CRAWFORD, Texas (Reuters)President Bush agreed on Friday to sell F-16 fighter jets to Pakistan in a major policy shift. A senior Bush administration official said the F-16 sale to Pakistan, which was blocked for 15 years, “will not change the overall balance of power” between Pakistan and India. Washington blocked the sale of the F-16s to Pakistan in 1990 as a sanction against its nuclear weapons program. U.S. officials said Bush signaled a willingness to sell sophisticated fighters to India if it chooses to buy them in future…
Couple of issues here.
Pakistan is now an important ally of ours in the war on terror. They have taken great political risks to stand up against Islamic Fundamentalists. Purely as a reward this idea has merit.
In a vacuum if we did not sell them the planes they could buy something similar from France or the Soviets. In other words someone will sell them planes…might as well be us.
As to pissing off India. I mean they can buy planes too and this purhcase certainly is not going to tip the scales. It is more important for those two countries to settle the differences they have before the situation goes nuclear.
I don’t think it is a bad idea and in the grand scheme of things it gets us more then it costs us.
A perfect example of President Bush, again, talking out both sides of his mouth. We invaded Iraq because of WMD. We’re worried about Iran because of nuclear ambitions. As Bush parroted Kerry in the debates his number one concern was “nuclear proliferation”. Then we reward the country responsible for the most irresponsible nuclear arms giveaway ever! Bush lied about North Korea giving nuclear material to Libya. Fact: North Korea gave nuclear material to Pakistan. Pakistan gave nuclear material to Libya (our ally!) see:
Pakistani scientists gave Iran the centrifuges needed to have a nuclear program.
http://abcnews.go.com/International/wireStory?id=568952
Pakistani scientists marketed the engineering capabilities to make a nuclear bomb to both Iran and Libya.
So Bush paints N.Korea with the brush that actually applies to Pakistan and as
a “reward” lifts the arms embargo on Pakistan put in place by Bush’s dad as a reprisal for developing nuclear technology, gives Pakistan, a dictatorship country ACTUALLY harboring Al queda and Osama bin Laden, ACTUALLY has WMD and ACTUALLY is proliferating that technology, gives them the best of the best in fighter jet technology (fighter jets that ACTUALLY can deliver nuclear weapons). Meanwhile the rest of the world is supposed to trust our “concerns” of nuclear proliferation?
Freaking unbelievable.
But other than that, yeah I agree with hedo.
100meters this is how the world works!
I seem to recall FDR supplying weapons to the Soviet Union.
Your ally today was your enemy yesterday and may be your enemy tommorow.
You sure like to only look at one side of the issue.
[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
100meters this is how the world works!
I seem to recall FDR supplying weapons to the Soviet Union.
Your ally today was your enemy yesterday and may be your enemy tommorow.
You sure like to only look at one side of the issue.
[/quote]
Uhmm…OK. he provided equipment to allies to help defeat the Nazi’s. Not quite the same as rewarding a country run by a dictator, harboring Al-queda, has wmd, and proliferating wmd technology to enemies, after we cried wolf on Iraq using the exact same criteria, and threatening others who may be doing the same? See the inconsistancy?
And I would say I like to look at both sides of the issue, Hedo already provided one side of the issue, which I looked at and can see some merits.
100meters, now you are making a case for supplying weapons to Josef Stalin?
Interesting.
Yet supplying a few F16’s to Pakistan is bad.
Like all actions there may be unintended consequences, but it is probably the right move. War, like politics makes strange bedfellows.
I would prefer a real discussion on the matter, such as what is the worst case scenario if we sell these to Pakistan rather than the usual knee-jerk Bush bashing.
unintended consequences…
they know exactly what and why. international relations is very complex and unfortunately this is a trade(uk are the worst for this)that is lucrative and also ties groups politcally.
i think it sucks, is hipcritical but also works very well in maintaining economic and political ties
[quote]miniross wrote:
i think it sucks, is hipcritical but also works very well in maintaining economic and political ties [/quote]
Agreed. It is a balance. It does suck, but the political and econmoic ties are very important.
[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
miniross wrote:
i think it sucks, is hipcritical but also works very well in maintaining economic and political ties
Agreed. It is a balance. It does suck, but the political and econmoic ties are very important. [/quote]
But isn’t Bush the leader that doesn’t deal in shades of gray? Clear sense of right and wrong? Rewarding a country with irresponsible nuclear policy (not to mention a dictator that overthrew the country’s democracy) is wrong, right?
I’m not trying to start a discussion on Iraq, nor am I claiming it was right or wrong, but it just blows me away that seemingly smart people still believe in that “sees the world in black and white” routine. Bush deals in shades of gray as well as (or better than) most modern politicians. What will it take for some people to quit drinking the bullshit flavored kool-aid?
Again, I’ll make it clear since people on this forum like to read whatever they want into a post: I’m am not condemning the invasion of Iraq, nor this arms sale. I am merely pointing out the hypocracy of some people in defending the invasion of Iraq because of a clear sense of moral right and wrong, and then defending this arms sale because “international diplomacy is a delicate balance”.
[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
100meters, now you are making a case for supplying weapons to Josef Stalin?
Interesting.
[/quote]
oy, do I need to make a case here?
The grand hypocricy is the issue here, we’re supposed to be sending a clear message to the world, and we supposedly have a leader who “says what he means, and means what he says”
ok
Well part of the discussion is how doing things like this further diminish the credibility of the U.S. because, just for a second, step into the shoes of someone in the middle-east, you’ve seen the U.S. invade a country because we claimed they had wmd, ties to al-queda, and to spread democracy. This after backing Saddam, giving him weapons, and billions of dollars. Now this person from the middle-east sees us giving F-16’s to a country that really has WMD, is proliferating that technology, is the current residence of Osama bin Laden and al-queda and former taliban leaders and has no democracy. Kind of makes you think that the US is talking out its ass right?
But like I said before, other than that I totally agree with Hedo.
[quote]Moriarty wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
miniross wrote:
i think it sucks, is hipcritical but also works very well in maintaining economic and political ties
Agreed. It is a balance. It does suck, but the political and econmoic ties are very important.
But isn’t Bush the leader that doesn’t deal in shades of gray? Clear sense of right and wrong? Rewarding a country with irresponsible nuclear policy (not to mention a dictator that overthrew the country’s democracy) is wrong, right?
I’m not trying to start a discussion on Iraq, nor am I claiming it was right or wrong, but it just blows me away that seemingly smart people still believe in that “sees the world in black and white” routine. Bush deals in shades of gray as well as (or better than) most modern politicians. What will it take for some people to quit drinking the bullshit flavored kool-aid?
Again, I’ll make it clear since people on this forum like to read whatever they want into a post: I’m am not condemning the invasion of Iraq, nor this arms sale. I am merely pointing out the hypocracy of some people in defending the invasion of Iraq because of a clear sense of moral right and wrong, and then defending this arms sale because “international diplomacy is a delicate balance”.[/quote]
If bush claims not to work “in shades of gray” then he is missing the point on international politics.
Maybe its his foreign office and ambassadors that do the gray.
stating this publically, and what actually occurs would need to be 2 very different things. one is idealistic, the other is real.
[quote]100meters wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
100meters, now you are making a case for supplying weapons to Josef Stalin?
Interesting.
oy, do I need to make a case here?
Yet supplying a few F16’s to Pakistan is bad.
The grand hypocricy is the issue here, we’re supposed to be sending a clear message to the world, and we supposedly have a leader who “says what he means, and means what he says”
Like all actions there may be unintended consequences, but it is probably the right move. War, like politics makes strange bedfellows.
ok
I would prefer a real discussion on the matter, such as what is the worst case scenario if we sell these to Pakistan rather than the usual knee-jerk Bush bashing.
Well part of the discussion is how doing things like this further diminish the credibility of the U.S. because, just for a second, step into the shoes of someone in the middle-east, you’ve seen the U.S. invade a country because we claimed they had wmd, ties to al-queda, and to spread democracy. This after backing Saddam, giving him weapons, and billions of dollars. Now this person from the middle-east sees us giving F-16’s to a country that really has WMD, is proliferating that technology, is the current residence of Osama bin Laden and al-queda and former taliban leaders and has no democracy. Kind of makes you think that the US is talking out its ass right?
But like I said before, other than that I totally agree with Hedo.[/quote]
Reality is not utopia. We do what is in our national interest. Not what the minority thinks should happen and especially not what citizens of other countries think we should do. In your opinion.
What the average middle east resident respects most is strength. We are working with Pakistan and it is in our national interest to help them.
A squadron of F-16’s doesn’t shift the balance of power. It sends a message. If we didn’t they wouldn’t help us fight the real war on terror. That war is different then the one most of the ABB’ers think we are fighting.
[quote]hedo wrote:
A squadron of F-16’s doesn’t shift the balance of power. It sends a message. If we didn’t they wouldn’t help us fight the real war on terror. That war is different then the one most of the ABB’ers think we are fighting.
[/quote]
If we didn’t send them a squadron of F-16’s they wouldn’t help us fight the real war on terror? This is based on? Let me guess…Nothing. If we didn’t give them F-16’s they’d be helping us just the same as they are now. This isn’t about help, it’s about cash (I’m not saying that’s a bad thing) It’ll help Lockheed/Martin to keep chugging out a few more F-16’s, It does nothing really to disrupt power with India (India has a 2:1 airforce advantage over PAF, and is ready to bid for 100 more aircraft)and India’s airforce is superbly trained:
so all in all no big deal. But still this is coming from the administration who balked at Venezuela purchusing AK-47’s, grand hypocrisy I tell ya!
[quote]miniross wrote:
If bush claims not to work “in shades of gray” then he is missing the point on international politics.
Maybe its his foreign office and ambassadors that do the gray.
stating this publically, and what actually occurs would need to be 2 very different things. one is idealistic, the other is real.[/quote]
Oh I agree with you 100%. I am amazed not that this duality exists (and readily admit the necessity of it), but rather that seemingly intelligent people confuse the facade for reality.
[quote]hedo wrote:
Reality is not utopia. We do what is in our national interest.
[/quote]
Exactly. That’s why I don’t understand the way people talk up Bush’s “clear sense of right and wrong”. I haven’t found Bush’s “sense of right and wrong” to be any different than any other politicians (i.e. he has a clear sense that he is right and everyone that disagrees is wrong).
I mean let’s be honest, if there existed a country that employed a police force that beat women with nightsticks in broad daylight for not covering their faces properly, we wouldn’t think twice about rewarding them as long as it was in the interest of our economy or national security.
I’m confused about what the “average middle east resident respects most is strength” statement has to do with this issue. How is us being forced to give Pakistan a squadron of F-16’s because we can’t fight the war on terror without them a sign of strength on our part? That sounds like being extorted, not showing strength.
Well now I’m just confused about the war we’re fighting. I thought that the “real” war on terror was the fight to free the world of tyranny. I thought that’s why Bush’s decision to go to war with Iraq, and create a “beacon of freedom in the middle east”, was such a masterstroke. I like that war.
How does selling arms to a dictator that overthrew his national democracy not subvert that war? Why were people arguing that going into Iraq was a chance to clean up the mistakes of the past, yet content with us making the same mistakes again?
I mean I know some of you are really fond of Bush and were happy about going into Iraq, but is it really healthy to never question any foreign policy decisions? I mean, not “seldom” or “rarely”, NEVER questioning.
Nothing wrong with questioning but come on most of the liberals on this board are best described as “anti’s” or contrarians. They are against everything that Bush does. Because I disagree doesn’t make me wrong.
When I and many conservatives look at the issue we look at that, the issue. Most liberals don’t care what the issue is. They are against it as long as Bush or the administration initiated or supported the idea.
Whose national interest should we be supporting? India’s? IT’s not real world.
That type of reasoning not practical and certainly not workable in the real world. I do hope they continue it though, at least until the next election is over. They really can’t help themselves.
[quote]hedo wrote:
Nothing wrong with questioning but come on most of the liberals on this board are best described as “anti’s” or contrarians. They are against everything that Bush does. Because I disagree doesn’t make me wrong.
[/quote]
I agree with all parts of this statement.
I disagree with this. It’s been my experience that conservatives have been just as quick to ignore the issue and side with Bush as liberals have been to be contrary to Bush. I have just as many conservative friends that talk out of their ass as I have liberal friends that talk out of their ass. Do you honestly think that liberals don’t say the same thing about you and other conservatives? The fact that each side honestly believes that they, as a whole, understand the issues and the other side doesn’t just kills me. Just…kills…me.
[quote]
Whose national interest should we be supporting? India’s? IT’s not real world. That type of reasoning not practical and certainly not workable in the real world. I do hope they continue it though, at least until the next election is over. They really can’t help themselves.[/quote]
You’re still missing the point. The point is that Bush made it clear that the way to best support our national interest is to spread democracy and freedom throughout the world, even if it was unpopular and/or difficult. We were told that there can be no bargaining with dictators. That notion seems to be subverted by our dealing with Pakistan and Saudi Arabia.
Now, I think you and I both know that Bush was just putting on a facade (one that, because of the nature of popular opinion, is necessary), but many conservatives, some of which frequent this board, actually took what Bush was saying at face value. The fact is, even presented with the information in this thread, some of those same people still believe in that fallacy. That seems to subvert the conservatives = logical/ liberals = illogical dichotomy you were trying to establish in your post.
[quote]100meters wrote:
A perfect example of President Bush, again, talking out both sides of his mouth. We invaded Iraq because of WMD. We’re worried about Iran because of nuclear ambitions. As Bush parroted Kerry in the debates his number one concern was “nuclear proliferation”. Then we reward the country responsible for the most irresponsible nuclear arms giveaway ever! Bush lied about North Korea giving nuclear material to Libya. Fact: North Korea gave nuclear material to Pakistan. Pakistan gave nuclear material to Libya (our ally!) see:
Pakistani scientists gave Iran the centrifuges needed to have a nuclear program.
http://abcnews.go.com/International/wireStory?id=568952
Pakistani scientists marketed the engineering capabilities to make a nuclear bomb to both Iran and Libya.
So Bush paints N.Korea with the brush that actually applies to Pakistan and as
a “reward” lifts the arms embargo on Pakistan put in place by Bush’s dad as a reprisal for developing nuclear technology, gives Pakistan, a dictatorship country ACTUALLY harboring Al queda and Osama bin Laden, ACTUALLY has WMD and ACTUALLY is proliferating that technology, gives them the best of the best in fighter jet technology (fighter jets that ACTUALLY can deliver nuclear weapons). Meanwhile the rest of the world is supposed to trust our “concerns” of nuclear proliferation?
Freaking unbelievable.
But other than that, yeah I agree with hedo.[/quote]
What’s the hypocrisy here?
Pakistan is cooperating with us, and the head of its government, Musharef, is an ally – one we actually need to support. The reports are he has cracked down on areas in which we have asked him to, and he allowed our forces access to their nuclear stocks to make sure they were secured. All transfers of technology that occurred were in the past – and I believe under a previous administration, but I could be wrong on that. They are helpful now, and look to be helpful going forward.
On the other hand, you have North Korea. Intransigent, unstable, and currently looking to export whatever it can. Still a dictatorship, and the one country that seems to have the potential to throw the whole region into chaos. And a country that has attempted to use claims of nuclear technology to raise the stakes in talks and attempt to extort concessions, while denying access of inspectors to its sites.
And that’s just the beginning of the differences.
Two completely different situations – any attempted equation of the two is sorely misguided.
A Tuesday WSJ editorial that touches on some of the reasons for the sale:
Warplanes for South Asia
March 29, 2005; Page A14
The Bush Administration’s decision to sell F-16s to Pakistan is being criticized in some circles, though notably in the U.S., rather than in India as you might expect. New Delhi has raised some objections but its more substantive response has been that it may consider purchasing a more sophisticated U.S. jet fighter, the F-18, and is ready for an expanded strategic relationship.
Chief among the U.S. alarmists has been Larry Pressler, who is calling the F-16 decision nothing less than an “atrocity.” The former GOP Senator from South Dakota says the “military-industrial complex, which I believe dominates our foreign policy, favors Pakistan not only because we can sell it arms, but also because the Pentagon would often rather deal with dictatorships than democracies.” They must be smiling about that one at the Bush Pentagon, which is usually assailed these days for trying to topple dictatorships.
The F-16 is renowned for its ability to deliver air strikes with pinpoint accuracy, and is thus a valuable asset in Islamabad’s war on terrorists hiding in the rugged terrain near Afghanistan. The U.S. has used it to great effect there and in Iraq. The argument that Pakistan wants the F-16 to deliver nuclear weapons to India, a fellow nuclear power, ignores the fact it can already do that in other ways – if it wishes to commit suicide.
In fact, relations between the two states haven’t been this good for years and don’t look to be derailed by the plane sales. Pakistan’s President Pervez Musharraf is due in New Delhi in a month to watch the grand finale of the India-Pakistan cricket series. Indo-U.S. relations have also reached a new maturity. President Bush – who is due to visit India this year or next – personally informed Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh of the decision to sell the planes to Islamabad.
Mr. Singh expressed “great disappointment,” an obligatory response given Indian domestic politics. But more significant is what his Defense Minister, Pranab Mukherjee, told the Press Trust of India not 24 hours later: “If the military aircraft and other weapons needed for our national interest are available from the United States, we will certainly consider them.” A Foreign Ministry statement said the U.S. would let India buy F-16s and F-18s, which may even be co-produced in India, to Indian specifications. Indian Doordarshan TV reported Saturday that, “Pakistan did get its F-16s from the U.S., but India has got more.”
The real story here is that the U.S. is steadily building a broad strategic relationship with New Delhi. Said Mr. Mukherjee, “cooperation in economic and other areas between the United States and India has increased manifold, but so far there has been no defense agreement between the two states.” One obvious strategic calculation for both countries is countering the military rise of China.
At a State Department briefing last Friday, a spokesman explained that the U.S. “goal is to help India become a major world power in the 21st century. We understand fully the implications, including military implications, of that statement.” Beyond the issue of the jets, the briefer explained, “the U.S. is willing to discuss even more fundamental issues of defense transformation with India, including transformative systems in areas such as command and control, early warning and missile defense.” This is a remarkable and underappreciated change in U.S. global strategy, and rest assured it is being noticed in the rest of Asia, and especially in Beijing.
As for Pakistan, the F-16 sale may also pay political dividends. It will be more difficult for Mr. Musharraf’s domestic enemies to portray the U.S. as a false friend and tar him as a U.S. lackey. A more confident Pakistani President will feel better about the 2007 elections he has promised, and toward which the U.S. has been gently coaxing him.
No doubt the U.S. also hopes the gesture will lead Islamabad to allow U.S. agents to question Pakistani nuclear scientist A.Q. Khan, who is under house arrest since revealing last year that he ran a nuclear proliferation ring. Mr. Musharraf last week hinted that Islamabad may hand over nuclear-centrifuge parts to the International Atomic Energy Agency. Both would be helpful in investigating the nuclear weapons programs of Iran and North Korea. All in all, the news here is how well the triangular relationship among the U.S. and these two key South Asian allies is going.
[quote]Moriarty wrote:
I mean let’s be honest, if there existed a country that employed a police force that beat women with nightsticks in broad daylight for not covering their faces properly, we wouldn’t think twice about rewarding them as long as it was in the interest of our economy or national security.
[/quote]
I agree 100%. We should have invaded Saudi Arabia before Iraq. The Saudi government sickens me.
We would have gotten NO support around the world. We have received SOME support for Iraq.
If Iraq can get over the Shiite vs Sunni violence (good luck) and get the oil pumping the Saudis better clean up their act or they SHOULD be next.