What does Dubya do to a country that was sanctioned for building nukes?

[Glockmatic]

gives them F-16 fighter jets of course!

http://www.cnn.com/2005/US/03/25/jet.sale/index.html

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Senior U.S. officials say a deal to sell F-16 fighter jets to Pakistan was approved and the United States will compete for contracts to provide Pakistan's nuclear rival India with the same jets.

President Bush called Indian Prime Minister Monmohan Singh to tell him the decision to go ahead with the sale to Pakistan, the officials announced on Friday.

India has balked at the sale.

India and Pakistan have been at odds for decades over the region of Kashmir.

The United States had banned weapons sales to both India and Pakistan in the 1990s because each had tested nuclear weapons.

One official said that the United States has had to adapt to the reality that both countries have a nuclear capability.

"The U.S. has to live in the world that exists, not the world we wish" exists, the official said. He added that the United States is trying to create a "positive force" and defuse tensions in a potentially dangerous region.

U.S. officials said the sale to Pakistan is the result of the deepening relationship with that country.

The improved relations, they said, came about because of President Pervez Musharraf 's actions since the September 11, 2001, attacks -- assisting with the hunt for Osama bin Laden, cooperating with the investigation into the weapons network of Pakistani scientist A.Q. Khan and agreeing to elections in 2007.

Last year, the Bush administration declared Pakistan a non-NATO ally and this year, the United States started a five-year aid package to Pakistan worth $3 billion.
Crucial region in terror war

The sale to both countries is part of a new U.S. strategy for South Asia, a region the United States sees as vital to U.S. national security interests and crucial to the war on terror.

A senior administration official said that the Bush administration will continue to broaden its relationship with India.

Secretary of State Condoleeza Rice, in India last week, told Prime Minister Singh that the United States will help India become a major world power in the 21st century.

The official said that United States will allow U.S. companies to bid for contracts to provide F-16 fighter jets to India and additional defense technology, such as command and control and early warning systems.

The United States will also beef up its economic, energy and trade ties with India, the official said.

Indian Prime Minister Singh has already accepted an invitation from Bush to visit the White House in July, and the president plans to visit India sometime within the next year, an official said.

Officials said they do not see the sale to either country as tilting the military balance between India and Pakistan. Although officials would not talk specific numbers for the sales, India is shopping for 125 aircraft. Pakistan has had a long-standing request for 25.

However, these officials said, the sale could increase Pakistan's security with India at a time of improved relations between the two countries.

"It is important for the Pakistani government feel secure," one official said. "It is in India's interest that Pakistan feel secure."

help spread democracy by giving jets to a country that had a military coup in 99, and enemy of the largest democracy (india)? Don't forget about the nuclear scientist that sold nuclear secrets to Iran and other rogue states, the uranium enrichment centrifuges in Iran have 'made in pakistan' stamped on em.

 

[Amara]

help spread democracy by giving jets to a country that had a military coup in 99, and enemy of the largest democracy (india)? Don't forget about the nuclear scientist that sold nuclear secrets to Iran and other rogue states, the uranium enrichment centrifuges in Iran have 'made in pakistan' stamped on em.

Then there is also the suggestion that Pakistan, upon successful production of plutonium-based weapons, transfered gas centrifuges to North Korea for uranium enrichment in 1999. So I wonder how many more nuclear powers can we expect to pop up as a result of a strenghtened Pakistan.....

 

[Tru Principle]

lol... they gon' blow up the world.

 

[LL COOL PAC]

plus and more importantly they stole kashmir from india. also india are buying f16s

 

[Duke]

But the US is next to the bastion of democracy also the bastion of capitalism.

And if there's a buck to be made....

 

[not really ken]

plus and more importantly they stole kashmir from india. also india are buying f16s

dude stfu! im sick of indians and pakis. kashmir is for the kashmiris. India can make bollywood films in india. dont' talk about kashmir being the indians or the pakistanis. Both countries need to be strengthed equally. If India can buy military equipment from countries then so can Pakistan. Remember, Pakistan are very close allies to the Chinese and it is the Chinese where the Pakis got their nuclear capabilities.

 

[Amara]

Actually, today I was reading in an article written by Stephen Walt about US Foreign Policy that in achieving the strategic goal of the prevention of further terrorist attacks of larger scale (most notably, nuclear attacks), it would be wise for the US to assist in stabilising the Pakistani government. In this sense, improving relations and providing aid could be seen as part of a potracted campaign to keep nuclear weapons out of the hands of terrorists by increasing state and collective security.

 

[Rukas]

Actually, today I was reading in an article written by Stephen Walt about US Foreign Policy that in achieving the strategic goal of the prevention of further terrorist attacks of larger scale (most notably, nuclear attacks), it would be wise for the US to assist in stabilising the Pakistani government. In this sense, improving relations and providing aid could be seen as part of a potracted campaign to keep nuclear weapons out of the hands of terrorists by increasing state and collective security.

I can see that. A government is less likely to use nuclear weapons because they will be held responsible with retaliatory actions, terrorist groups disregard such logic. So its safer to have a Pakistan stengthened and in control of its weapons, rather than a weakened state where weapons can go missing, like during the fall of the Soviet Union.

 

[The.Menace]

But the US is next to the bastion of democracy also the bastion of capitalism.

And if there's a buck to be made....

the US is more a bastion of caplitalism then of democracy in these times. :thumb:

I can see Amara's point maybe it's positiv to strength those coutries so there support for terrorists doesn't grow.....but why has support to be sellin weapons? Why can't we trade for the good of the people?

 

[Amara]

So its safer to have a Pakistan stengthened and in control of its weapons, rather than a weakened state where weapons can go missing, like during the fall of the Soviet Union.

Yes, and that is another dimension to it - the stabilisation of the Russian economy and increased confidence building measures so that it is able to keep better tabs on its nuclear facilities and stockpiles...as they are shamefully under protected. In all honesty, I think this is the biggest danger in regards to terrorist acquisition.

And also just meantioning the "fall of the SU" - another aspect is the prevention of state collapse, because it is a result of the "failure" of the "state", that terrorist networks are able to create "safe havens." Afghanistan was largely neglected when it went downhill and because of that al-qaeda was able to infiltrate and expand quite safely within its borders pre-9/11.

I can see Amara's point maybe it's positiv to strength those coutries so there support for terrorists doesn't grow.....but why has support to be sellin weapons? Why can't we trade for the good of the people?

Because international politics, by and large, is undertaken in a realist framework of interaction. Power, conflict and national interests are the game. When referring to the prevention of terrorism, it is about security, and increasing relative gains (by advancing the state's interests) not absolute gains (states aren't concerned with the level of lifestyle of the Pakistani people - that won't keep terrorist from acquiring weapons, only military strength can ensure that kind of security..however, aid may be used as a bargaining chip to ensure Pakistan plays in line).

I'm rambling...

 

[The.Menace]

Because international politics, by and large, is undertaken in a realist framework of interaction. Power, conflict and national interests are the game. When referring to the prevention of terrorism, it is about security, and increasing relative gains (by advancing the state's interests) not absolute gains (states aren't concerned with the level of lifestyle of the Pakistani people - that won't keep terrorist from acquiring weapons, only military strength can ensure that kind of security..however, aid may be used as a bargaining chip to ensure Pakistan plays in line).

I'm rambling...

I don't agree.
Firtst, To fight terrorism directly u might need military strength but in long terms that doesn't get it done anyway. to really fight terrorism or maybe better, the source of terorism, you don't need no military strength but you need to take care of the people. If you take away starvting, oppression etc etc they hate won't grow and we can talk.
Second, noone needs F16 or nuclear weapons to fight terrorsim, that's just not true. If you want to fight a terroist, you gotta do it with your own hands, that's the problem, pushin buttons doesn't work.....

So, All this ain't about terror. The US want to make money and so they sell their F16 and they don't really care who they are sellin to. It's all about the $.

 

[Amara]

I don't agree.
Firtst, To fight terrorism directly u might need military strength but in long terms that doesn't get it done anyway. to really fight terrorism or maybe better, the source of terorism, you don't need no military strength but you need to take care of the people. If you take away starvting, oppression etc etc they hate won't grow and we can talk.
Second, noone needs F16 or nuclear weapons to fight terrorsim, that's just not true. If you want to fight a terroist, you gotta do it with your own hands, that's the problem, pushin buttons doesn't work.....

So, All this ain't about terror. The US want to make money and so they sell their F16 and they don't really care who they are sellin to. It's all about the $.

I never said that was the correct way to combat terrorism, because in my view you would have to take it to the sources, not simply fighting fire with fire. But your question was, why don't they do it for trade and the betterment of people...and my answer was - states work on the basis of their national interests not the interests of others, least of which, the interests of individual well-being of foreign citizens. Trade will not assist in the achievement of the goals of the US - security and the maintenance of political strength.

And it's not about "fighting" terrorism. I never used that term, I said it was about prevention of terrorist acquisition of nuclear weapons. It is more likely that terrorists will acquire weapons from states than build them themselves, therefore to prevent acquisition from potential sources, working on inter-state relations and security measures ensures the likelihood of this occuring is reduced.

The US is very aware of who it sells weapons to, it isn't simply about money because they stand to lose if the balance of power flipped substantially in favour of non-democratic regimes or hostile non-state groups. If anything you can be certain that the selling of weapons by the US is a strategic move designed to maximise their power either in a direct or indirect fashion. Nothing in politics can be reduced to something as simple as money...it's deeper than that, much deeper.