It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Pakistan's Nukes: John Kerry Knew Long Ago

page: 2
<< 1   >>

log in


posted on Mar, 16 2004 @ 02:22 PM
It's funny that there's no merrit when something can't be answered to someones liking. Who said none of us have served our country? Please don't talk like the blind will be able to see after serving our country, assuming we have not. Everyone in my family has served in the military, except for my mother. I just don't think that my family's military history has anything to do with validating my argument over some one elses. That's essentially what is being said. You don't have to serve in the military to become a citizen in The US.

The question does have merrit. If it was Bush who had done the same then I'm sure it would have plenty of merrit. If you could come up with a good answer it would have merrit. Any question has merrit. I'm not saying that this question should bring down Kerry. I do think it makes him look kinda bad but it would not totally destroy his image.

[Edited on 16-3-2004 by Mandalorianwarrior]

posted on Mar, 16 2004 @ 02:35 PM
This is also the kind of argument some people have used against Bush. So these arguments that bring up something from the past can be used on Bush but not Kerry? They are also arguments that claim one or the other had major knowledge on a huge event of global importance before they took place.

Some people say that Bush knew the twin towers were gonna be attacked. Some say that he has Bin Laden already and is waiting to bring him out when needed the most. People make much nuttier claims about Bush and they set him up for failure at the same time. If we ever get Bin Laden people are going to try and ruin the good news by saying Bush used a planned capture to gain more votes. Maybe he just caught an actual bad guy that needed to be captured for our safety. Give credit where credit is due.

I think that Kerry is just getting a bit of his own strategy used against him by the Republicans. Bring up something from the past and claim he could have done something different that may have been better for the future.

posted on Mar, 16 2004 @ 02:43 PM
Also, Pakistan may be of its own sound mind politically when it comes to having their own nukes. That is still open for debate.

Another concern may be the many links that Pakistan may have to terrorist orginizations who move in and out of the country as they please. What could become of these terrorist groups and the nukes held by Pakistan. It could become a messy situation if we had to worry about such a think. Maybe they could sell one or two of them if desired. Who really knows who Pakistan supports?

I do not like the thought of more and more countries getting their hands on nukes. Especially countries who show they can be fanatical and tend to deal with fanatics in a somewhat tense region of earth.

posted on Mar, 16 2004 @ 02:47 PM

Originally posted by Bout Time
The only reason I stopped in was to comment on the hyperbole of your statements.
When it comes time for you to serve your country, you'll adopt a diffrent perspective than you have now - that we're obligated to be the world's policemen.
In 1992 to present day, Pakistan has been under no obligation to restrict their arms developments.
Sovereign states are just that - sovereign to their own management.
Rouge states are a different ballgame; but even then you're trying to dictate another sovereign states' right to self defense.

BT, your in denial because you can't refute something that shakes your core belief in the presumed nominee Kerry, but even worse than that is the epiphany you'll experience in the brief moment left when you realize they've (sovereign states) dropped the big one on you.

posted on Mar, 16 2004 @ 03:09 PM
For all those that could not stay on topic - here is why Bush may claim credit for actually doing something about Pakistans nuclear arsenal in spite of 8 years of Democratic inaction that Kerry played a major role in.

US controls codes to Pakistans nukes

PS: I also think people involved with Iran/Contra have nothing to do with this thread. Iran/Contra was the lead in to the BCCI collapse which exposed the financing that Kerry is proven to have knowledge of in 1992

posted on Mar, 16 2004 @ 04:13 PM
Yet you say I'm in denial?

Again, Kerry had knowledge of Pakistani nuke desires, of arms for hostages, of the incursions against Latin American democracy orchestrated by Otto Reich, and probably the Loch Ness monster....your point? All the bluster& grab at conspiratorial thoughts on Kerry's part is not going to substantiate your line "Kerry is a traitor".

Another thing, you're of the mindset that the Bush Administration had made the US safer from nuke attack!?!
How so?
You do know that Bush has given full diplomatic acknowledgement to Pakistan - a country that is lead by a military dictator who usurped power and blew up the equivalent of Congress in India - killing there Senators? President Musharaff also has a good friend in Dr. A.q Kahn, also known as the Father of Nuke bomb making, who the Bush administration dropped a hunt for at Musharaff's request....even though for the past couple of year the good Dr. has been selling nuke bomb making schematics to all with the money, including terror cells and states.

Bush Kahn-Gate In A Nutshell

In 2001 when the BBC and The Guardian reported that the BushAdmin thwarted investigations of Dr. A.Q. Kahn, the father of Pakistan's atomic bomb who has been discovered to have been selling nuclear secrets to rogue nations throughout the world, Noam Chomsky asked, "Why wasn't this all over US papers?" The "CIA and other agents told BBC they could not investigate the spread of 'Islamic Bombs' through Pakistan because funding appeared to originate in Saudi Arabia," writes Greg Palast.

The New Yorker's Seymour Hersh recently reported that "past and present military and intelligence officials" told him that the U.S. allowed Pakistan to pardon Kahn if the U.S. were allowed to move freely in northwest Pakistan in a major search for Bin Laden. Pakistan's President Musharraf offered tribal help in capturing Bin Laden, but he claimed he only learned from the U.S. about detailed Kahn black market sales of nuke materials in October: "If they knew earlier, they should have told us," he said.

Hersh reports that according to "a Bush Administration intelligence officer,"We had every opportunity to put a stop to the A. Q. Kahn network 15 years ago." The Guardian has reported that the BushAdmin has been aware of Kahn's dealings since it has been in office. Hersh writes, "politicians, diplomats, and nuclear experts dismissed the Khan confession and the Musharraf pardon with expressions of scorn and disbelief. For two decades, journalists and American and European intelligence agencies have linked Khan and the Pakistani intelligence service, the I.S.I. (Inter-Service Intelligence), to nuclear-technology transfers, and it was hard to credit the idea that the government Khan served had been oblivious." Other accounts reach the same conclusion. This morning the New York Times' Nicholas Kristoff quotes "experts" as saying the Bush-Musharraf quid-pro-quo came about because Bush wants to capture Bin Laden before the November election to strengthen his chances of winning. If this is so, we've come full circle in three years. If we were to believe these reports, throughout its tenure the Bush Administration has its political goals as a top priority, rather than preventing nuclear proliferation.

"Robert Gallucci," writes Hersh, "a former United Nations weapons inspector who is now dean of the Georgetown University School of Foreign Service, calls A. Q. Khan 'the Johnny Appleseed' of the nuclear-arms race....Gallucci: 'The scariest thing about all this [is] that Pakistan could work with the worst terrorist groups on earth to build nuclear weapons. Theres nothing more important than stopping terrorist groups from getting nuclear weapons. The most dangerous country for the United States now is Pakistan...' Gallucci went on, 'We havent been this vulnerable since the British burned Washington in 1814.

posted on Mar, 16 2004 @ 06:41 PM
BT I've made my point - Kerry and the democrats had their oppurtunity to take action at a time when there was no war on terrorism and Mushareff did not have the importance nor leverage he doe's now in the ongoing operations to eliminate Al Qaeda. In otherwords they had no excuse not to deal with Pakistans proliferation.

posted on Mar, 16 2004 @ 11:29 PM
Democrats are about taking no action. Then they go nuts over any action the Republicans take. How about Clinton when he had chances to take out Bin Laden? Oh well, we all have our faults.

posted on Mar, 18 2004 @ 01:30 PM
So know, attacking any country preemptively that isnot a threat to us is not feasible, moral or worthy of entertaining...even thugh we just did it in Iraq.
Running away from the Khan issue has put the world in danger, and the Bush administration will be fully responsible at the next mushroom cloud cook out.
Clinton took every opportunity afforded his administration to take out bin Laden. You can't wallow in refuted far right talking points that have been proven spurrious.

posted on Mar, 18 2004 @ 05:30 PM
Clinton took every opportunity afforded his administration to take out bin Laden. You can't wallow in refuted far right talking points that have been proven spurrious.

You have got to be kidding me - what planet do you live on! "Clinton took every oppurtunity" what about the recently released video of Bin Laden 10/00, clinton decided not to hit him!!!! - every oppurtunity my ass!

Further more this thread deals directly with the totally missed chances the Dems and Kerry had to DO something for 8 long years without the spectre of a war on terror which is making the current administration take a strategic stance in respect to Pakistan - you know it, I know it and so doe's everyone else. Fact of the matter, take a look at the red highligted news alert on ATSNN right now and you can see directly why we are not harsh on Pakistan at this time - even the headlines are in conflict with your logic.

Answer the original question this thread ask's or take your spin back to the pit where it belongs

PS: If you want to discuss Bush and his policys you are more than welcome to start your own thread elsewhere - the subject here is Kerry

[Edited on 18-3-2004 by Phoenix]

top topics

<< 1   >>

log in