 |
| |
|
|
OneFootInTheGrave
|
 |
Kuzelj
Nov 2000
time: 05:24
|
|
Now aint this fun...
and IIRC China was responsible for arming Pakistan. When are we going after them 
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/articl...-519368,00.html
quote:
Pakistani scientist 'offered Saddam nuclear designs'
From James Bone in New York
A PAKISTANI scientist approached Iraq soon after the 1990 invasion of Kuwait to offer nuclear weapon designs and help in procuring bomb components, according to a document found by United Nations weapons inspectors.
The revelation, which provoked an inconclusive inquiry by inspectors, has raised new concerns about Pakistan’s role in the proliferation of nuclear technology. It follows allegations that Pakistan helped North Korea to develop a nuclear bomb and that Pakistani nuclear scientists met Osama bin Laden and the Taleban leader, Mullah Muhammad Omar, in Afghanistan.
The offer by the Pakistani scientist, found in Iraqi archives, was made in October 1990 as a US-led coalition prepared to repel the August invasion of Kuwait. Iraq had already embarked on a crash programme to develop a nuclear bomb, but told the UN it had not pursued the scientist’s offer — a claim UN investigators are inclined to believe. The document revealing the contact between the scientist and Iraq is referred to twice in the Iraqi declaration of its nuclear capability, which The Times has obtained.
The file first came to the attention of UN weapons inspectors after the 1995 defection of President Saddam Hussein’s son-in-law, General Hussein Kamel, who was in charge of Iraq’s secret weapons programmes. After he defected to Jordan, Iraqi officials led UN inspectors to a cache of 1.5 million pages of documents hidden in packing crates at General Kamel’s chicken farm in Iraq, the Haider House Farm, in an apparent effort to get rid of incriminating evidence that they assumed he would provide to Western intelligence.
Among them was a file of correspondence between Iraq’s Mukhabarat secret service and Department 3000 of the Iraqi Atomic Energy Commission (IAEC), a secret Iraqi nuclear programme that was codenamed Petro-Chemical 3.
“Included was a few pages relating to an approach made by a foreign national who offered assistance, for financial reward, in nuclear weapon design and in the procurement of material that may be required,” Iraq’s declaration says. “The Iraqi team pointed out to the International Atomic Energy Agency Action Team (IAEA AT) that no external assistance was received by the former Iraqi nuclear programme, other than that already declared to the (team) and is documented.”
A source familiar with the case said that the document identified the scientist as a Pakistani. The handwritten paper seems to be a record of a meeting between him and an Iraqi contact. “He made the unsolicited offer to a contact of the Mukhabarat procurement network and there was a communication between the Mukhabarat and Department 3000, where IAEC procurement was handled,” the source said.
The document triggered an investigation by UN nuclear inspectors, who approached Pakistan. Islamabad told them it could not identify the scientist, but some UN Security Council diplomats suspect that Pakistan does know who it is. Inspectors thought that the matter was important enough to brief the five permanent members of the Security Council — Britain, China, France, Russia and the United States — on their 1997 inquiry. Evidence of contact between a Pakistani scientist and Iraq will only fuel fears that Pakistan is willing to share its technology with so-called “rogue nations”. The US suspects Pakistan of having supplied North Korea with gas centrifuge technology to make weapons-grade uranium for its nuclear bomb in 1997/98.
|
Even though Paki might be bored... 
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Eli
|
|
Israel
Jul 2000
time: 07:24
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Pekka
Ok, so after we get Iraq, N. Korea, Iran, Saudi Arabia, we go after... Pakistan. |
You forgot Syria, Lybia and Sudan.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Edan
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Pekka
edit: Who proved that is ready and able to use nukes for real. |
How exactly did Mussaref prove that he would use it (any differently than any other nuclear power, anyway, who would all be willing to use nukes for real if the situation warrented it)?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Ramo
|
 |
Austin, Texas, USA
Oct 1999
time: 23:24
|
|
quote:
1) There is no proof Pakistan's government was behind this. |
Musharraf's gov't has denied that the transaction ever took place. Which indicates either he's right or he's hiding something... And frankly, I trust the UN weapons inspectors much more than Musharraf.
quote:
2) The Musharaff Regime was not in power when this happened.
3) This was before we solidified our post 9/11 alliance with Pakistan |
How long do you think Musharraf'll be singing the same tune? He used to be a patron of Islamic militants. And how long do you think Pakistanis will stay relatively secular while this alliance is maintained?
quote:
4) Pakistan has been an invaluable ally to us in the war on terrorism, helping us to arrest many Al Qaeda suspects and providing a base for us to attack the Taliban. It is unlikely we will ever get a regime more friednly to us in Pakistan then the Musharaff one. |
I'm sure the fact that some thugs get to rule Afghanistan, instead of other thugs being able to rule Afghanistan is a lot of comfort to workers who are crushed by the state when they try to organize, to people who are locked up and tortured because they oppose the gov't's militarism on Kashmir, to Hindus, Sikhs, and Shiite's who are marginalized, to people who are imprisoned because Musharraf destroyed the independence of the judiciary, etc.
And he doesn't have that much leverage over al-Qaeda members hiding in Pakistan any more, given that fundies now control the NWFP, largely due to Musharraf's actions (secular parties are associated with regional autonomy, and Musharraf doesn't like regional autonomy).
quote:
This Pakistan bashing is bullshit. While leftists like to take any excuse they can to bash US foreign policy, the fact is the Musharaff regime has been one of our most valubale allies in the war on terrorism. |
This cozying up to Musharraf is bullshit. While convervatives like to blindly follow questionable policy objectives without regard to human rights, the fact is that the Musharraf regime is extremely repressive, regardless of whether the West considers him a military thug, or a liberal reformist. Thus, instead of Western pressure preventing Musharraf from defying the legal constraints on his tyranny, we have the lack of Western pressure enabling him to do whatever the hell he wants.
**** him. I don't care if you think he's "valuable"; the welfare of the Pakistani people is more important than finishing off a half-dead terrorist organization.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Ramo
|
|
Austin, Texas, USA
Oct 1999
time: 23:24
|
|
quote:
So, Ramo, what you propose we should do? Shoot Musharraf in the back? Attack our own ally? |
Yes. Pressure him into giving up power. He's an ally we should do without.
quote:
Assured that an anti U.S. opposition is elected? |
Anti-US? In which ways?
Currently, the main Islamist party (the others are insignificant) is only the third-largest in the country.
By far, most of the elected government is secular.
Assuming Pakistan makes a transition to a democracy, the secular parties certainly would no longer be repressed. So that means a large increase in secular power, and a large decrease in Islamist power from the status quo.
Furthermore, a lot of fundamentalist support stems directly from US' use of Pakistani bases. End the arrangement, and you undermine much of the their power.
|
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:24.
Apolyton Time is 00:24. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
20-12-2002 20:22
|