US 'to offer F-16s to Pakistan'

BBC

The United States has decided to approve the sale of F-16 fighter jets to Pakistan, Indian officials say.

US President George W Bush told Indian premier Manmohan Singh of the decision in a telephone call at 1345 GMT, Mr Singh's media adviser said.

The adviser, Sanjay Baru, said that Mr Singh had expressed "great disappointment" at the decision.

The premier told Mr Bush it would exacerbate India's security concerns for the region.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/4382735.stm

Bush is the bigger threat.

Everything Bush does is soaked with hypocrisy.

They're too light to carry the bomb and enough fuel to have a really effective range, and as loaded down as they would be, it would be easy pickings for Indian air defenses.

The F-16's main advantage is its maneuverability and speed. Both those things would be eliminated by having nuclear weapon thats stresses the ability of the plane to carry it to the max. You'd have to strap the sucker to the centerline pylon.

Pakistan would be better off buying a dedicated heavy fighter/bomber like the Tornado GR1 as "light" nuclear bomber.

Flowers are so last year.

to Pakistan ... its a crazy world out there!!!

Must be another bushista effort to spread freedom and liberty.

When is India going to wake up from its delusions about Bush?

Pakistan is completely free of terrorists, right?

Never mind the fact that Pervez Musharraf is a military dictator who took over in a coup a few years ago.

Let's just ignore the fact that Noam Chomsky discovered that the Saudi hijackers fro 9/11 have been traced back to Pakistan (terrorist training camps connected with the Saudis).

Also overlook the fact that India's star is rising. The US doesn't seem to mind that they will be stepping on their toes.

A sure sign of an ossified dinosaur, ready to keel over. Thank God:smoke:

Dr Khan's work helped seal Pakistan's place as the world's seventh nuclear power and sparked national jubilation. He sold the secrets to every rogue nation and terrorist group on the planet.

His black market network paved the way for any nation or terrorist group the ability to build a nuclear device.

Should in the future a nuclear device be used against any nation by a terrorist, you have Khan to blame for handing the technology to them to build or buy the weapon.

Go Cheney yourself!

For letting Osama know the cruise missles were coming in 1998? For the Pakistani intelligence chief who wired money to the September 11 hijackers? Bush remembers who "made" him , and always takes care of his friends.

U.S. to Sell F-16 Jets to Pakistan, India
By DEB RIECHMANN, Associated Press Writer

Friday, March 25, 2005



(03-25) 09:26 PST WASHINGTON, (AP) --


The United States has agreed to sell sophisticated F-16 fighter planes to both India and its next-door rival Pakistan, administration officials said Friday, and India immediately expressed displeasure to President Bush.


The diplomatically sensitive move — which the administration was ready to announce later Friday — rewards Pakistan for help in the war on terrorism but angers India, a U.S. ally and a fellow democracy.


Bush, who is spending holiday time at his Texas ranch, called Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh early Friday to tell him of the long-anticipated decision. The State Department planned to describe details of the sale later in the day.


Singh "conveyed to President Bush his great disappointment over the United States' decision," Sanjaya Baru, the prime minister's spokesman said. Singh said sales to Pakistan endanger security in the region, Baru said.

more...
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/news/archive/2005/03/25/national/w083245S77.DTL

sell guns to both sides. Worked in Iran/Iraq, after all.

Nice to see we retain some loyalty to other democracies, we're willing to sell them planes as well.

US concerns not to sway India-Iran relations
http://www.hindustantimes.com/news/181_1292996,00020013.htm

not to strike a balance with India.

Of course there's an economic motive as well.

what utter bullshit....its amazing they can say this with a straight face.....

http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/nm/20050325/pl_nm/southasia_fighters_dc

<snip>

A senior Bush administration official said the sale, which was blocked for 15 years, "will not change the overall balance of power" between Pakistan and India, and the jets "are vital to Pakistan's security as President (Pervez) Musharraf takes numerous risks prosecuting the war on terror."

<more>

how could the purchase of one of our most advance fighters not change the balance of power??? unless we don't teach the Pakistanis how to fly then or sell the same thing to the Indians.....

and India has a rather strong air force.

I said they are "one of our most advance fighters" - which I do not beleive is an innacurate statement...

...and even considering the strength of the Indian Airforce, the addition of 26 F-16 will change the balance of power. perhaps it will not shift it all the way from one country to another, but it will be altered.

and the avionics the Pakistanis are getting are hardly state-of-the-art.

If this was 1985, then yes they'd be getting one of our most advanced fighters. But its not, its 2005, and the Indian Air Forces inventory of SU-30's and MiG-29's is more then a match for these 26 fighters we've sold them.

Considering the Pakistani Air Force flies upgraded MiG-21's and Mirage III's as its primary fighters (along with a few 1st generation F-16's) the balance of power is hardly tipped.

I'm not debating whether the F-16 or the avionics package is "state-of-the-art" nor whether the Pakistanis have other, more advance fighters. But, and without being over semantic, it is not an incorrect statement to say the F-16 is "one of our most advanced" fighters. Sure we have much more advanced airframes and much more advanced versions of the F-16, but it is, and remains, one hell of a fighter and a very effective air-to-ground weapon's platform. And while not cutting edge anymore, it is a plane that any air force would welcome as an addition to it, even considering what their inventory already contains.

And as for the balance of power tipping, again at the risk of a semantic debate, the addition of the planes to the region, while not tipping or dramatically altering the balance will, nonetheless, have an effect on the situation. If only in the fact that there are now an additional 24 or so planes in the theater.

But more important than the numbers is the message it conveys to India that the U.S. is selling such advanced (while not the "most advanced") weapons to their neighbor who, only a few short years ago, was considered a rouge state by the administration. In that regard, the decision to sell the planes can have a greater disruptive affect on the situation than what the affect of the planes during a conflict might be.

Thanks for providing some real information. The F-16's we're giving them may increase their air DEFENSE but will not ad significantly to their OFFENSIVE capabilities. The older F-16's (sans the advanced avionics of current American planes) is no match for the newer generation of MIGs.

Still, it seems to be a stupid move to push India closer to a China, Russian, Indian alliance. Kissinger may be one evil m*ther but even he's not that STUPID.

not to be too picky, and i really like your signature line. but its "Gandhi", not "Ghandi".

i'll go back to my hole now...

This administration is actively promoting the use of terrorism as a political tool. Of course the media promoted the image that he's "strong on terror" so therefore it's the truth eh?

The thing that amazes me is that some Indians here in the US actually support this administration. Fuckin worthless greedy bastards. They'd sell their own parents if it helped lessen their malpractice insurance.

happen to hate muslims. perhaps this is because they are so eager to "blend" with a culture that isn't theirs (white american culture), and never will be. (i know that most indians in the US also have a very patronizing view of afro-americans). they love the monkey because the monkey is anti-muslim, in their view.
most of the indians living in the US and the UK are arrogant, self-serving, dollar shitting, delusional, pseudo-whites who have an opinion (which is usually negative) on everything related to indian current affairs. in short, they're assholes.

You said >>>>> that's because most Hindu Indians in the US happen to hate Muslims. perhaps this is because they are so eager to "blend" with a culture that isn't theirs (white American culture), and never will be.
<<<<<<
Have you ever read the history of India ? Do the names Bin Qasim, Ghori, Ghazni , Timur, Aurangazeb et al ring any bell ?
Let me give you a short history lesson.
Starting with the invasion of Sind by Mohamad Bin Qasim in the 7th century , Islam and Hinduism had a sad and violent interaction always to the detriment of the latter. Islam spread by the sword, was fanatically monotheistic and intolerant of any other belief system. India of that time was multi-religious with polytheistic sanatana dharma, Budhism, jainism , atheism and esoteric tantrism , all accepted as valid paths. India of that time was also extremely rich , especially when compared to the resources of the barren deserts to the west.India of that time was also a sexually liberal , promiscuous culture where women had the freedom to have sex with whomever they liked. This was in contrast to the deeply conservative Islamic culture. If you would care to read the history of India from the 7th century to the 19th century , you will understand that the reasons Hindus have issues with Muslims have nothing to do with acceptance of white American culture but to the unfortunate events that occurred during that period and beyond.
Now I am sure you will say that these were things that happened during the middle ages. After all during the First war of Independence of 1857, Hindus and Muslims, Marathas and Mughals, aligned together and fought against the English. And later during the 1900's when the Hindu nationalist leader of the independence movement , Bal Gangadhar Tilak was being tried for sedition by the British , the barrister who came forward to defend him in the Bombay court was after all a young muslim by the name Mohamad Ali Jinnah. But you see, in 1905 there was a major uprising against the British throughout India and their hold was almost gone.Then the British used the tried and trusted strategy of divide and conquer , kind of like the US is doing with the Shias and Sunnis in Iraq, and influenced some muslim leaders to form the Muslim League. These people went around arousing the Muslims against the Hindus, the muslim masses started rioting against the Hindus and the anti-British movement was effectively destroyed. Later in 1920 ,
the Muslim League started a agitation called the Khilafat movement to reinstate the Caliphate in Turkey which had been defeated by the Allies in WW1. Gandhiji who had taken over the leadership of Congress after the death of Tilak declared full support to show common cause with the Muslims. Unfortunately the Turks under Kemal Ataturk wanted no more caliphate. The Muslims led by the League were pissed , and since they couldn't do a whole lot against the British , kind of decided to do the number that Zarqawi is doing in Iraq today. They started rioting against the Hindus and tens of thousand of Hindus were killed in Malabar, Peshawar and UP. And later , until 1947 , whenever Gandhiji would start a anti-British agitation, the Muslim League would back stab by siding with the British and raising the Pakistan demand. And then in 1946 came the final betrayal, when in-spite of Gandhi and Nehru bending over backwards to accomodate every demand of the Muslim people, the majority of the Muslims voted for the Muslim League.

So we come to partition and the terrible massacres of both sides and it is all a done deed by now. But let us see how this played out for the Hindus in Pakistan. At the time of partition West Pakistan had a population of 30% Hindus and sikhs. Today that percentage is less than 1%. In 1947, East Bengal had a Hindu population of 40%. By 1971, this had fallen to about 25%.During 1971, W.Pakistan , backed by an American president called Nixon, carried out a genocide of close to a million Bengalis. Close to 10 million East Bengalis were pushed out to India. Majority of the people killed or pushed out as refugees
to India were the remaining Hindus of E.Bengal. Of course lots of Bengali Muslims were also killed and pushed out as refugees. Then Indira Gandhi decided to send in the Indian Army .President Nixon send in the US Seventh fleet to the Bay of Bengal and threatened to nuke India. Fortunately , the USSR in turn send in their nuclear armed fleet and Nixon backed down. India lost several thousand soldiers and obtained freedom for Bangladesh. Guess how the Bangladeshi Muslims showed their gratitude? The W.Pakistan govt. had passed a law taking over the land of all Hindus who had fled to India. They had declared all these poor Hindus , most small land holding farmers , "enemy combatants". The new Bangladeshi govt refused to revoke this law and redistributed all the Hindus land to the Muslim Bangladeshis.Result , the East Bengali Hindus had nothing when they went back and returned to India to create the nefarious slums in the cities of Calcutta and Bombay. So today the Hindu population of Bangladesh is less than 8% and decreasing every day. On the other hand , in 1951 India had a population of about 11% Muslims , but during the last census they were about 13% ( close to 150 million).
Now if Ms Paagal Kutti will remove her ideological binkers and think, she will see that these numbers say a story. Somehow Hindus are not allowed to exist within majority muslim populations.
Now coming to 1989, the CIA sponsored Jihad ( started in 1979 under the executive order signed by democrat president Jimmy Carter ) had succeeded in Afghanistan and there were a whole bunch of jobless jehadis in Pakistan and Afghanistan. Guess what the Pakis did ? They send them over the border to Kashmir. Kashmir had a 90% muslim sunni population, but there was half a million Hindus called pandits who had lived there for 1000's of years. Guess what the muslim neighbours did. They led the Afghan/paki jehadis to the door steps of these people. There was a reign of murder and rape, and the pandits were given the option of converting, leaving or dying. There are now 500,000 of these people living in slum-like refugee camps in Jammu and Delhi for the last 15 years.
Do you know what happened last week ? There is an ongoing fight in Baluchistan between tribal Baluchis and the Pakistani Army. Baluchistan is 99.99% Muslim. There is a tiny Hindu population in Quetta who have lived there for centuries. The fight between Baluchis and Pakis have nothing to do with Hindus .( Read the book on Pakistan by Owen Benett Jones to get a backgrounder).
Some Bugti tribes men killed some pak soldiers. Guess what the Pakis did ? They retaliated by bombing a small Hindu temple during puja time and killed 17 Hindus , mostly women and children. Will these people ever get justice ? This will not even make pg Z78 of the NY Times. But should a stone fall in a church or mosque in India, you can bet it will be on the front page of the Times. Did Ms. Paagal Kutta care to shed a tear for these children of a lesser god ?
Now I am not justifying any Hindu hate for Muslims. All I am stating is that if any hate exists , the reasons maybe because of the above and not because Hindus like the taste of the white man's or woman's anal opening.
----------------------------------
You also said >>>>(i know that most Indians in the US also have a very patronizing view of afro-americans).<<<<<<
This is true about some Indians, not all. However sometimes African Americans come across quite offensively against Indians because of perceived wrongs. Remember how you were attacked by a African American gentleman on this forum during the Tsunami thread?
If you look at the first generation of Indian immigrants who come here , they can be divided into either computer professionals or small businessmen. The first group mostly work in high-tech companies in the engineering side which rarely have any blacks due to the failures of the American public school system.Thus there is no opportunity for any kind of interaction. The second group work in or own small businesses like 7-11's,motels, gas stations or drive cabs. They generally start in low income crime ridden inner cities , since that is all they can afford.Unfortunately here they often have to face criminal attacks , the perpetrators who often tend to be blacks. These crimes happen partly because of the war on drugs and partly because of the ghettoizing of the inner cities , with all the rich whites having moved over to their own suburban enclaves. However the Indians who are at the receiving end start blaming African American culture for this. This is a complex issue and I may not be completely correct in all this .
I don't know anything about how American Born and raised Indians perceive African Americans. What you say may be true about them.


-----------------------------------
You also said >>>>(they love the monkey because the monkey is anti-Muslim, in their view.<<<<<<
They love the monkey because Hanuman the monkey god helped Rama save Sita. You should read the Ramayana. Ok, I know you are referring to Mr. Bush here.I will tell you why ...
You may not know this , but the most anti-Indian US administration India faced after that of Nixon was the first term of President Clinton. This was not due to Clinton's fault because he was never involved with South Asia. The Asst. Sec of State in charge of South Asia was a lady by the name of Robin Raphel. She was the wife of Robert Raphel , the US ambassador to Pakistan during Soviet-Afghan war. Mr. Raphel was in the same helicopter as Gen. Zia-Ul-Haq , the pak dictator of the time. The bomb that brought down the helicopter and killed everyone on board is widely believed to have been a parting gift for Zia from the KGB's Kabul station before their withdrawal from Afghanistan. Whatever it be , Ms. Raphel seems to have acquired a visceral hatred for India while in Pakistan and the violent death of her husband probably did not help.During this time India was governed by the Congress leader NaraSimha Rao. The Pakistanis stepped up their terrorist infiltration and not a day went without 10, 15 or even 100 people dying. Everyday in Jammu region ( this is South of Kashmir and mostly Hindu ) some village would be attacked and tens of innocent Hindu men , women and children would be killed. Guess what the US State Dept. did ? They would accuse the Indian army of doing this to discredit Kashmiri Freedom fighters! The US state dept under Robin Raphel was practically acting as a relay station for the ISI's propaganda wing. Every week India would be threatened with sanctions for human rights violation. There were sanctions against selling any kind of high tech equipment to India. At the same time the Trade Secretary Christina Rocca was screwing India to open up every sector of the Indian economy to American companies with threats of economic sanctions. During all this time the Pakistanis were buying in the black market all kinds of equipment for building their Nuclear weapons. The pakistanis bought M-11 ballistic missiles from china and scuds from NK. No problem with the state dept. Ms. Raphel also tried hard to revoke the Pressler amendment to sell F-16's to Pak. However in this case Mr. Clinton listened to Larry Pressler the Republican senator and put his foot down. ( The Pressler Amendment banning sale of F-16's to Pak was signed by George Bush I. ). During this time ( early 90's) a London based Indian journalist (Shyam Bhatia I think) broke the story of the A.Q.Khan Network. ( Of course NY Times had this as breaking news last month). Khan was not only smuggling Nuclear components, but he was also selling these to Iran. NK, Libya etc. The story was later picked up by Seymour Hersh and published in the New Yorker with inputs from the CIA. Guess what the Clinton administration did ? He threatened sanctions against India unless India immediately signed NPT and CTBT.
Right from the days of JFK , Indian Americans had a soft spot for Democrats. During the 1971 Bangladesh war the Democrats (esp Ted Kennedy ) were pro India. After the Bangladesh fiasco, Nixon completely changed tack and became pro India. The other US administarations, even if not very friendly ( Reagan) never tried to hurt India. Bush I was actually friendly to-wards India. Clintons attitude ( though actually influenced by Raphel) was shocking to Indian Americans and that is when they started moving to-wards the Republican party. It was only after the Hindu Nationalist BJP came to power and decided give the middle finger to US by exploding Atomic Bombs that Clinton woke up. But he still continued to place all kinds of sanctions. By then a lot of Indian Americans had drifted to the Republican party. All along , India and Indian Americans had warned about the terrorist factory run by the ISI and AL.Q in Afghanistan, but the Democrats did not care and they are responsible partly for supporting terrorism against India and for letting 9-11 happen.
This is the reason why so many Indian Americans have become pro Republican Party and support the legitimate part of the war on terror. However they do not support Bushes private war in Iraq or the torturing of prisoners to get revenge.

--------------------------------------
You also said >>>>>> most of the Indians living in the US and the UK are arrogant, self-serving, dollar shitting, delusional, pseudo-whites who have an opinion (which is usually negative) on everything related to indian current affairs. in short, they're assholes.<<<<<<

From above it is obvious that you are filled with self-hatred. You already showed that you are ignorant of Indian history. So I'll take a guess and say that you are probably a ABCD ( American Born Cute Desi) girl. What you said above may be true about ABCD's ? I know it is not true about immigrant Indians in US. Let us see in no particular order what you wrote.
1. pseudo whites, want to blend in white culture : Most first generation Indians have arranged marriages , give their children Indian names, celebrate Indians festivals like holi & diwali, teach their children their mother tongue, take part in indian cultural events , go to temples , want their children to marry other Indians, try to stop their children from dating and having casual sex, the womenfolk wear bindis, sarees and salwar and just can't do without Curry!.. I can go on ... Most Americans seem to think that Indians don't blend in enough. So if anyone is delusional here, it is you.
I feel that in general they strike a good balance.
2. arrogant: First generation Indians have pride in their culture and civilization. This may appear as arogance to some who think that only the West is good . However only Indian ( and chinese ) civilizations have survived from 4000+ years back in-spite of attack from Islamic and Western forces.So that is something.
3. self-serving, dollar-shitting : Most Indians who come here have no equity. They only have their professional or work skills. They have no one to fall back on if they were to lose their job or get into any kind of trouble. Most often they have extended family in India ( like aging parents , younger siblings ) to take care of. So they have to be very focused, work hard and worry about money. They also try to save enough money so that ABCD's like you can go to first rate universities without worrying one bit about expenses or having to work for minimum wage during college years like most other average Americans. Of course , for all their trouble , they get self-hating ignoramuses like you.
4.opinion about everything : Indians in India and elsewhere have a opinion about everything. Thats because they come from a free democratic society. You probably prefer a environment like Saudi Arabia, Pakistan , erstwhile USSR or China, where only the views you like are allowed. It is different in India and thankfully in US/UK too. If you think it is negative, it is because you don't agree with it. It is like a Freeper coming to DU or a DUer going to FReeRepub. In both cases the sentiments would be negative. If you cannot allow or tolerate the others' views , you are not a democrat.
5.they're assholes : So far the only indian origin assholes I have met who meet all your adjectives are the ABCD girls. Most of them hate their indianness and will date only white men. They turn their face away when they see an Indian, almost afraid that coming in contact with a first generation FOB indian will somehow cause them to loose their "caste" in the American social pecking order.They play up their exotic Indianness when trying to snag a white boyfriend but hate and deride the indianness of their FOB parents. So whatever you have described is yourself.

son, i'm not a woman, i'm a happily married man. i live in new delhi. i'm a graduate in indian history from st. stephens college, university of delhi. and i can do nothing but laugh at your little 'history' lesson, which seems to have been copy pasted from a shady right wing hindu website.

your poor grasp of the history of your own land - where muslims are always the bad guys and the hindus the silent oppressed - reeks of the stupidity and lumpen-ism that is a trademark of the hindu right.

besides, since you point out how muslims betrayed gandhi, i am obliged to remind you that gandhi's assasin was a hindu nutcase that belonged to the RSS - the organisation that is reponsible for brainwashing you.

history is not fantasy, gorky. its much more complicated than a simple fight between the forces of evil and the forces of goodness. you speak like george bush, and i wonder what it is you are doing here in DU.

PM me when you are given the permission to do so, and I will clarify all your doubts about Indian history, and especially the mughal period.

better still, smoke some gaanja and read some *good* indian history books, esp the works of DN Jha.

finally, are you related to pravin togadia? if you are, or donate to his organization of rat fuckers, tell him i think he's a wart on the asshole of civilization.

So your hatred for Hindus in America is driven more by ideology than ignorance. Fair enough.

The brutal Islamic conquest of India is a fact and there are any number of history books ( Will Durant, Wolpert etc) in American libraries which give the facts. I don't have to rely on any right wing website. Nor do I rely on ideological thrash written by Marxist historians from JNU like Jha or Thapar. It was Islamic outsiders who attacked India and not the other way around. Even your marxist historians do not deny this fact. They only interpret it differently and say that the raids were economic in aim and the attackers had the best intention of replacing corrupt hinduism with egalitarian islam. This explanation is no different from what the Bush administration has given, that the iraq war is to bring freedom and democracy to the iraqis. May be you should throw away the ganja and the ideological thrash written by Marxist historians from JNU and read the original accounts written by Al Beruni etc.

Also tell me why there are practically no hindu minority left in Pakistan or Bangladesh?

Listen, the reason I brought this up was not to justify any hate towards anybody , but to refute your allegation that hindus in America hate muslims in order to suck up to whites. I just stated that there are other reasons. I also gave you the reason why historically democratic Indian Americans started moving towards the Republicans.


As far as PMing you , why would I want to write to a traitorous rat like you who is shitting on his own people ?
Your kind sit in Delhi and write thrash about hindus in US so that you can score some brownie points with some white "liberal" master. May be a tenure in some history dept. here will be the reward for you. I responded only because there is enough hatred to-wards indians here because of the job losses.The next time some supposedly "liberal" guy beats up a poor Indian here , he can list the reasons that you gave to along with stealing jobs to justify it. After 9-11 Indians faced more attacks in supposedly liberal cities like San Francisco and New York. And it was not because the people didn't know these were not muslims.

we keep selling more and more sophisticated weapons to everyone and anyone, and then we complain about arms proliferation . . . yet another example of the hypocrisy of the corporatocracy -- where dollars override morality, ethics, and even intelligence . . .

I have heard speculation that he was received help from Pakistani intelligence in the past.

....two dozen sophisticated F-16 fighter planes with a price tag of $40 to $50 million each plus all the weapons that would go with them, a nice piece of business for Lockheed/Martin. Then Bush will get India to buy 150 stealth fighters and bombers for $10 billion and guess what? Arms race!!!

By ANNE GEARAN, AP Diplomatic Writer

WASHINGTON - The Bush administration rewarded Pakistan, an improbable ally in the war on terrorism, with a promise Friday that it could buy sophisticated U.S.-built F-16 warplanes. Pakistan's nuclear rival, India, immediately complained the sale would threaten its security.

The sales would represent a shift in policy after years of sanctions and harsh rhetoric from Washington over Pakistan's nuclear ambitions and what U.S. administrations have seen as tolerance for Islamic extremism. Since the Sept. 11, 2001, terror attacks, however, Pakistan has become an important partner in hunting suspected terrorists and cracking down on anti-American extremists.

More:
http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20050326/ap_on_go_pr_wh/us_india_pakistan

:wow:

..I'd rather they send their bucks our way, since if they're in the market, obviously someone will supply them.

They have something on the order of 180 or so French Mirage III's and 5's already, so they're not averse to buying from the French.

The III's are probably getting pretty old these days and due for replacement.

So its the French, China, or us. The Pak's aren't all that fond of the russians.

Consider-- the number of the US Fortune 500 companies have outsourced operations in one form or another to India. Any future conflict between India and Pakistan is a threat to commercial growth in India.

What is Corporate Murka saying about this one?

Washington — The Bush administration rewarded Pakistan, an improbable ally in the war on terrorism, with a promise Friday that it could buy sophisticated U.S.-built F-16 warplanes. Pakistan's nuclear rival, India, immediately complained the sale would threaten its security.

The sales would represent a shift in policy after years of sanctions and harsh rhetoric from Washington over Pakistan's nuclear ambitions and what U.S. administrations have seen as tolerance for Islamic extremism. Since the Sept. 11, 2001, terror attacks, however, Pakistan has become an important partner in hunting suspected terrorists and cracking down on anti-American extremists.

Mindful of the fragile balance of power in South Asia, the administration also gave a green light to India for its own purchase of sophisticated weapons.

more...

http://www.theday.com/eng/web/news/re.aspx?re=2b6b48e1-4779-4aa9-819c-4e84792f5c20

and Iran so you arm them to the teeth and make them a bigger threat
to their arch enemy India that also has nukes. Real fucking smart Chimpy! I hope we survive these next four years.

fighting to work off our bankruptcy debt after taxes have eaten our last job's paychecks alive.....

Nice job Condi! :nuke:

Kinda funny demand for kidnappers, huh? Until you realize that Omar Saeed Sheikh, bin Laden's lieutenant who lured Pearl to his death, was also an ISI asset.

I didn't remember that but of course that was what they demanded. Pretty darn transparent isn't it? Mahmud Ahmad got a house arrest (if even that) for ordering the 9/11 attack. AQ Khan was pardoned for running a nuclear wall-mart. "Countries that harbour or support terrorists"...

Cheney and Rumsfeld, Sibel Edmonds, the black market for nuclear weapons technology, drug trade and money laundering, and the American Turkish Council:

http://www.onlinejournal.com/Special_Reports/030905Stanton/030905stanton.html

US Misled Allies About Nuclear Export

>>
U.S. Misled Allies About Nuclear Export
North Korea Sent Material To Pakistan, Not to Libya

By Dafna Linzer
Washington Post Staff Writer
Sunday, March 20, 2005; Page A01

In an effort to increase pressure on North Korea, the Bush administration told its Asian allies in briefings earlier this year that Pyongyang had exported nuclear material to Libya. That was a significant new charge, the first allegation that North Korea was helping to create a new nuclear weapons state.

But that is not what U.S. intelligence reported, according to two officials with detailed knowledge of the transaction. North Korea, according to the intelligence, had supplied uranium hexafluoride -- which can be enriched to weapons-grade uranium -- to Pakistan. It was Pakistan, a key U.S. ally with its own nuclear arsenal, that sold the material to Libya. The U.S. government had no evidence, the officials said, that North Korea knew of the second transaction.

Pakistan's role as both the buyer and the seller was concealed to cover up the part played by Washington's partner in the hunt for al Qaeda leaders, according to the officials, who discussed the issue on the condition of anonymity.
....

The Bush administration's approach, intended to isolate North Korea, instead left allies increasingly doubtful as they began to learn that the briefings omitted essential details about the transaction,...

Since Pakistan became a key U.S. ally in the hunt for al Qaeda leaders, the administration has not held President Pervez Musharraf accountable for actions taken by while he was a member of Musharraf's cabinet and in charge of nuclear cooperation for the government.
....
<<

from www.OliverWillis.com (3/27/05)

The subject of Bin Laden came to mind today when I read this story about President Bush deciding to sell F-16 fighter jets to Pakistan as we try to persuade our allies not to sell weapons to China, and as we exert pressure on Iran which has an increasingly close relationship with India. Yes, Pakistan---that predominantly Islamic nation run by a nuke-wielding General who seized power from a democratically-elected leader via a military coup, and who now refuses to hold elections. Yes, Pakistan---that island of tranquility that has never experienced the slightest bit of tension with any of its neighbors. And yes, Pakistan---the nation that for years "never knew" that its top scientist essentially held an open-ended airline ticket to travel the world selling nuclear blueprints. How many more years---and via how many more weapons sales---will the U.S. continue to reward Musharraf for conceding graciously to ground A.Q. Khan? If he delivers Bin Laden ten years from now, will we send him some aircraft carriers?

Why should we give fighter planes to Pakistan? Let's just give them direct to Al Qaeda and cut out the middle man.

Freedom's on he march.
(via Ed Cone)

between Pakistan and India that there was actually a likelihood of a nuclear weapon being used.

Does anyone else remember this?

US aviation manufacturer Lockheed Martin has offered to build 'exclusive' F-16 fighters for the Indian Air Force, much superior to any existing fighters in service in the world.

"If India's requirements are beyond any existing fighters, we are prepared to make upgraded F-16s to India's specifications with complete transfer of technology," Mike Kelly, Senior Executive of Lockheed Martin told PTI.

The comments assume importance in the wake of the US administration's decision on Saturday to clear sales of F-16s to Pakistan and allow American firms to sell sophisticated weapons to India.

continued: http://in.rediff.com/news/2005/mar/27martin.htm

follow up to the discussion below:
US 'to offer F-16s to Pakistan'

...and shrub is arming both sides!
To what end, one might rightfully ask?

PROFIT.

Think he really gives a shit if 'those brown people' blow each other up ? It hasn't occurred to him that nuke fallout could reach Crawford.

Speaks the Bush*.

180

Iran-Iraq war?

I was thinking about this yesterday, about the morality and pure atheistic wisdom of selling arms, even to our so-called Allies, and it occured to me that we've been to war with Italy, Germany, Canada, Mexico, Spain, England, Japan, and many other countries that today we consider our closest allies.

Even though we may not think we'll go to war with India or Pakistan today, did we think we'd be going to war with Vietnam, or Korea, or Afghanistan 10 years before the fact?

Why should we give them weapons? We'll just end up fighting against our own technology in the long run. If Pakistan wants fighter jets, they can build their own. If all the other countries on earth are left with stone age technology, maybe we can cut the war budget a little and spend the money on useful things, like schools.

actually between China and India not Pakistan and India. Not that India doesn't take their problems with Pakistan seriously, but as an East Indian friend of mine likes to say, "If we all took a piss at the same time, the Paks would be drowned in the flood."

The Paks have the Bomb so that would seem to guarantee their independence, but a conventional war between Pakistan and India would be a very lopsided affair. The Bomb does make Pak sponsored terrorism kind of hard to deal with though---or at least it did. Their trouble-making ability appears to have been severely curtailed post-9/11.

Hate the idea of arming Pakistan. It's just a fact that the Pak government was involved in the 9/11 attacks, and in helping al Qaeda members escape Afghanistan during our invasion.

What a world.

their love for the mighty dollar, not mentioned Martin Lockheed INTENDS to close their plamts in Texas... they will be OURSOURCED after the 2006 midterm elections... ain't that cool?

"full technology transfer." They will be building the planes in India and, I imagine, selling them where ever.

Uh.... is this the same Pakistan whose ISI chief wired Mohammed Atta $100,000 the week before 911? I thought so. Nothing to see here... move along, everything is going along according to plan. Just when you think "our side" can't become even more ridiculous.

Einstein said that he didn't know what WWIII would be fought with, but he added that he knew that WWWIV would be fought with sticks and stones.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=103&topic_id=115595


Latin-American arm race has to be stopped now
http://www.taipeitimes.com/News/edit/archives/2005/03/27/2003247971

to sabotage the nascent Russia-India-Brazil-Venezuela axis. Condi offered the Indians F-16s a couple of weeks ago but they didn't want them. They have started building Russian fighter on license in India. It will be interesting to see what they do with this offer.

To include China in that axis. Don't see it doing anything other than feathering Boeing's stock value and driving India further the other way.

Any way you slice it, it sucks for our kid's prospects of a non-radioactive future.

Gyre

It only hampers their freedom of action. The best thing they can do is strengthen their ties with the other Asian powers to curtail American encroachment on Asian interests.

India's getting quite an offer here. Quite an offer.

One must wonder what the point of bribing Pakistan with F-16's it's been trying to buy for ages then

USA Oil have at that Iranian Oil Market ... not fair that India and Iran deal directly with each other... Not fair because both countries...er...start with the letter I.

They're using upgraded Su-27's, which eat F-16's for lunch.

All depends on the avionics suites, and that changes every few years. But, there was a competition between the US and India air forces a few years ago (using F16s) and the US team has a serious wake-up call about the SU27s capability, as well as Indian fighter pilots.

Gyre

...preface this by saying that I don't think any of "The Big Three" (US, Russian, China) should be selling weapons to anyone, but the fact of the matter is that they will. If Pak doesn't get F-16's from us, they're going to get SU-27's or MIG-31's from Russia, or they're going to get the Chinese knock-offs from China.

The most advanced fighters from the US and Russia are pretty similar in terms of airframe ability. I'd have to give the edge to the US in terms of avionics, targeting and jamming systems, as well as a significant edge in battlefield visualization with our AWACS and radar systems.

Unfortunatly this is a case of supply and demand. There is a demand for advanced fighters in India and Pakistan, so they're going to buy them from somewhere. We all know Bush is not going to play the higher moral ground card if he's got a shot at a sale.

seen this story here since yesterday!

to kill each other more efficiently', right George? Gee... Just like selling weapons to Europe right before WWI!

into destroying one another?

actually at war.

Afghanistan had; we once helped them.
Iraq had; we once helped them.
Russia seems like it might be doing so; we once helped them.
South Korea has done so economically; we've been helping them.

For all that work they outsourced to India, the thought of more firepower to both India and Pakistan must have Corporate Murka quivering their new employment base doesn't get annihilated....

If India has better fighters than us, why then we'll need to buy lots of F-22's....from Lockheed!!

This make work program to get fat cats even richer has no limits :crazy:

The thing I haven't figured out is why Bush is not invading Pakistan. After all there is no speculation about them harboring international criminals, carrying on an un-democratic government and being in the process of acquiring EVEN more nuclear explosives and other Weapons of Mass Destruction to threaten others with :shrug:


San Francisco Chronicle
Nuclear components acquired
U.S. investigators uncover Pakistan's link to black market

Josh Meyer, Los Angeles Times

Saturday, March 26, 2005


Washington -- A federal criminal investigation has uncovered evidence that the government of Pakistan has made clandestine purchases of U.S. high-tech components for use in its nuclear weapons program, in defiance of American law.

Federal authorities also say the highly specialized equipment at one point passed through the hands of an arms dealer in Islamabad, Pakistan, named Humayun Khan, who they say has ties to Islamic militants.

Even though President Bush has been pushing for an international crackdown on such trafficking, efforts by two U.S. agencies to send investigators to Pakistan to gather more evidence have been stymied for more than a year by other American officials, according to U.S. officials knowledgeable about the case.

"This is the age-old problem with Pakistan and the U.S.," said David Albright, director of the Institute for Science and International Security in Washington. "Other priorities always trump the United States from coming down hard on Pakistan's nuclear proliferation." A former U.N. weapons inspector in Iraq and elsewhere, Albright favors getting tougher with Pakistan.
(snip)
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2005/03/26/MNGIJBV7KQ1.DTL

COUP IN PAKISTAN
On Tuesday, the military closed the airports and placed Pakistani Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif under house arrest.

The coup came just hours after Sharif fired Musharraf, who was visiting Sri Lanka. The general immediately flew back to Pakistan and was met at the airport by a large contingent of soldiers.

The conflict between the two men developed this summer after the prime minister ordered militants to withdraw from Indian territory in the Kashmir region, ending two months of bitter fighting with India.

Musharraf reportedly orchestrated the incursion into Kashmir, and the withdrawal of the militants was considered humiliating to Pakistan's military.

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/asia/july-dec99/pakistan_report_10-12.html



Musharraf's coup


A beleaguered Pakistan military regime faces mounting criticism

In perpetrating a second coup against democracy, General Pervez Musharraf may have strengthened his own position but he has done Pakistan no favours. Gen Musharraf's decision to elevate himself from "chief executive", the title he assumed after the 1999 military takeover, to president, had been predicted. But that does not make it any more acceptable. And the timing was inept, coming as his foreign minister, Abdul Sattar, was in Washington trying to persuade a sceptical US administration to show more understanding of his country's problems.

Mr Sattar, who seems to have been badly caught out by the presidential putsch, conducted a similar exercise in London the previous week. Any progress he may have made has now been wrecked by the general's action, which brought sharp rebukes from the US State Department and the Foreign Office. Any chance that Washington would relax its sanctions has been blown, while the Commonwealth must decide whether to expel Pakistan when it meets later this year.

Just as when he overthrew Pakistan's elected prime minister, Nawaz Sharif, Gen Musharraf justifies his latest constitutional violation on grounds of personal duty and the national interest. Some progress has been made since 1999 in tackling corruption and restoring order to the country's indebted economy. Growth this year is estimated at 4% and exports and foreign currency reserves are up. But these advances have come at a high cost, with normal political life suspended, violence in Kashmir increasing again, and Pakistan isolated, especially over its links with Afghanistan's Taliban. Although Gen Musharraf promises to allow parliamentary elections by October next year, he is likely to retain his dominant, still illegitimate position, backed by an unelected security council. Public anger at Mr Sharif's clique has been replaced by a sense of powerlessness.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/pakistan/Story/0,2763,511917,00.html

By Vilani Peiris
21 November 2000

Use this version to print

Last month marked one year since General Pervez Musharraf ousted the elected Pakistani government, arrested prime minister Nawaz Sharif and installed his own military regime. Accusing the previous government of corruption and ruining the economy, Musharraf promised to bring economic progress and political stability, eradicate poverty, build investor confidence and restore democracy as quickly as possible.

Twelve months later none of these promises have been fulfilled. The economy is still on a knife-edge and there is growing popular discontent with falling living standards and the lack of basic democratic rights. The regime is under fire not only from the political opposition but also from its supporters in the ruling elites including among the military top brass.

At the end of October, a meeting of key military commanders grilled Musharraf over the record of his administration. According to an Agence France-Presse report: “Political and diplomatic sources said that the commanders discussed plans to appoint a civilian prime minister to deflect public anger from the military, should the situation deteriorate further.”

http://www.wsws.org/articles/2000/nov2000/pak-n21.shtml

...he came to become the "President" of Pakistan in a bloodless coup. He was also responsible for a fourth "attack" on Indian Kashmir in 1999 (Kargil conflict).

And USA is arming him to teeth again.

We always arm horrible, despotic regimes, and then we have to go to war with the people we helped create. We supported Saddam in the early 80s, and then we faught him twice. Have we learned our lesson? Of course not. We're arming a theocratic, terror-supporting regime in Pakistan.