Acidus wrote:
] And. Yet. Bush. Does. Nothing.

?????????????????????

There are plenty of reasons to be pissed off at the Bush administration, but this isn't one of them. Bush is most certainly "doing something" about Pakistan.

Pakistan is an extremely unstable country operated by a very delicate balance. What do you suggest? We invade it and "liberate" it from its current government? Or maybe that we stop supporting the present regime and let internal forces work their magic? Pakistan is not Iraq. The people there are not going to up and start a Democracy. The only thing available there that could replace the current government is an extremely violent conservative islamic group. You treat Pakistan with anything other then kid gloves and you will have the Taliban with Nukes on very short order.

The fact is that the revelations about the sale of nuclear secrets are less then a month old. It certainly has impacted our take on the state, but strategies do not turn around in a month. The fact is that we've made it very clear, even before this revelation, that we are considering invading Pakistan, in order to find Bin Lauden, and the timeframe for pursuing that is very short. We will have troops on the ground within 2004 if Pakistan does not deal with the problem internally. This has been covered on MemeStreams. What else do you want?

Should Pakistan have been invaded prior to Iraq? I don't know the answer. What I do know is that these events play out for strategic, and not moral, reasons. You don't invade one country first because you think they are the "baddest." In spite of various difficulties Iraq was a much easier fish to fry then Pakistan will be, and having Saddam out of the way makes focusing on Pakistan a lot simpler. The U.S. does not have to worry about Iraq lobbing scud missiles at them, or providing other, more subtle kinds of opposition while they are engaged in other operations in the region.

Decius wrote:
] Acidus wrote:
] ] And. Yet. Bush. Does. Nothing.
]
] ?????????????????????
]
] There are plenty of reasons to be pissed off at the Bush
] administration, but this isn't one of them. Bush is most
] certainly "doing something" about Pakistan.

No Decius, we are not. As I covered in an earlier meme, (http://www.memestreams.net/users/acidus/blogid3721096), our response upon learning of the sale of Nuclear secrets was: "I don't think it's a matter for the United States to sit in judgment on."

What the hell is that? Not a matter for which the US should sit in Judgement on. I bet thats changed since we found enriched uranium in Iran. The Administration should be talking of harsh recourse against pakistan, and should push for the IAEA to be there finding out the extent of these sales. If we are doing this, then I am certainly worng, but I have seen no mention of us condemming Pakistan in anyway, commenting on the the bullshit pardon of Abdul Qadeer Khan, or any call for any type fo third party to investigate. If I'm wrong I'm wrong, but I can't find anything. The only thing I've found even close to that is Bush talking about a expanding proliferation security. (http://www.nbr.co.nz/home/column_article.asp?id=8285&cid=5&cname=Asia)

I agree Pakistan is a delicate matter, but silence is not the answer

Acidus wrote:

] No Decius, we are not.

The Bush administration is addressing Pakistan. Most of the core support for Al'Q is presently based in Pakistan, along with the leadership including Bin Lauden. This has been covered extensively on MemeStreams. Unfortunately, many of the articles come from Stratfor and are not available anymore. Many of this stuff is forward looking, or a matter of extremely subtle diplomatic positioning, and therefore is not yet a factor in the mainstream "news." You might gain a little bit of insight by culling quotations in the threads:

http://www.interesting-people.org/archives/interesting-people/200303/msg00323.html
http://www.memestreams.net/thread/bid11152/
http://www.memestreams.net/thread/bid10416/
http://www.memestreams.net/thread/bid10547/
http://www.memestreams.net/thread/bid10548/

One Washington Post editorial about one specific recent development in the situation does not equate to "The US is absolutely doing nothing." I read that article, and I appreciate your forwarding it. I do think it is significant, and it probably will mean a change in the nature of the relationship between the US and the present government of Pakistan. However, you can't take it out of context. The fact that the US side stepped this specific issue doesn't equate to "the US is doing nothing about Pakistan." You're ignoring the forest for a tree.

] As I covered in an earlier meme,
] (http://www.memestreams.net/users/acidus/blogid3721096), our
] response upon learning of the sale of Nuclear secrets was: "I
] don't think it's a matter for the United States to sit in
] judgment on."
]
] What the hell is that?

I don't know enough about the situation to say for certain, but neither do you. This individual is a national hero in Pakistan. In the United States we are used to having our national heros hauled away in handcuffs. We love it even. Its part of how our culture works. In Pakistan things may well be different. There are all kinds of possible ins and outs in this situation. There is no telling what sort of destabalizing effect arresting that guy would have. However, there is one point that overshadows all of this:

] The Administration should be talking of harsh recourse
] against pakistan, and should push for the IAEA to be there
] finding out the extent of these sales. If we are doing this,
] then I am certainly worng, but I have seen no mention of us
] condemming Pakistan in anyway, or calling for 3rd party people
] to investigate.

The selling of nuclear weapons is a serious problem, but its also something that already happened in the past. It is not our primary problem with Pakistan, nor is it likely to bubble up to the top of the priority list any time in the near future. Our primary priority with Pakistan is shutting down Al'Q operations there. Our secondary priority is ensuring that the state continues to move toward democracy and doesn't collapse into despotism. In particular, an Islamic fundamentalist despotism. Nuclear proliferation, while important, ranks a distant third.

So why nail them to the wall on it? Does it help our interests to alienate the present government? What would you rather do? Have the government of Pakistan root out the Al'Q organization there, including Bin Lauden, with US assistance as an ally. Or, nail their asses to the wall on this and have to invade the country as an enemy. Your choices are:

1. Get Bin Lauden without a nuclear war.
2. Have a nuclear war with Pakistan and then get Bin Lauden.

You're telling me that you are choosing option 2 because you think its morally consistent. If we refused to accept allegience with the Russians in WWII because we were opposed to communism where would we be right now?

Acidus wrote:
] ] “A certain amount" of enriched uranium was flown to
] ] Libya from Pakistan on a Pakistani airliner, according to
] ] Tahir.
] ]
] ] The chief financier told investigators that Khan also
] ] said a "certain number" of centrifuges -- sophisticated
] ] machines that can be used to enrich uranium for weapons
] ] and other purposes -- were flown to Libya direct from
] ] Pakistan in 2001-02.
]
] And. Yet. Bush. Does. Nothing.
]
] WTF? Here is a country: run by a military leader; is currently
] engaged in its 4th war with India
] (http://www.historyguy.com/indo_pakistani-wars.html) ; both of
] which who have detonated nuclear weapons
] (http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/india/nuke/)
] (http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/pakistan/nuke/); who sponsers
] Kashmir terrorists
] (http://www.kashmir-information.com/Pakistan/machine.html);
] whose government has sold enriched fucking uranium and
] tools to enrich more uranium to a radical Islamic state,
]
] Yet. Bush. Does. Nothing!:
]
] And yet people insist this was a war about WMD, and not other
] reasons.
]
] 500+ dead American is a damn cheap price for the US to buy our
] own OPEC member and never be faced with an embargo again

Well, I suppose they're not madmen.