Broken any non proliferation treaties recently

Clintons Cat

http://www.indian-express.com/ie20011028/top2.html

Typedef

Only the last time I started redeveloping my own private ICBM stocks oh and when I started redeveloping biological weapons.

I almost forgot, I also sold nukes to Israel.


/Typedef wakes up from Dream of being American Republican senator, & in cold sweat wipes brow.

Clintons Cat

Still, US lawmakers say the administration may have too readily agreed to give Pakistan about $600 million in cash this year and next without a reliable way of ensuring that the money would be used to improve health and education rather than to underwrite the military or the militants that Pakistan backs in Kashmir. ‘‘If you just write a blank cheque it will end up in the pockets of the wrong people’’, Representative Jim McDermott, a Washington Democrat on the House Ways and Means Committee, was quoted as saying. While McDermott supports helping Pakistan with its floundering economy, he said the Bush administration had ‘‘been a little cavalier’’ about wiping away sanctions on Pakistan imposed after General Musharraf took power in 1999.

Bushes total contempt for international treaties is a reoccurring theme on this board.

Magwitch

Giving massive aid is not streight forward, and never was. "Conditional aid", ie. aid given with restrictions attached never works and is impossible to enforce anyway. If Pakistan gets the money, Pakistan (with its own government and treasury) must decide how best to use it - and be answerable to its own critics.

Magwitch

As a foot not I would add that sanctions against Pakistan were a little hasty in light of the previous "democratic" Presidents activities. He had replaced all key positions in the coutry with his own party members, rigged elections, assinated rivals and was about to do away with th Supreme court, so no legal challange coul be mounted and he woul have complete power. Much in the Style of Russian strong man politicians (Yeltsin springs to mind).

Musharaff may be a dictator, but has pledged to return the country to real democracy (we shall see, but he can't do any worse) and restore the position of the constitutional courts. Also given that Pakistan has between 10 and 30 nuclear warheads in its arsenal I would rather see a level headed professioanl soldier in charge of them than a politician who plays on divisive ethnic and religious issues to maintain a quazi-dictatorship (as was the case) - for the moment anyway.

joev

Originally posted by Magwitch
Also given that Pakistan has between 10 and 30 nuclear warheads in its arsenal I would rather see a level headed professioanl soldier in charge of them than a politician who plays on divisive ethnic and religious issues to maintain a quazi-dictatorship (as was the case) - for the moment anyway.

But you've no problem with 'Dubya Bush' in the White House?!?!?!?!?

Agh... sorry couldn't help myself...

Really... sorry... cheap shot.... sorry...

Nggghhhh... must remove ****eating grin....

joev.

Clintons Cat

Its funny that a country that allows 5000 fully armed Taliban reservists to muster within its boarders (#1),refuses the US to use its airspace for anything other than search and rescue operations,Holds frequent anti US demonstrations,demands taliban representatives are in the next afgan government.turns a blind eye to the taliban recruiting offices and religious colleges from where the "students" arose,and co operates with terrorists within Kashmir should be considered the ideal partner for encouraging stability and hastening the demise of the taliban.
Admitedly he sacked two ISI generals from his cabinet but has otherwise totally failed to riegn in the ISI





The taliban go to texas . . footnote #1