was forced to confess to "save the nation." Iran denies receiving any help from us.

There is no possibility of us being declared a nuclear state in the foreseeable future. The world needs us more than we need them.

Sure about that?

 

[StageLeft]

Pakistan continues to be an unapologetic sh*thole, from its security to economy, politics, etc.

It's strange that green bean thinks the world needs Pakistan. If it disappeared tomorrow several countries would rejoice, such as india and those trying to secure afghanistan. Pakistan remains a loose canon. It has not been a positive world influence in recent memory.

 

[MovingTarget]

Originally posted by: DesiPower

...The last thing we need are India and Pakistan squabblilng at each other again. I personally think that Pakistan was in the wrong here...

Agree with your views and post, but the sentence quoted above makes you look like a fvcing moron... get your facts straight before writing about India, do you have any idea who many terrorist attacks India have had the last year??? all of them were backed by fvckistan

WTF? I'm a fvcking moron because I see yet another possible war between a nuclear armed India and Pakistan as a bad thing? Either your reading comprehension sucks or you are the moron. I didn't state any "facts" about India other than that hey have been in an off and on war with Pakistan for quite some time...

 

[MovingTarget]

Originally posted by: tvarad

Originally posted by: MovingTarget

....

I don't think anyone is faulting AQ Khan for being the father of the Pakistan nuclear program. It really is understandable that he would be thought of highly by Pakistan's population because of what happened. What people are pissed about are the transfer of nuclear secrets to OTHER countries....not his own

I would be in agreement with you here were it not for the fact that Pakistan has been at war since inception, either with itself with the various coups that happen regularly or with it's neighbors India and Afghanistan. It's right up there with North Korea as an anachronistic entity that exists to serve just one institution: the army.

And only the idiots running the State Department would buy the Pakistani army's contention that A.Q.Khan acted alone in his nuclear proliferation activities. Even a bee can't take a s**t in that wretched country without the army's knowledge.

If there is any fault here, it lies with the West for

a) allowing this criminal unfettered access to nuclear technologies in Holland and elsewhere which he pilfered to set up Pakistan's nuke programs.

b) looking the other way when there was clear evidence of Pakistan's feverish race to obtain nukes in the '80s and early '90s. Especially egregious was Reagan and Bush Sr. giving a clean chit to Pakistan in Congress that it was not pursuing nuclear weapons so that they could ply it with all sorts of weaponry that could be used only against India rather than against the Soviets in Afghanistan.

And the more things change, the more they remain the same. Pakistanis have loaded up on "war on terror" money to buy up weaponry to again field against India. That is why they're so ill-equipped to take on the Taliban, an entity that they created and which they have never regarded as an enemy.

Until the U.S. realizes that it is being treated as a chump by the Pakistani establishment and makes the hard decision of treating Pakistan as the real foe in this war on terror rather than as an ally, it's going to be tied up in fighting it perpetually. Simply because it suits Pakistan's purpose rather than the U.S's.

All good points. We really have turned a blind eye to Pakistan in the past, where we should've been more watchful. We ARE treated like a chump when it comes to the military "donations" to fight the Taliban and extremist groups. If Pakistan wasn't so paranoid about India, they'd be able to take on the tribal regions. Their army leaves those regions alone as they must see their militarism as a boon to their defense or something.

The fact that the Army remains supreme even in politics shows that it really isn't a mature state. The only thing I can be sure of here is that the status quo cannot remain. Either Pakistan will collapse, the civilian government will prevail, or something REALLY bad will happen, either with the tribal regions or with another war with India.

 

[ZzZGuy]

Originally posted by: tvarad

I think the day of reckoning for countries like Pakistan, North Korea and Iran which have no cohesive basis for nationhood other than ideology is fast approaching. Pretty soon, we can start taking bets on which will be turned to glass first.

Pakistan is headed to being overrun by the taliban unless they change. Their nuclear stockpiles will likely be sized, any that can not will be bombed and if required nuked. The country would then turn into what Afghanistan was pre-invasion.

North Korea has threatened to abandon the cease fire with South Korea and respond with military force if pushed too hard by SK. If a war does actually break out Soul is gone unless there is preemptive strike to take out the artillery targeting it, but after that NK will be over run (no air force, no navy, no artillery, no tanks. Got to love air power). If they don't start a war, it'll be a matter of time before the country collapses (which imho is likely after Kim Jong-il died with a power struggle to size control) or they will do something to really piss off China and they invade invade. NK's nuclear weapons are a farce, only a hand full of weak nukes. What is much more scary is dirty bombs, and you don't need a nuclear weapon to make one, just strap radioactive material to a big bomb and have it air burst over a populated area.

Iran, if they develop nukes and attacked another nation with them they will be glassed if they have more. If they don't they'll be invaded, attacking forces pulling out after everything nuclear has been removed and their entire leadership captured or killed. It will not be occupied like Iraq as no one has the stomach for that anymore. If they don't develop nukes or use them if they get them, they'll progress to become a somewhat sane nation once the current leadership dies off (mainly religious), as well as being penalized for support of terrorists around Israel.

 

[Dari]

Originally posted by: RichardE

Originally posted by: Ocguy31
Have there been any published studies of the effects of a full scale nuclear exchange between them? That would be an interesting read...

I have this one in bookmarks from a while ago, not really anything political related, more casualties.

http://www.nrdc.org/nuclear/southasia.asp


Though this point was interesting

NRDC disagrees. There are major differences between the Cold War and the current South Asian crisis. Unlike the U.S.-Soviet experience, these two countries have a deep-seated hatred of one another and have fought three wars since both countries became independent. At least part of the current crisis may be seen as Hindu nationalism versus Muslim fundamentalism.

A second difference is India and Pakistan's nuclear arsenals are much smaller than those of the United States and Russia. The U.S. and Russian arsenals truly represent the capability to destroy each other's society beyond recovery. While the two South Asia scenarios we have described produce unimaginable loss of life and destruction, they do not reach the level of "mutual assured destruction" that stood as the ultimate deterrent during the Cold War

Thanks for the link. It's always easy to blame Pakistan for the problems between India and Pakistan, but it looks like the Indians share some of the blame as well.

 

[MovingTarget]

Originally posted by: The Green Bean
If you declare us a terrorist state we will have more reason for giving our nuclear secrets to Iran Saudi Arabia and eventually every muslim nation on earth. We shouldn't have to be ashamed of giving nuclear information to Iran. America should be ashamed of playing dirty politics against Iran. Iran has every right to to nuclear weapons with constant threats from Israel and America. If you declare us a terrorist state; obviously you will have one more enemy in the region.

Also; there is real proof against AQ. Khan. He says he was forced to confess to "save the nation." Iran denies receiving any help from us.

There is no possibility of us being declared a nuclear state in the foreseeable future. The world needs us more than we need them.

More reason? We've pretty much turned a blind eye militarily to the development of nuclear weapons in Pakistan (and India). Why would Pakistan want to proliferate that technology? Pan-Muslim nationalism? Sounds pretty dangerous. Any country that is to be trusted to have atomic weapons should go through the process of developing them domestically. Even then, that is no guarantee that they will be responsible.

America doesn't really have anything to gain by declaring Pakistan a terror state. We know that a large portion of the population is pretty modern, despite overall political control by the Army. It is the lack of control or lack of willingness to control extremism in the tribal areas that worries us. Other than that, Pakistan can be a friend and ally in the region.

On another note, AQ Khan said that he did it "to save the nation". Sorry, but I don't buy that. I don't understand why he would have to confess in order to do so. Maybe I'm missing something here. If you can explain this, then please do so.

 

[theflyingpig]

Originally posted by: The Green Bean
The world needs us more than we need them.

No, the world doesn't need Pakistan at all. Pakistan could be annihilated tomorrow and it would make no difference. No one would care. The world would go on.

Edit: Everyone knows this.

 

[DealMonkey]

Originally posted by: MovingTarget
I don't think anyone is faulting AQ Khan for being the father of the Pakistan nuclear program. It really is understandable that he would be thought of highly by Pakistan's population because of what happened. What people are pissed about are the transfer of nuclear secrets to OTHER countries....not his own

That's precisely my sentiment, thanks for clarifying that for me.

Originally posted by: The Green Bean
The world needs us more than we need them.

How so? Name one positive thing Pakistan has done for the world.