*What Total American Idiot Supplied Nuclear Weapons To A Muslim Nation?*

[chesswarsnow]

Sorry bout that,

1. But seeing Pakistan is a muslim nation, and on the edge of being a typical muslim hell hole.
2. Who was in charge when WE issued out Nuclear Weapons to them?
3. That wasn't such a great idea, eh?
4. Could be we will see a terrorist have these weapons in their hands in a short amount of time.
5. Maybe Iran is trying to get them?
6. I wouldn't be surprised???
7. What are your thoughts on this matter?
8. All this and a bag of chips, right here on DP.:laugh2:

Regards,
SirJamesofTexas

[Gaffer]

A pakistani named kahn developed pakistans nuclear program. He got his components from various black market sources, especially the russians, and probably stole a lot of information from india. After developing pakistan's atom bomb he went on to set up and sell black market materials all over the world. He got immunity from prosecution and is considered a pakistani hero. A lot of what iran has today is because of him.

[JohnDoe]

A pakistani named kahn developed pakistans nuclear program. He got his components from various black market sources, especially the russians, and probably stole a lot of information from india. After developing pakistan's atom bomb he went on to set up and sell black market materials all over the world. He got immunity from prosecution and is considered a pakistani hero. A lot of what iran has today is because of him.Why did Musharraf give him immunity? And why is he considered a hero in their country?

jd

[gabosaurus]

I thought we would be talking about Reagan's "Arms For Hostages" deal here.

[manu1959]

I thought we would be talking about Reagan's "Arms For Hostages" deal here.

or carter's

[gabosaurus]

Obviously your history skills are seriously lacking.

[manu1959]

Obviously your history skills are seriously lacking.

no more than yours....

[gabosaurus]

Tell me where Carter gave arms to Iran in exchange for American hostages.

[manu1959]

Tell me where Carter gave arms to Iran in exchange for American hostages.

don't the helicopters he crashed in the desert count?

[Pale Rider]

don't the helicopters he crashed in the desert count?

You mean the ones that were let to fall into disrepair because of the liberal, peanut farmer, military hater, moron, carter that gouged and sliced the military budget to keep said helicopters in repair?

[hjmick]

A pakistani named kahn developed pakistans nuclear program. He got his components from various black market sources, especially the russians, and probably stole a lot of information from india. After developing pakistan's atom bomb he went on to set up and sell black market materials all over the world. He got immunity from prosecution and is considered a pakistani hero. A lot of what iran has today is because of him.

So, what you're saying is, no American gave nuclear technology to Pakistan. I would imagine that a person with any historical perspective (or The History Channel) might have been aware of this.

[retiredman]

You mean the ones that were let to fall into disrepair because of the liberal, peanut farmer, military hater, moron, carter that gouged and sliced the military budget to keep said helicopters in repair?


I think if you would do a bit of research, you would find that defense spending rose each year under Carter, after five years of decline under Nixon...

but hey, don't let the truth get in the way of a good rant, eh?

[Hobbit]

I think if you would do a bit of research, you would find that defense spending rose each year under Carter, after five years of decline under Nixon...

but hey, don't let the truth get in the way of a good rant, eh?

Uh, here's the graph, showing defense spending as a function of the GDP, which declined under Carter.

http://www.truthandpolitics.org/military-relative-size-graph.php?meas=GDP

Note how the line slopes downward during the Carter years (1976-1980).

And here's one showing it as a percentage of discretionary spending, which also declines.

http://www.truthandpolitics.org/military-relative-size-graph.php?meas=outlays

http://www.truthandpolitics.org/military-relative-size.php

[April15]

Ronnie gave everything to the Iraqis to fight Iran. Then he gave all kinds of assistance to the Taliban in afghanistan to fight the russians. so I can'
t say as it was anyone other than RR that gave up the nuke.

[retiredman]

Uh, here's the graph, showing defense spending as a function of the GDP, which declined under Carter.


Note how the line slopes downward during the Carter years (1976-1980).




as a function of GDP, the line has had an overall downward slope since the end of the Korean War, with one marked uptick for Vietnam, and a gradual upturn during Ronnie Raygun.

My point stands as is.

[manu1959]

Ronnie gave everything to the Iraqis to fight Iran. Then he gave all kinds of assistance to the Taliban in afghanistan to fight the russians. so I can'
t say as it was anyone other than RR that gave up the nuke.

really....can you show me the link to the sale of nucular technology by the us to a muslim nation.....i must of missed that decade...

[Hobbit]

as a function of GDP, the line has had an overall downward slope since the end of the Korean War, with one marked uptick for Vietnam, and a gradual upturn during Ronnie Raygun.

My point stands as is.

Not really, considering that if you look at the second graph, which is defense spending as a percentage of total discretionary spending, you'll see a significant dip during the Carter years. It goes right back up after Reagan takes office...and then dips again during the Clinton years.

[retiredman]

Not really, considering that if you look at the second graph, which is defense spending as a percentage of total discretionary spending, you'll see a significant dip during the Carter years. It goes right back up after Reagan takes office...and then dips again during the Clinton years.


yes really. I stated that defense spending rose every year during the Carter administration, and it did.

as I said...that point stands.

[April15]

really....can you show me the link to the sale of nucular technology by the us to a muslim nation.....i must of missed that decade...Give has no receipt.

[Kathianne]

Give has no receipt.

Gee, I thought you had a link, my mistake.

[April15]

Gee, I thought you had a link, my mistake.You make many of them.

[Gaffer]

As I said, a pakistani named kahn developed the nuclear weapons pakistan has now and was caught selling the technology on the black market. He was never punished for it but made to swear not to do it any more. Pakistan considers him a hero for giving them the nuclear edge they have now.

As for Reagan selling weapons to iraq. That's pure bullshit. The only thing iraq got from the US during their war with iran was intelligence concerning troop movements.

The taliban did not exist during the soviet occupation of Afghanistan. The resistance fighters there were known as the muhajeen (however its spelled). For the most part they received stinger missiles to attack the russian helicopters with. It was another proxy war with the soviets.

You all are grasping at straws again to blame America.

We had lots of dealings with iran before the shah was overthrown. They still have a lot of US equipment including aircraft. They just haven't got any parts for them since 1979. Maintenance on that equipment is a bitch.

And for your information the iraqi's got their WMD technology from the russians and the french. Not the US. They also were equipt with russian made AK47's and their tanks were all soviet made. They flew MIG's and Mirage's.

[manu1959]

Give has no receipt.

so tell me which muslim nation did the US give the bomb......

[Kathianne]

You make many of them.

Hardly. You on the other hand, often post about that which you are clueless about.

[hjmick]

Give has no receipt.

No, but it does have headlines and stories replete with recriminations and finger pointing.

[Hobbit]

yes really. I stated that defense spending rose every year during the Carter administration, and it did.

as I said...that point stands.

The only way I can see that being true is if you don't adjust for inflation, which was horrible during the Carter administration.

And if it is true, I'd like to see your numbers on it.

[REDWHITEBLUE2]

Hardly. You on the other hand, often post about that which you are clueless about. :clap:

[Pale Rider]

I think if you would do a bit of research, you would find that defense spending rose each year under Carter, after five years of decline under Nixon...

but hey, don't let the truth get in the way of a good rant, eh?

No, I don't like the man. He's made some pretty outrageous statements as of late that show his deep liberal leanings.

And I think his military spending has been addressed. The military was in tatters during his term. He, like his liberal brethren, hate the military, and every one of them wanted the military budget slashed, bases closed, and ordered troop reductions, ships put out of commission and bases closed. I was never so proud to be in the military as when Reagan got elected, gave us all an 11.8% raise and rejuvenate the military and it's moral.

[JohnDoe]

But Doesn't Defense Spending go down as a percentage of gdp EVERY TIME we come out of or end a War? I don't see how Carter's defense spending is any different than any president that didn't have a war to fight, vietnam was OVER, WHY SHOULD IT GO UP? THAT'S a waste of tax dollars and the military industrial complex getting what they wish, PURE PORK imo.

jd

[retiredman]

No, I don't like the man. He's made some pretty outrageous statements as of late that show his deep liberal leanings.

And I think his military spending has been addressed. The military was in tatters during his term. He, like his liberal brethren, hate the military, and every one of them wanted the military budget slashed, bases closed, and ordered troop reductions, ships put out of commission and bases closed. I was never so proud to be in the military as when Reagan got elected, gave us all an 11.8% raise and rejuvenate the military and it's moral.


can you then explain the fact that military spending in real dollars increased every year of the Carter presidency?

[retiredman]

The only way I can see that being true is if you don't adjust for inflation, which was horrible during the Carter administration.

And if it is true, I'd like to see your numbers on it.

http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0904490.html

notice the HUGE drop in defense spending under Bush the First. THAT incredible drawdown of defense spending was strongly advocated by Bush's secretary of defense..... what was his name again?:lol:

[Roadrunner]

Sorry bout that,


2. Who was in charge when WE issued out Nuclear Weapons to them?


Here's a chronology of the development of Pakistan's nuclear bomb. You might find it interesting to note CHINA's name comes up at critical points in this chronology. Don't believe you'll find one entry where the U.S. was responsible for giving nuclear weapons to Pakistan.

http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/pakistan/nuke/chron.htm

[chesswarsnow]

Sorry bout that,

1. But in seeing Roadrunners list, I can tell USA had plenty to do with the Nuclearization of Pakistan.
2. They have many US parts in their Nukes.
3. Although their Nukes are baby nukes, they still have them.
4. I think they wasted their money, they could of better spent that money on some other sort of military build up.
5. They more than likely, have no real way to deliver them any further than 200 miles, if their lucky.
6. India was part of the problem as well, now they have this threat right next door to them, which could cost them the most, if that day comes.
7. If the *Crazy* Muslims get these *Baby Nukes*, they will hold the *World* hostage, some how.
8. I wonder if they will attack the, *Oil Reserves* in Saudi Arabia?
9. No more oil, no more *World Economy*, they would determine.
10. I wonder how long we should allow Pakistan to retain these weapons???

Regards,
SirJamesofTexas

[Hobbit]

http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0904490.html

notice the HUGE drop in defense spending under Bush the First. THAT incredible drawdown of defense spending was strongly advocated by Bush's secretary of defense..... what was his name again?:lol:

Is that adjusted for inflation? If it is, then I guess I was wrong about Carter cutting spending, but it's not like it did him much good (and if it's not, then that 'increase' amounts to a decrease in adjusted spending). We had hostages in Iran, but he pretty much just sat there after his disastrous SEAL mission failed.

As for George H.W. Bush cutting defense spending...duh! Our major rival, the U.S.S.R., fell apart and ceased to be a threat. That's a war we no longer had to fight. You'll notice other drops between '46 and '47, and from '53 to '54.

[retiredman]

pretty much sat there?

only if you think that having two sometimes three complete carrier battlegroups within striking distance of the straights of hormuz "just sitting there".

I was as pissed off as any military man when carter did not level tehran to the ground, but he certainly responded more aggressively than just sitting there.

and regarding your:

"As for George H.W. Bush cutting defense spending...duh! Our major rival, the U.S.S.R., fell apart and ceased to be a threat. That's a war we no longer had to fight. You'll notice other drops between '46 and '47, and from '53 to '54."
do you also apply that logic to Clinton as well?

[Hobbit]

pretty much sat there?

only if you think that having two sometimes three complete carrier battlegroups within striking distance of the straights of hormuz "just sitting there".

I was as pissed off as any military man when carter did not level tehran to the ground, but he certainly responded more aggressively than just sitting there.

and regarding your:

"As for George H.W. Bush cutting defense spending...duh! Our major rival, the U.S.S.R., fell apart and ceased to be a threat. That's a war we no longer had to fight. You'll notice other drops between '46 and '47, and from '53 to '54."
do you also apply that logic to Clinton as well?

No, because Islamic terror was on the rise. We had embassy bombings, an attempt on the WTC, the U.S.S. Cole, and several other American interests being attacked abroad. The best change Clinton had to stand up to these thugs was Mogadishu. Terrorists but U.S. bodies on CNN, and instead of calling down the thunder, like a real man should, he just ran away, telling bin Laden and others that we were just a paper tiger, and that if you could just get American bodies on TV, you could beat them.

And ok, so Carter just sat there with a gun in his lap. Moving battlegroups within striking distance, threatening to strike, and then not striking is probably worse than not doing anything at all, as it removes any doubt in your enemies' eyes that you're not willing to use force.

[retiredman]

No, because Islamic terror was on the rise. We had embassy bombings, an attempt on the WTC, the U.S.S. Cole, and several other American interests being attacked abroad. The best change Clinton had to stand up to these thugs was Mogadishu. Terrorists but U.S. bodies on CNN, and instead of calling down the thunder, like a real man should, he just ran away, telling bin Laden and others that we were just a paper tiger, and that if you could just get American bodies on TV, you could beat them.

And ok, so Carter just sat there with a gun in his lap. Moving battlegroups within striking distance, threatening to strike, and then not striking is probably worse than not doing anything at all, as it removes any doubt in your enemies' eyes that you're not willing to use force.

funny how post 9/1 hindsight is so clear. Let's go back and look at the quotes from republicans who were castigating Clinton for going after OBL with cruise missiles in Afghanistan. Now, all of a sudden, he should have taken some disparate terrorist incidents abroad and ramp up the military industrial complex, cut domestic spending, raise taxes and fund a giant military buildup because of Khobar Towers, Mogadishu and Cole? I do not recall many republicans calling for those sorts of buildups then!

That's revisionist history.

and regarding Carter, you don't fully value the force projection impact of multiple carrier groups in close proximity to a target as a tool of foreign policy.

And when our embassy was taken, Carter may not have attacked Tehran, but he did bring the might of our military to the front steps of Iran and used it diplomatically. Compare that to Ronnie Raygun's reaction when the marine barracks was destroyed in Beirut. He ran like a girlieman... and you want to claim that mogadishu sent a message????

THAT is just more revisionist republican apologist bullshit as well.

[Hobbit]

funny how post 9/1 hindsight is so clear. Let's go back and look at the quotes from republicans who were castigating Clinton for going after OBL with cruise missiles in Afghanistan. Now, all of a sudden, he should have taken some disparate terrorist incidents abroad and ramp up the military industrial complex, cut domestic spending, raise taxes and fund a giant military buildup because of Khobar Towers, Mogadishu and Cole? I do not recall many republicans calling for those sorts of buildups then!

That's revisionist history.

and regarding Carter, you don't fully value the force projection impact of multiple carrier groups in close proximity to a target as a tool of foreign policy.

And when our embassy was taken, Carter may not have attacked Tehran, but he did bring the might of our military to the front steps of Iran and used it diplomatically. Compare that to Ronnie Raygun's reaction when the marine barracks was destroyed in Beirut. He ran like a girlieman... and you want to claim that mogadishu sent a message????

THAT is just more revisionist republican apologist bullshit as well.

You asked about Clinton, and I talked about Clinton. A lot of people were culpable. However, I seem to remember the cruise missile attacks being criticized more because that's all he did, and he missed, at that, than the fact that he did it in the first place.

[retiredman]

You asked about Clinton, and I talked about Clinton. A lot of people were culpable. However, I seem to remember the cruise missile attacks being criticized more because that's all he did, and he missed, at that, than the fact that he did it in the first place.

can you list a series of legislative initiatives brought forward by the republican leadership in congress demanding massive increases in defense spending in the wake of terror attacks that were passed by the republican congress and vetoed by Clinton?

and your memory about the cruise missile attacks against OBL is strangely partisan and selective. "wag the dog" ring a bell?

[Hobbit]

can you list a series of legislative initiatives brought forward by the republican leadership in congress demanding massive increases in defense spending in the wake of terror attacks that were passed by the republican congress and vetoed by Clinton?

and your memory about the cruise missile attacks against OBL is strangely partisan and selective. "wag the dog" ring a bell?

Gimme a break. I wasn't even in high school when that crap happened, and once again, many people chose to ignore rather than deal with terrorists. I only speak of Clinton so much because a) you asked about Clinton, and b) he was commander-in-chief and in charge of all intelligence services at the time, giving him the greatest responsibility in the matter.

[retiredman]

well son...then maybe you ought not to enter into discussions that concern issues in which you are not well versed.

I am only suggesting that post 9/11 hindsight is a foolish luxury.

and given the responsibility you place on Clinton, do I assume that you similarly place the lion's share of the blame for 9/11 on Dubya because, as you say, "he was commander-in-chief and in charge of all intelligence services at the time, giving him the greatest responsibility in the matter"???

[Hobbit]

well son...then maybe you ought not to enter into discussions that concern issues in which you are not well versed.

I am only suggesting that post 9/11 hindsight is a foolish luxury.

Perhaps, but the fact that Carter brought the forces to bear to level Tehran, then didn't use them, seems like it would be seen as pretty stupid at the time.

[retiredman]

Perhaps, but the fact that Carter brought the forces to bear to level Tehran, then didn't use them, seems like it would be seen as pretty stupid at the time.

the fact that tehran was populated by 10 million civilians and the fact that no US embassy personnel had actually been injured might have made leveling terhan even more stupid, don't you think?

I remember being angry when his initial response was not a knee-jerk military strike, but, in hindsight, such an attack might have only served to hasten the enmity the islamic world now feels for us.

[manu1959]

the fact that tehran was populated by 10 million civilians and the fact that no US embassy personnel had actually been injured might have made leveling terhan even more stupid, don't you think?

I remember being angry when his initial response was not a knee-jerk military strike, but, in hindsight, such an attack might have only served to hasten the enmity the islamic world now feels for us.

so they liked us during the carter years?....

why did they storm the embassy and take hostages then....

[retiredman]

so when did Iran become the entire islamic world? what about arabs?

[Hobbit]

the fact that tehran was populated by 10 million civilians and the fact that no US embassy personnel had actually been injured might have made leveling terhan even more stupid, don't you think?

I remember being angry when his initial response was not a knee-jerk military strike, but, in hindsight, such an attack might have only served to hasten the enmity the islamic world now feels for us.

Yeah, and it probably didn't make the Japanese very happy when we nuked their cities, either...

The point of military fore is not to make people happy. In fact, according to both Machiavelli and Sun Tzu, you're supposed to crush an enemy beyond his ability to retaliate as quickly as possible, and according to Sun Tzu, war can only be delayed to advantage of your enemies.

[manu1959]

so when did Iran become the entire islamic world? what about arabs?

lost that one so changing the point of attack.....are you a politician or did you just stay in a holiday inn express last night....

anyway .... i will bite ..... since by inference of your statement....the rest of the islamic and arab world "loved" us ..... which islamic country or arab country condemend the actions of Iran when they stormed the US embassy and took hostages....

[retiredman]

lost that one so changing the point of attack.....are you a politician or did you just stay in a holiday inn express last night....

anyway .... i will bite ..... since by inference of your statement....the rest of the islamic and arab world "loved" us ..... which islamic country or arab country condemend the actions of Iran when they stormed the US embassy and took hostages....

to suggest that an absence of total enmity is synonymous with love is incorrect.

[manu1959]

to suggest that an absence of total enmity is synonymous with love is incorrect.

silence is acquiescence........

[retiredman]

silence is acquiescence........

stupid and irrelevant.