View Full Version : How low can you go
[ QUOTE ]
Hastert's al Qaeda comment draws fire
Idea that terrorists want Kerry to win called 'silly,' 'disgraceful'
WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Top Democrats slapped back Sunday at a remark by House Speaker Dennis Hastert that al Qaeda leaders want Sen. John Kerry to beat President Bush in November.
At a campaign rally Saturday in his Illinois district with Vice President Dick Cheney, Hastert said al Qaeda "would like to influence this election" with an attack similar to the train bombings in Madrid days before the Spanish national election in March.
When a reporter asked Hastert if he thought al Qaeda would operate with more comfort if Kerry were elected, the speaker said, "That's my opinion, yes."
Democratic National Committee Chairman Terry McAuliffe called Hastert's comments "disgraceful," saying there was "no room for this in our political discourse."
"And I remind you that, you know, we could have done a lot better," McAuliffe said on CNN's "Late Edition."
"The president of the United States, on August 6th of 2001, was told in his briefing that America was going to be attacked by al Qaeda and they may use airplanes," McAuliffe said, referring to the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001.
"He didn't call the FAA. He didn't leave his monthlong vacation. He sat down there."
Better vote for George or the 'bogie man' will get you. WOOOOOOOOOOOOO!
09-20-2004, 08:47 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Qtec:</font><hr> Better vote for George or the 'bogie man' will get you. WOOOOOOOOOOOOO!
Q /ccboard/images/graemlins/grin.gif <hr /></blockquote>
From what I can tell, you think Dubya is the boogey man /ccboard/images/graemlins/smile.gif
09-20-2004, 05:53 PM
Why is a man answering a question honestly going low? It's a sad day when a man speaks his mind and it is considered a bad thing. It seems like no one (not even the candidates) believe freedom is a good thing.
"Democracy is defending freedom of speech of someone yelling at the top of their lungs that which you would spend a lifetime opposing at the top of yours."
09-21-2004, 05:37 AM
I like your sig. /ccboard/images/graemlins/grin.gif
09-21-2004, 07:08 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote mred477:</font><hr> Why is a man answering a question honestly going low? It's a sad day when a man speaks his mind and it is considered a bad thing.<hr /></blockquote>tap, tap.
09-21-2004, 07:13 AM
Hey CD, You've been pretty quiet lately. What do you think of the prospective deal of the US selling 18 F-16's to Pakistan?
09-21-2004, 08:59 AM
Yeah, I've been pretty busy lately. /ccboard/images/graemlins/crazy.gif
Don't know much about it....you got a link to some info?
What are your thoughts?
09-21-2004, 09:25 AM
All I could find on my quick lunchtime search was some stuff about a proposed Belgium sale of F-16s to Pakistan.
I think that it's important to note that the US has looked the other way while Pakistan developes WMD's, Some say this (in the late 80's and early 90's) was because Cheney was trying to push sales of fighter jets to Pak. through congress. Reagan liked Pak. for their help against Russia. W allowed Khan (and Musharaf)to get off with a slap on the wrist for selling nuclear technology to "rogue" nations, because we needed their help in the hunt for Al Qaeda.
So, my question is: How much do we allow an "ally" nation to get away with in regard to what were trying to stop other "rogue" nations and terrorists from doing (proliferating and obtaining WMDs)?
[ QUOTE ]
Like the terrorist attacks on 9-11, the Bush administration had mountains of evidence on Pakistan’s sales of nuclear technology and equipment to nations vilified by the U.S.—nations that are considered much more of a threat than Iraq—but turned a blind eye to the threat and allowed it to happen.
In 1989, the year Khan first started selling nuclear secrets on the black-market; Richard Barlow, a young intelligence analyst working for the Pentagon prepared a shocking report for Cheney, who was then working as Secretary of Defense under the first President Bush administration: Pakistan built an atomic bomb and was selling its nuclear equipment to countries the U.S. said was sponsoring terrorism.
.......... “A finding that Pakistan possessed a nuclear bomb would have triggered a congressionally mandated cutoff of aid to the country, a key ally in the CIA's efforts to support Afghan rebels fighting a pro-Soviet government. It also would have killed a $1.4-billion sale of F-16 fighter jets to Islamabad,” Mother Jones reported.
Ironically, Pakistan, critics say, was let off the hook last month so the U.S. could use its borders to hunt for al-Qaeda leader and 9-11 mastermind Osama bin Laden.
Cheney dismissed Barlow’s report because he desperately wanted to sell Pakistan the F-16 fighter planes. Several months later, a Pentagon official was told by Cheney to downplay Pakistan’s nuclear capabilities when he testified on the threat before Congress. Barlow complained to his bosses at the Pentagon and was fired.
“Three years later, in 1992, a high-ranking Pakistani official admitted that the country had developed the ability to assemble a nuclear weapon by 1987,” Mother Jones reported. “In 1998, Islamabad detonated its first bomb.” <hr /></blockquote>
*edit* Sorry, I just read through that, and I got a little off topic.
Please post some info about this proposed sale so I can check it out.
Wonder where they got the cash because Pakistan is a very poor country.You would think they could spend the money in a better way.
09-21-2004, 03:11 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote crawdaddio:</font><hr>...Don't know much about it....you got a link to some info?
What are your thoughts?
~DC <hr /></blockquote>Here's a link.
My thoughts are mixed. Basically I'm opposed to the deal. Not because I don't think Pak shouldn't necessarily have the AC, but because I don't want the avionics and EW suites to fall into China's hands.
India is much more powerful than Pakistan, and with their new SU-30's as their front-line fighter, India can field a true hi-lo mix. SU-30's as the primary strike AC and Jaguars for A2A combat against Pak's older F-16's.
The SU-30 is a pretty good matchup against our F-15, and the Jaguar is equivalent to an F-16. In fact, in wargames earlier this year, we sent some F-15C's against the IAF's Su-30's, and the Sukhois won. In Operation Cope Thunder, held in Alaska this summer, IAF Jaguars performed very well against our F-16's.
Pak's best AC are the 20+ year old F-16A/B's that we sold them back in the early 80's. Out of the original 40, there are about 24 still flying.
Pakistan was the conduit for US arms into Afghanistan during the Soviet invasion. For their help, we rewarded them with the F-16's. Pak's nuke program was going strong in the 70's and 80's, but we were unaware of it. There was a deal in the late 80's to sell them 70 additional F-16's, but when we discovered their nuke program, the US slapped sanctions on them and canceled the sale. Pakistan had already paid for the planes, but it was about 10 years before we gave them back their money.
This caused Pak to turn to North Korea. In exchange for missile technology to counter the threat from India (since they were no longer going to get the planes from the US), Pakistan gave their centrifuge tech to NK. Pak didn't have the money to just buy the missile tech outright, because we were hanging onto it.
Also, in the early 80's, Pakistan had sent one of their F-16A/B's to China for reverse engineering. China used this plane as the basis for their new J-10, but had a lot of trouble in the development, and the project was shelved.
In the meantime, Israel was developing a version called the Lavi, with US assistance. Behind our backs, Israel went to China, and using the technology from the Lavi, they revived the J-10 program. The first planes are pretty much finished with the test cycle, and full scale production is starting now. The first batch of planes are expected to enter service next year. This will be a true 4th. Generation fighter, comparable to Sweden's JAS-39 Gripen or the French Rafael.
When Clinton was shooting at al-Qaeda in Afghanistan, several Tomahawks landed over the Pak border. At least two of these remained intact, and Pakistan turned them over to China. Last week China announced that they had successfully test fired their version, and they will go into large scale production immediately. In a couple years, there will be several hundred of these (or more) aimed at Taiwan.
China and Pakistan are developing the FC-1/JF-17 in a joint venture. This AC will comprise the meat of the PAF fleet, and is designed to counter the IAF's LCA. The JF-17 will use western avionics, while the FC-1, will use Chinese tech. The FC-1 will not be inducted by the PLAAF, but will be aimed at the export market. Both the JF-17 and the LCA have had problems and are behind schedule.
So you can see that there is a lot of military cooperation between Pakistan and China.
Pak wants to buy Gripens from Sweden, but right now the US is blocking the sale. The Gripen uses a GE engine, so we can refuse to sell them to Sweden, which would put a big hurt on the Gripen program. Pakistan can always to turn to China and buy the J-10's as their front-line fighter, but they want western avionics. Pakistan has made a deal with Sweden to acquire the SAAB 2000 EYRIE (AWACS) for AEW&C. They are negotiating with the US for P3C Orion's for ASW and marine surveillance.
Pakistan desperately wants the US to sell them the F-16's to fill out their fleet. It fits for them, because they already have the infrastructure in place to support F-16's. The JF-17 won't come online until late 2006 at best, and will be probably 10 more years before they are fully inducted, so there is a big hole in Pak's air defense.
Pak can turn to France if we refuse the sale, and buy Mirage 2000's or Rafaels instead. The PAF already flies Mirage 3's, so they have a support infrastructure in place. They can also turn to Russia and get either Mig-29's or SU-27's. Pakistan knows that both France and Russia will be more than happy to deal with them.
If the US goes agead with the deal, it will do two things.
First, it will help ease the tensions between the Pakistani people and the US, and Musharraf will gain support in Pakistan. We want this, because if he goes down, the hard-liners will take over.
Second, it will give the US leverage against Pakistan to ease the tensions with India. If the US sells 18 new block 50/52 F-16's, and does a MLU (CCIP) on the older A/B's and brings the fleet back up the original 40, Pak will be heavily dependant on the US for parts, service, etc. If Pakistan gets too hostile with India, the US can cut them off again, which would really screw them over.
Sorry this was so long, Lol. There are valid arguments on both sides of the question. The other factor is the election, of course. The decision will be made afterwards, and if Kerry wins, it will probably not happen. If Bush wins, the deal will probably go through.
09-21-2004, 04:06 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Qtec:</font><hr> Wonder where they got the cash because Pakistan is a very poor country.You would think they could spend the money in a better way.
Q <hr /></blockquote>The US has given Pakistan something like 3.8 Billion in aid since 2001. So that helps quite a bit.
Also, Pakistan's economy is growing. By the end of this year, Pakistan will be the world's largest exporter of Denim. There is also a lot of trade in heavy machinery and steel with the other ME states, notably Iran.
Pakistan gets very good terms from China on military sales. The Pak Navy is mostly Chinese, as well as much of the Army's tanks and big guns. Also their Air Defense network is Chinese, and they have F-7 fighters and some other Chinese weapons.
China gives Pakistan 50 year loans on this stuff. China wants Pakistan to be able to counter India, which has historically been a challenger to China's domination of the subcontinent.
Pakistan has fought 3 wars with India in the last 50 years or so, and nearly went to war again 2 years ago. The Jammu and Kashmir dispute has left Pakistan and India bitter enemies, and Pakistan feels very threatened by India. So it's understandable that they want to upgrade their military, which is at a huge disadvantage relative to India.
As India improves ties with the west, and their economy gets stronger, it makes Pakistan more and more paranoid.
Go here (http://www.pakdef.info/forum/) sometime and read some of the arguments between the Indians and the Pakistanis. It will really show you how much animosity exists between them.
09-21-2004, 09:55 PM
Why are you holding back, give me some info, damn! /ccboard/images/graemlins/laugh.gif
Thanx, I'll check your link tomorrow-brain-overloading-ahhhh-beer-that's better.
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote highsea:</font><hr> <blockquote><font class="small">Quote mred477:</font><hr> Why is a man answering a question honestly going low? It's a sad day when a man speaks his mind and it is considered a bad thing.<hr /></blockquote>tap, tap. <hr /></blockquote>
Saudi jails 'seditious' academic
A court in Saudi Arabia has sentenced a university professor to five years in jail for sowing dissent and sedition.
Hard-line Islamist academic Said bin Zair was arrested in April on charges of condoning suicide bombings in an interview on Qatar-based al-Jazeera TV.
Zair, 57, was released a year ago after spending eight years in prison without charge. He had demanded reforms in the Saudi monarchy.
His son said the former mass communications professor would appeal.
Zair was arrested over remarks on 15 April "in which he backed the terrorist acts in Riyadh which targeted Muslims and non-Muslims", the interior ministry said.
Zair had appeared on a programme to discuss a recording purported to be of al-Qaeda leader Osama Bin Laden in which he offered to suspend attacks against European interests if they stop supporting the US in its war on terror.
"The verdict was announced in the absence of a lawyer," who was never appointed, his son, Abdullah, said following the sentencing hearing.
"The judge said there was no need for a lawyer according to Sharia [Islamic law]," he said.
Saudi Arabia is fighting a wave of violence believed to be linked to Bin Laden's al-Qaeda network.
Do you agree with this or not?
09-21-2004, 10:46 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Qtec:</font><hr>Do you agree with this or not?
Q <hr /></blockquote>Of course not. The Saudi "legal system" is a farce. This is the same kind of thing the Taliban and Saddam Hussein were doing. But it's ironic that the Islamist that was jailed is a supporter of the very sharia law that convicted him.
The Saudi Religious Police, the Mukhbarrat, are just as bad, if not worse. Last March, 15 schoolgirls were forced to go back into a burning school because they did not have their headscarves when they came running out. They all perished in the blaze. No one was charged, let alone punished for this horrible murder.
But before you jump up and accuse the US of doing the same thing, let me just say, I did not agree with the Patriot Act jailing US citizens without representation or hearings.
As you probably know, this portion of the Patriot Act was struck down by the Supreme Court, and the detainees being held in Gitmo and the US are entitled by law to hearings and legal representation. Hell, even Zacharias Moussoui has a team of lawyers paid for by the US taxpayer.
I consider the situation in Iraq different, in that the people being held in US custody are considered POW's. The rules governing them are the Geneva Conventions, which the US follows (Abu Graib notwithstanding).
The remaining prisoners in Iraq, that are in jail because they are criminals, are under Iraqi jurisdiction, and they are also entitled to trials and lawyers as specified in the Iraqi interim constitution.
09-21-2004, 10:47 PM
Arab saying: "Better my enemy inside my tent, pissing out, than my friend outside my tent, pissing in." Related to the saying: "The enemy of my enemy is my friend". The infinitely incalculable number of variables CAN be solved (Minnesota Fats).
All the best to you,
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.0 Copyright © 2014 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.