NPR: Nuclear Deception in Pakistan?

[rwguinn]

Just listened to it. It's a chilling story. We (the US) are not very good at this stuff, are we?

Reading this thread, I have to giggle--except that it is so disapointing.
The whole JREF conspiracy theory forum began because of a single source--a film--"loose change"
Now the Critical thinkers are willing to sell the US down the river based on a "report" by two "journalists" and published as an audio, not even video, clip on the Internet.

It so much easier to assume the worst, isn't it? Don't investigate, don't seek reasons-- just assume the US had the worst of intentions...

I surrender.

 

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

Reading this thread, I have to giggle--except that it is so disapointing.
The whole JREF conspiracy theory forum began because of a single source--a film--"loose change"
Now the Critical thinkers are willing to sell the US down the river based on a "report" by two "journalists" and published as an audio, not even video, clip on the Internet.

It so much easier to assume the worst, isn't it? Don't investigate, don't seek reasons-- just assume the US had the worst of intentions...

I surrender.

I don't think anyone here has stated this as an absolute fact. Additionally, your second paragraph is a gross mistatement; the corrospondants in question are, per the link, "senior correspondents for the Guardian newspaper". My underdstanding is the Guardian the UK's rough equivalent to the NYT. Additionally, the interview is reguarding their recently published book.

In fact, once past the initial posts of "what they're saying is sounds bad" the thread immediately goes into discussing how Pakistan's nuclear program developed.

Your post seems to be making an awful lot of assumptions about what has (or perhaps what hasn't) been posted in this thread.

 

[rwguinn]

Now this seems realistic.

Interesting. Sounds very probable; even likely.

The audio is well worth the listen. The picture painted is not pretty; and starts during the Carter administration and runs until present.

ETA: I thought here, not not politics, was more appropriate since it does span multiple administrations, multiple countries leaderships, etc

Just listened to it. It's a chilling story. We (the US) are not very good at this stuff, are we?

Quite. How many times now has it been that the US has done something not quite on the up-and-up expecting a certain positive payback, only to have it not happen; or worse yet; exploited against us?

I'd say, from what I heard on the way home, this is perhaps more expansive then some of the previous debacles, in that, it includes the Executive Branch, the Pentagon, perhaps parties from Europe.

eta: CTists want to do what kind of conspiracies (using the "conspiracy theory" defn) we believe in? Well, I can't say I "believe" the info in the OP as I am not familiar with all the facts (part of the reason I posted this); but perhaps this can demonstrate or serve as example that we are not lock-step shills (except for those of us that are).

I find this very likely.

US policy is littered with poorly thought out policies that turn into long-term disasters.

I get the feeling that Iraq will be the latest such example.

This is a typical a regular chink in our nation's foreign policy. Also:

This is one of the reasons it was done. It's also one of the reasons, for instance, a blind eye was turned toward the Israeli program.

It's all about trying to keep a balance of power wieghted in the favor of the US. Our administrations just seem to excel at getting a lot of important aspects of such a practice nearly completely wrong. I have some opinions on they 'why' of that, but that's more a political discussion.

Stories that show up the incompetance and short-sightedness of the government are pretty difficult to integrate into the many-tentacled octopus of the JEWminati model of leadership that many CTists hold.

I think this story is a bit too believable to get any substantial attention from the CTists.

I don't think anyone here has stated this as an absolute fact. Additionally, your second paragraph is a gross mistatement; the corrospondants in question are, per the link, "senior correspondents for the Guardian newspaper". My underdstanding is the Guardian the UK's rough equivalent to the NYT. Additionally, the interview is reguarding their recently published book.

In fact, once past the initial posts of "what they're saying is sounds bad" the thread immediately goes into discussing how Pakistan's nuclear program developed.

Your post seems to be making an awful lot of assumptions about what has (or perhaps what hasn't) been posted in this thread.

Oh? Really?
Making assumptions about the quotes above?
Where you and others say things like
"The picture painted is not pretty; and starts during the Carter administration and runs until present."
"this is perhaps more expansive then some of the previous debacles, in that, it includes the Executive Branch, the Pentagon, perhaps parties from Europe."
"I find this very likely."

 

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

Oh? Really?
Making assumptions about the quotes above?
Where you and others say things like
"The picture painted is not pretty; and starts during the Carter administration and runs until present."
"this is perhaps more expansive then some of the previous debacles, in that, it includes the Executive Branch, the Pentagon, perhaps parties from Europe."
"I find this very likely."

Yes, you are.

I'll not pretend to speak for the others, and only address my comments you quoted.

The audio is well worth the listen. The picture painted is not pretty; and starts during the Carter administration and runs until present.

In the first sentence I state that I think the interview is worth listening to. In the second I summarize one point contained in the interview.

Quite. How many times now has it been that the US has done something not quite on the up-and-up expecting a certain positive payback, only to have it not happen; or worse yet; exploited against us?

I'd say, from what I heard on the way home, this is perhaps more expansive then some of the previous debacles, in that, it includes the Executive Branch, the Pentagon, perhaps parties from Europe.

Here, let me put in a ton of qualifiers to be uber-clear to you

Quite. How many times now has it been that the US has done something not quite on the up-and-up expecting a certain positive payback, only to have it not happen; or worse yet; exploited against us? If what the journalists are suggesting is accurate, it would be consistent with the pattern of the US having things backfire against it.

I'd say, from what I heard on the way home and if it is an accurate portrayal of the facts, this is perhaps more expansive then some of the previous debacles, in that, it includes the Executive Branch, the Pentagon, perhaps parties from Europe.

For ****s sake, I started the thread to try to get some worthwhile discussion about it and perhaps get people who like to do research (on both sides of the CT fence) to dig in to it. How about instead of ****ing assuming that I believe it wholesale you ****ing ask instead of just bitching about it?

 

[GreNME]

Reading this thread, I have to giggle--except that it is so disapointing.
The whole JREF conspiracy theory forum began because of a single source--a film--"loose change"
Now the Critical thinkers are willing to sell the US down the river based on a "report" by two "journalists" and published as an audio, not even video, clip on the Internet.

It so much easier to assume the worst, isn't it? Don't investigate, don't seek reasons-- just assume the US had the worst of intentions...

I surrender.

You make a pretty asinine argument there, friend. No one has been making assumptions of intentions beyond normal political motivations, and there hasn't been a whole lot of assumption of malice. In fact, more than just a radio program has been posted with information about it, but you chose to ignore that because it was easier to be a dismissive belligerent than actually try to point any conflicting information out intelligently.

So, if you think you can handle the intellectual load of maintaining your position enough to have a debate on it, you let me know and I'll be more than happy to do some point-counterpoint. However, if all you're going to do is make some more arguments from ignorance on the subject-- which is ironically not unlike most conspiracy theories, I might add-- then all you're going to do is make a jackass of yourself and turn this thread away from any actual discussion.

Basically: if you don't have anything to add, don't threadcrap.

 

[JimBenArm]

You make a pretty asinine argument there, friend. No one has been making assumptions of intentions beyond normal political motivations, and there hasn't been a whole lot of assumption of malice. In fact, more than just a radio program has been posted with information about it, but you chose to ignore that because it was easier to be a dismissive belligerent than actually try to point any conflicting information out intelligently.

So, if you think you can handle the intellectual load of maintaining your position enough to have a debate on it, you let me know and I'll be more than happy to do some point-counterpoint. However, if all you're going to do is make some more arguments from ignorance on the subject-- which is ironically not unlike most conspiracy theories, I might add-- then all you're going to do is make a jackass of yourself and turn this thread away from any actual discussion.

Basically: if you don't have anything to add, don't threadcrap.

Yes sir, Mr. Thread Boss!

 

[contra]

Its an interesting idea, and noone wouldbe that surprised if they had; however at the moment we don't have a lot to go on to see if it is true.

Looking at the past works of the journalists, Levy has never really done anything like this, he mostly looks into medical things, and an amount of history added in for effect; he also works on economicsthough, which mayt have put him onto the scent of this.

Also the two other works they have published have looked into how things have changed hands, and treasure has moved over the years. So in that respect they seem to know what they are talking about; but there is nothing to show that they are good at doing stories about info from the last 30 years.

I'm not making a claim about if the work is valid or not from that; logical no no, closed minded etc etc; but it is interesting to see what they have done before.

Should be interesting to see what people who do actual research come up with.

 

[BenBurch]

Just listened to it. It's a chilling story. We (the US) are not very good at this stuff, are we?

We SO suck at this sort of thing that we ought to just abstain from it entirely.

History is really clear on this.

 

[rwguinn]

You make a pretty asinine argument there, friend. No one has been making assumptions of intentions beyond normal political motivations, and there hasn't been a whole lot of assumption of malice. In fact, more than just a radio program has been posted with information about it, but you chose to ignore that because it was easier to be a dismissive belligerent than actually try to point any conflicting information out intelligently.

So, if you think you can handle the intellectual load of maintaining your position enough to have a debate on it, you let me know and I'll be more than happy to do some point-counterpoint. However, if all you're going to do is make some more arguments from ignorance on the subject-- which is ironically not unlike most conspiracy theories, I might add-- then all you're going to do is make a jackass of yourself and turn this thread away from any actual discussion.

Basically: if you don't have anything to add, don't threadcrap.

and you are....

Did Randi die and I missed it? Who made you the director of all things critical thinking?

It was pointed out in my post that the OP took a single source, and put it out as an argument, then posted in support of that single source, as did many others-- which is exactly what the twoofers have done--and generated many, many thousands of posts, arguments, and has built a cult around it.

And I suggest you read the GD membership agreement. Attack the argument, not the person. You (rule10')ed that one, buddy.

 

[GreNME]

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

This timeline doesn't list US governmental involvement, but there are significant instances listed that would be worth looking into if you want to find out who was involved in what activities. Not anything definitive, but likely a decent start.

• 1980--U.S. Nuclear Export Control Violation: Reexport via Canada (components of inverters used in gas centrifuge enrichment activities).
• 1981--U.S. Nuclear Export Control Violation: New York, zirconium (nuclear fuel cladding material).
• 1985--U.S. Nuclear Export Control Violation: Texas, krytrons (nuclear weapon triggers).
• 1985--U.S. Nuclear Export Control Violation: US cancelled license for export of flash x-ray camera to Pakistan (nuclear weapon diagnostic uses) because of proliferation concerns.
• 1987--U.S. Nuclear Export Control Violation: Pennsylvania, maraging steel & beryllium (used in centrifuge manufacture and bomb components).
• 1987--U.S. Nuclear Export Control Violation: California, oscilloscopes, computer equipment (useful in nuclear weapon R&D).
• 1989--Multiple reports of Pakistan modifying US-supplied F-16 aircraft for nuclear delivery purposes; wind tunnel tests cited in document reportedly from West German intelligence service.
• 1989--Gerard Smith, former US diplomat and senior arms control authority, claims US has turned a `blind eye' to proliferation developments Pakistan in and Israel.
• October 1990 -- President Bush announced that he could no longer provide Congress with Pressler Amendment certification that Pakistan does not possess a nuclear weapon. Economic and military aid was duly terminated, though the Bush administration continued to permit a limited number of commercial military sales to Pakistan. Pakistan handled the cutoff with little public rancor and committed itself to freezing the nuclear program in an attempt to placate the United States.
• January 1996 -- The Brown amendment was signed into law to relieve some of the pressures created by the Pressler sanctions, which had crippled parts of the Pakistani military, particularly the Air Force. The Brown amendment allowed nearly $370 million of previously embargoed arms and spare parts to be delivered to Pakistan. It also permited limited military assistance for the purposes of counter-terrorism, peacekeeping, anti-narcotics efforts, and some military training.

None of that, as I said, is at all conclusive of any direct complicity on the part of the US government. It just provides dates to focus on as times when the US may have been aware and able to be aware of Pakistan's nuclear activity.

This link is an article that talks some about Levy's and Scott-Clark's book. A couple of examples:

In 1987 then-Rep. Stephen Solarz, D-N.Y., chairman of the House International Relations Committee, “went wild,” Barlow says, when he heard that officials were lying. But it never was explored in the open.

Barlow’s name was never mentioned, but Sen. Carl Levin, D-Mich., briefly summarized what happened after Barlow told Congress the truth and asked Wolfowitz if whistleblowers should be retaliated against if they provided Congress classified information.

“My answer is, absolutely not,” Wolfowitz said. He added that he was “aware of the issue” in the 1980s, and sought to distance himself from the decisions of Reagan and Bush administration officials not to tell Congress what was going on.

“I specifically sensed that people thought we could somehow construct a policy on a house of cards that Congress wouldn’t know what the Pakistanis were doing. I’ve always thought policies based on withholding information from Congress are going fail in the long run, and in that case there was a clear legal obligation to keep the Congress informed,” Wolfowitz told Levin in 2001.

The rest of the article has more detail (as well as a bit more hyperbole), but it seems to basically have a similar message as the NPR (Fresh Air) program.

Also, in this Congressional record report, John Glenn, Chairman of the Senate Committee on Governmental Affairs, spoke out about a lot of objections of nuclear programs in South Asia, particularly Pakistan. Here is one of them:

Fourth, should we be concerned about a nuclear-armed but democratic Pakistan? While recent political developments in Pakistan are surely welcome, the restoration of democracy brings with it no guarantee of progress toward nuclear arms control or disarmament. In today's democratic Pakistan, let us not forget that the `voice of the people,' as reflected in the media and parliamentary debates, is calling for the bomb. Neither the flag of democracy nor the banner of the Afghan `freedom fighter' should be used as a cloak for proliferation. A wink today at Pakistan's Bomb could, in an instant, lead to a nightmare tomorrow. In response to those who argue that because we are on friendly terms with Pakistan we should forget about its bomb, I can only thank

God that no such reasoning had prevailed in shaping our relations with Iran a decade ago. How soon people forget.

And from the following Congressional report, Pete Stark of the House of Reps. had the following to say regarding aid sent to Pakistan and Pakistan's nuclear program:

Under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Act, Pakistan may not receive United States aid because of its nuclear weapons program. The purpose of the law was to punish countries pursuing these weapons of mass destruction. But for almost a decade, we have made excuse after excuse, passed waiver after waiver, and sent more than $5 billion to Islamabad. From the record our generosity does not appear to have slowed down the Pakistani nuclear weapons program one bit.

It is inconceivable to me that we could even consider giving Pakistan aid this year. How many solemn oaths, promises, and agreements do they have to break before we change our attitude? In the area of nuclear proliferation, Pakistan's word means nothing. They are the Joe Isuzu of bombmakers. Let's make the United States word mean a little more and keep our promise to cut off assistance.

Senator Larry Pressler gave the following testimony in another Congressional record:

Yesterday's Foreign Relations Committee hearing explored the State Department's view that the Pressler amendment allows for the continued licensing of private sales of arms and technology to Pakistan notwithstanding what many consider very clear statutory language prohibiting such sales. To quote from the amendment, `no assistance shall be furnished to Pakistan and no military equipment or technology shall be sold or transferred to Pakistan, pursuant to the authorities contained in this Act or any other Act. * * *'

The language is quite clear. By licensing the export of arms and military technology to the government of Pakistan under the terms of the Arms Export Control Act, it seems to this Senator that the administration is in violation of both the letter and spirit of the Pressler amendment.

Mr. President, my concern is not just that the State Department is misinterpreting a statute passed by Congress. I am also very concerned that the purpose of the Pressler amendment--to stop nuclear weapons proliferation and ensure U.S. taxpayers are not asked to subsidize indirectly

the building of a nuclear weapons program in Pakistan--is not being achieved because while we have penalized Pakistan by cutting off most assistance to that country, arms continue to flow through the back door of private sales.

Later in that same report, John Glenn goes into more problems he has with US governmental aid and money going to Pakistan in spite of knowledge of a nuclear program:

The foreign secretary's statements raise some thorny problems for both the administration and the Pakistani government:

1. If Pakistan possessed these `elements' back in 1989, then how could the President have certified that Pakistan did not possess a nuclear explosive device? By the State Department's own interpretation of the Pressler amendment, if Pakistan possessed the bomb in pieces, it possessed the bomb.

2. If Pakistan did not possess these `elements' back in 1989, but acquired them after President Bush made his certification of nonpossession in October 1989, then the foreign secretary's statement that the program was `frozen' when his government came to power in November 1990 is hardly reassuring. The foreign secretary is saying that Pakistan has frozen its status as a de factor nuclear weapon state. He is also admitting that Pakistan has violated its solemn commitment to the United States in 1984 that it would not enrich uranium beyond the 5% level needed for civilian uses.

The foreign secretary's candid remarks about the existence of a nuclear capability in 1989--combined with his remarks about weapons `cores' that he claims were produced before his government came to power--raises the real possibility of a violation of the non-possession standard in that year or even earlier.

The second violation also occurred in 1989--actually it was just a repeat of 4 prior violations by President Reagan--when President Bush certified that the provision of new assistance would `reduce significantly' the risk that Pakistan would possess a nuclear explosive device. In contrast to voluminous evidence indicating that Pakistan's program to develop nuclear weapons was advancing throughout the late 1980's, there were just no credible grounds for concluding that the provision of new foreign aid was reducing the risk of Pakistan possessing the bomb.

Most damning, though, is when Senator Glenn continues:

In fact, I believe there is considerable evidence that America's aid and high technology undoubtedly contributed to Pakistan's nuclear and missile capabilities. The F-16 aircraft we provided along with the dual-use goods we transferred to nuclear and missile facilities in Pakistan provide sufficient grounds for this conclusion.

The third violation--and I do indeed call this a violation--occurred in 1992, when it was officially confirmed that the United States government was continuing to license arms sales to Pakistan despite the clear requirement of the Pressler amendment that `no military equipment or technology shall be sold or transferred to Pakistan' if it has not received the required Presidential certifications.

----

Funny thing: I barely did any research on this. I simply followed the links in one of Arkan_Wolfshade's earlier posts and looked for relevant corresponding data. I did a search on the book name by the authors in the NPR show and found that article that also talks about the book. Yet, in just my little bit of searching, I was able to find public record statements of very credible members of Congress-- one of whom was actually the one to propose the legislation to refuse aid to Pakistan if they continued a nuclear program-- and one former US diplomat (and member of the arms control authority) stating quite clearly that the US government had been turning a blind eye to the Pakistani nuclear program at the very least, and sending aid, money, and miltiary equipment in violation of our own legislation prohibiting it.

I've only looked at a few documents. If you want to look for yourself at the Congressional records, you can start here for some specific details, and I'm sure a little poking and boolean-searching can yeild more specific data.

The more I read, the less this looks like conspiracy theory material (though I'm sure there's loose conspirational connections, just not malicious) and the more it looks like typical two-faced political stupidity under the premise of national self-interest.

Which happens to be exactly what I said in the first place.

 

[GreNME]

and you are....

Did Randi die and I missed it? Who made you the director of all things critical thinking?

What the hell is with this juvenile "you're not my boss" crap? All you're doing is evading the issue of discussion.

It was pointed out in my post that the OP took a single source, and put it out as an argument, then posted in support of that single source, as did many others-- which is exactly what the twoofers have done--and generated many, many thousands of posts, arguments, and has built a cult around it.

Except you were wrong, because by the time you posted AW had already provided two other links to a plethora of supporting data (most of my above post comes from his links). You just didn't read it and attacked from ignorance. Your bad.

And I suggest you read the GD membership agreement. Attack the argument, not the person. You (rule10')ed that one, buddy.

Once again, you are wrong. My exact words were, and I quote:

You make a pretty asinine argument there, friend...
However, if all you're going to do is make some more arguments from ignorance on the subject...

The rest was stating clearly how you were being dismissive, rude, and adding nothing to the discussion but taking it upon yourself to pass judgment on everyone else.

So far, I think I've been pretty spot on since you are now three posts into this thread without yet having contributed productively in one direction or the other. So, if you want to bring moderation into this, then let's make sure they know about your conduct so that everyone else can actually get back to talking about the topic of the thread instead of your dismissiveness.

 

[rwguinn]

With all the personal bull stuff out of the way, let's hear the conspiracy.
It can't be the Republicans, since a Democrat started it, and another allowed the situation to continue during a critical timeframe, even though Republicans enabled it during the Regan and Bush I administrations.
Congress was variously controlled by Democrats and Republicans during that time, and they approved the aid despite the violations.
Looks like the only thing left is the NWO.
Otherwise, this belongs in Politics.

 

[GreNME]

You still haven't been reading what I've been saying.