[Gary H]

Debka might be out to lunch on this one, but here is what they are saying:

"Pakistan will deploy nuclear missiles and warheads at Saudi bases under military-nuclear accord signed in Islamabad by Crown prince Abdullah. DEBKAfile adds: Pakistani security umbrella will replace US troop presence withdrawn from kingdom this summer. Deal flatly defies Bush warning to Abdullah this year not to deploy nuclear weapons on Saudi soil."

This post and so many like it are way off topic, but of interest. There have been previous reports that Saudi Arabia had a secret nuclear program. It strikes me that our non-action with regards to North Korea will encourage other nations to go forward with their nuclear programs. Why would Abdullah seek nuclear forces? There are only three possible nuclear threats to Saudi Arabia: Israeli, Iranian and the U.S. I'm thinking that Abdullah wishes a nuclear innoculation against U.S. military intervention. If true, this must also mean that Saudi Arabia will provide the finances needed for Pakistan to build up her nuclear forces.

I would guess that if true, this is a long range agreement. I don't believe that Pakistan presently has excess nuclear weapons that it would be willing to part with. Of course, money is a major catalyst.

http://debka.com

[bountyhunter]

You know, this nuclear thing and their funding of Bin Laden and Al Qaeda has started my thinking they may not be the beloved allies that we are being told they are.

[Lone_Gunman]

just now picking up on that bountyhunter?

[benewton]

After 9/11, I don't think that the Saudi's, given their citizen involvement, should have any problem at all getting nuclear weapons.

For instance, we really do need a full system test of our sea and/or land based weapons systems. So far as I know, there has never been a test of a rocket armed with actual warhead(s), so how do you really know that they work?
Add in the lack of nuclear weapons testing, and, no, I don't really believe in digital modeling, and you've a real problem.

I think, and I've not researched the maps, about four should reduce that place to a sand pit without any significant surface feature, which sounds good to me.

Besides, we could probably test the MIRV's. too!

[SteelyDan]

Nah, it can't be true. I've seen several commercials recently proclaiming that the Saudiis are our pals. I mean, they were on TV. Don't try to pull the wool over my eyes...

[Augustwest]

Debka might be out to lunch on this one

Wouldn't that be a shocker :p

Islamabad's getting wayyyy to much dough from Washington for all the "help" it's giving us in catching Osama right now to risk moving nukes to Saudi Arabia.

Of more concern, I think, is what happens if the current (sorta) friendly gov't in Pakistan falls. Where do the nukes end up then?

[Gary H]

Augustwest:

I know that in the past Saudi Arabia received money from the leased bases and Saudi citizens benefited from instant visas. Now, we are mostly out militarily and visa preferences have been scaled back. I know that President Bush treats Saudi Arabia with great favor, but the evacuation of the bases was a message sent. How do we currently provide money to Saudi Arabia..other than buying their oil?

[7.62FullMetalJacket]

What is more of a concern is that the Kingdom's days are numbered. There will be an "Usama" leading a revolt against the royals in years, not decades. An if they have nuclear weapons, who will be in control of them.........

[SteelyDan]

I see Drudge is reporting it now, too.

So who the heck runs Debka?? Never heard of it until tonight, but it appeals to the paranoid beserker (shamelessly borrowed the beserker part, but I like it) in me. On a one-to-ten scale, how good a site is it?

[El Tejon]

Nukes for the House of Saud?

Hooray! It's about f%$#@*g time!!! Time to clean God's Monkey House. The House of Saud is the gorilla house. Nothing kills monkey bacteria like gamma rays.:cool:

[SIC TRANSIT GLORIA MUNDI]

My prediction: The day the Saudis or any other Arab country gets an operational nuclear weapon is the day they will receive several more as a gift from the people of Israel. :uhoh: ;)

[Gary H]

Debka has been very good and very bad at reporting the unreported in the Middle East. I suspect that they provide information and disinformation disseminated by Massad. Now that Drudge is carrying the story, I would think that someone in power will need to deny that such a deal ever existed.

From Drudge:

"
Pakistan and Saudi Arabia have concluded a secret agreement on “nuclear cooperation” that will provide the Saudis with nuclear-weapons technology in exchange for cheap oil, the WASHINGTON TIMES will report on Wednesday, sources tell DRUDGE... Developing Hard... "

[rock jock]

Oh, goody. We finally get to use some of our dormant nukes against a target-rich environment. Two benefits I can think of: we wipe out funding for a good chunk of the world's terrorists and we vastly improve the value of our own reserves when 40% of the oil on this planet instantly becomes inaccessible.

[Gary H]

rock jock:

Can you imagine the economic fallout from sand to glass in Saudi Arabia?

Can you say World Depression?

Can you imagine the worldwide Jihad that would follow the nuclear destruction of Saudi Arabia.

Can you imagine another World War?

Let's hope that this report will prove false.

Here is the Washington Times Story:

"Pakistan, Saudi Arabia in secret nuke pact


By Arnaud de Borchgrave
THE WASHINGTON TIMES



ISLAMABAD, Pakistan — Pakistan and Saudi Arabia have concluded a secret agreement on "nuclear cooperation" that will provide the Saudis with nuclear-weapons technology in exchange for cheap oil, according to a ranking Pakistani insider.
The disclosure came at the end of a 26-hour state visit to Islamabad last weekend by Crown Prince Abdullah bin Abdulaziz, Saudi Arabia's de facto ruler, who flew across the Arabian Sea with an entourage of 200, including Foreign Minister Prince Saud Al Faisal and several Cabinet ministers.
Prince Sultan bin Abdul Aziz Al Saud, the pro-American defense minister who is next in line to the throne after the crown prince, was not part of the delegation.
"It will be vehemently denied by both countries," said the Pakistani source, whose information has proven reliable for more than a decade, "but future events will confirm that Pakistan has agreed to provide [Saudi Arabia] with the wherewithal for a nuclear deterrent."
As predicted, Saudi Arabia — which has faced strong international suspicion for years that it was seeking a nuclear capability through Pakistan — strongly denied the claim.
Prince Sultan was quoted in the Saudi newspaper Okaz yesterday saying that "no military agreements were concluded between the kingdom and Pakistan during [Prince Abdullah´s] visit to Islamabad."
Mohammad Sadiq, deputy chief of mission for Pakistan's embassy in Washington, also denied any nuclear deal was in the works. "That is totally incorrect," he said in a telephone interview. "We have a clear policy: We will not export our nuclear expertise."
But the CIA believes Pakistan already has shared its nuclear know-how, working with North Korea in exchange for missile technology.
A Pakistani C-130 was spotted by satellite loading North Korean missiles at Pyongyang airport last year. Pakistan, which is estimated to have between 35 and 60 nuclear weapons, said this was a straight purchase for cash and strongly denied a nuclear quid pro quo.
"Both Pakistan and Saudi Arabia," the Pakistani source said, "see a world that is moving from nonproliferation to proliferation of nuclear weapons."
The Saudi rulers, who are Sunni Muslims, are believed to have concluded that nothing will deter the Shi'ite Muslims who rule Iran from continuing their quest for a nuclear weapons capability.
Pakistan, meanwhile, is concerned about a recent arms agreement between India, its nuclear archrival, and Israel, a longtime nuclear power whose inventory is estimated at between 200 and 400 weapons.
To counter what Pakistani and Saudi leaders regard as multiple regional threats, the two countries have decided to quietly move ahead with an exchange of free or cheap Saudi oil for Pakistani nuclear know-how, the Pakistani source said.
Pakistanis have worked as contract pilots for the Royal Saudi Air Force for the past 30 years. Several hundred thousand Pakistani workers are employed by the Gulf states, both as skilled and unskilled workers, and their remittances are a hard currency boon for the Pakistani treasury.
Prince Abdullah reportedly sees Saudi oil reserves, the world's largest, as becoming increasingly vulnerable over the next 10 years.
By mutual agreement, U.S. forces withdrew from Saudi Arabia earlier this year to relocate across the border in the tiny oil sheikdom of Qatar.
Saudi officials also are still chafing over a closed meeting — later well publicized — of the U.S. Defense Policy Board in 2002, where an expert explained, with a 16-slide Powerpoint presentation, why and how the United States should seize and occupy oil fields in the country's Eastern Province.
Several incidents have raised questions over the extent of Saudi-Pakistani cooperation in defense matters.
A new policy paper by Simon Henderson, an analyst with the Washington Institute for Near East Policy, noted that Prince Sultan visited Pakistan's highly restricted Kahuta uranium enrichment and missile assembly factory in 1999, a visit that prompted a formal diplomatic complaint from Washington.
And a son of Prince Abdullah attended Pakistan's test-firing last year of its Ghauri-class missile, which has a range of 950 miles and could be used to deliver a nuclear payload.
President Bush was reported to have confronted Pervez Musharraf over the Saudi nuclear issue during the Pakistani president's visit to Camp David this summer, and Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage raised the issue during a trip to Islamabad earlier this month, according to Mr. Henderson's paper.
"Apart from proliferation concerns, Washington likely harbors more general fears about what would happen if either of the regimes in Riyadh or Islamabad became radically Islamic," according to Mr. Henderson.
GlobalSecurity.org, a well-connected defense Internet site, found in a recent survey that Saudi Arabia has the infrastructure to exploit such nuclear exports very quickly.
"While there is no direct evidence that Saudi Arabia has chosen a nuclear option, the Saudis have in place a foundation for building a nuclear deterrent," according to the Web site.
•Arnaud de Borchgrave, editor at large of The Washington Times, is editor at large of United Press International as well. "

http://www.washtimes.com/world/20031021-112804-8451r.htm

[Ryder]

http://www.dawn.com/2003/10/22/top11.htm

You guy's might be just a little bit trigger happy ;)
DAWN is Pakistan's most widely circulated English language newspaper.

[w4rma]

BushCo is a flipping disaster. Nukes for North Korea and Iran, costly quagmires in Iraq and Afghanistan, a big crater in NYC, the EU is putting together their own armed forces separate from us and now the Saudis are getting nukes, also.

A total disaster for everyone except the board members of corporations which build weapons and nukes.

P.S. Global warming is melting the ice caps (thus raising the water level of our oceans) and BushCo has wasted 4 more years of which we should have been doing something to slow and eventually prevent and reverse it. I like our East and West coasts right where they are.

[Sergeant Bob]

BushCo is a flipping disaster. Nukes for North Korea and Iran, costly quagmires in Iraq and Afghanistan, a big crater in NYC, the EU is putting together their own armed forces separate from us and now the Saudis are getting nukes, also.

A total disaster for everyone except the board members of corporations which build weapons and nukes.

P.S. Global warming is melting the ice caps (thus raising the water level of our oceans) and BushCo has wasted 4 more years of which we should have been doing something to slow and eventually prevent and reverse it. I like our East and West coasts right where they are.
Amen!! And don't forget about the increased hurricane activity. Been alot fo earthquakes the last couple of years too. Oh, and the Yellowstone caldera may blow! The space shuttle blew up, SARS in China! Lions and tigers and bears, Oh My!!:rolleyes:

[Ohen Cepel]

I think it's a great idea!!!!!!!:D

Oh, wait. You're talking about them having a nuclear bomb.
:evil:

I didn't read the whole email.

[feedthehogs]

Time to pull all economic aid from around the world and spend on putting a surplus in our economy again.

Open the oil reserves in this country, raise gas prices to 2 bucks a gallon to slow usage and quit buying foreign oil. No money for oil , no economy.

Let the sob's starve.

Bring all the troops home and station around the borders of U.S. 360 degrees.

All the bleeding heart liberals that want to leave, nows your chance. Go help the world instead of your own.

Then point all ICBM's in the direction of any country known or suspected to have nukes.

Then stand back and give them all the finger.

I for one am tired of trying to help other countries and getting the bums rush in return.

Drastic, heck ya. But diplomacy doesn't work. Never has, never will.

They all agree to the terms and then behind your back do what they want anyway. This shell game is outdated.

Diplomacy is used when you don't have the nads to do anything else.

Rant Over......................

Side note: Busy finishing my cockroach outer shell protective jacket so I can survive after the big blast. Damn things are hard to sew together.

[Augustwest]

How do we currently provide money to Saudi Arabia..other than buying their oil?

Not sure we do, but I was referring to aid to Pakistan in exchange for their cooperation with the war in Afghanistan.

Not sure the al' Saud's would want to do anything that cuts off their access to all of the nifty military hardware they're able to purchase from US companies either though.

[AJ Dual]

If we can get good intel on the exact storage location and yield characteristics of Saudi, Iranian or North Korean nukes, an identical yield bomb sent over with an undetectable next-generation stealth cruise missile launched from a sub would make for a nice "accident". :D

Unfortunately we would have to pick which one of the three needs to have that "accident" the most. If two or more of them were to have an "accident" even the chowderheads at the U.N. might catch on.

Of course, we could try to make a plausible case that North Korea's bomb designs were faulty somehow, and that tech transfers to Iran and Saudi meant that they all had the same "faulty design"...

[Gary H]

w4rma:

You need to stop listening to the lies from the left and research on your own rather believing what you hear. For example, do you think that Clinton should have allowed Yemen to turn over Osama? He told them that he wasn't interested. Global warming... there are long term trends that make this one very questionable. North Korean nukes.. let's ask Jimmy Carter what he was doing in 1994 and Clinton why he agreed and why did Clinton stay silent when he found out in 98-99 that N.Korea was acting against their agreement?

Anyway, w4rma, educate yourself before holding a position.

[w4rma]

National Defense
Here are a few stories about Clinton's attempts to combat terrorist forces and the brick walls he ran up against:

April 24, 1995 The American Civil Liberties Union today said that the “counter-terrorism” proposals suggested by President Clinton Sunday evening threatened to repeat the mistakes of the past and erode constitutional principles that have shaped our society and remain at the core of our freedom and liberty.
…
http://www.aclu.org/news/n042495.html

April 18, 1996 Congress on Thursday passed a compromise bill boosting the ability of law enforcement authorities to fight domestic terrorism . . . The measure, which the Senate passed overwhelmingly Wednesday evening, is a watered-down version of the White House's proposal. The Clinton administration has been critical of the bill, calling it too weak.
…
http://www.cnn.com/US/9604/18/anti.terror.bill/index.html

July 30, 1996 Paris -- A Fact Sheet from the July 30 ministerial meeting of the P-8 (the industrialized nations of the world plus Russia) notes that President Clinton for three years has led an international campaign to combat terrorism in concert with the P-8 as well as with allies in the Middle East and elsewhere . . . Following is the official text of the Fact Sheet.
…
http://www.fas.org/irp/threat/p8_facta.htm

July 30, 1996 President Clinton urged Congress Tuesday to act swiftly in developing anti-terrorism legislation before its August recess . . . But while the president pushed for quick legislation, Republican lawmakers hardened their stance against some of the proposed anti-terrorism measures . . . Clinton said he knew there was Republican opposition to his proposal on explosive taggants, but it should not be allowed to block the provisions on which both parties agree.
…
http://www.cnn.com/US/9607/30/clinton.terrorism/

August 25, 1998 The August 20 bombing of Osama bin Laden's terrorist bases in Afghanistan and the alleged bin Laden-funded chemical weapons production facility in Khartoum, was a decisive and appropriate U.S. response to the atrocities in Nairobi and Dar es Salaam, and President Bill Clinton should be commended.
…
http://www.washingtoninstitute.org/media/schenker.htm

March 21, 2000 US President Bill Clinton said on Tuesday that he would take up with Pakistan military ruler Gen Pervez Musharraf the issue of terrorism in the Kashmir valley.
…
http://www.indiainfo.com/news/2000/03/21/clin

March 22, 2000 Clinton is pushing General Musharraf to use his influence with Afghanistan's leaders—the Taliban—to bring Bin Laden to trial . . . Even if Musharraf could convince the Taliban to give Bin Laden up, there is an abundance of anger, frustration and weapons in the region, left over from the Afghan war, when thousands of extremists came together to bring a superpower to its knees . . . That militant network has built up in this region over two decades of conflict. The president believes America must get deeply involved in South Asia to crack the terrorist problem, a process Clinton continues throughout this week.
…
http://www.kdka.com/now/story/0,1597,1747

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?pagename=article&node=&contentId=A8734-2002Jan19

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A62725-2001Dec18

http://www.cnn.com/2000/ALLPOLITICS/stories/01/24/pentagon.budget/

http://www.cnn.com/US/9604/18/anti.terror.bill/index.html

http://www9.cnn.com/US/9607/30/clinton.terrorism/

http://www.fbi.gov/congress/congress99/freehct2.htm

http://online.securityfocus.com/news/201

http://www.prospect.org/webfeatures/2002/01/page-a-01-23.html

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?pagename=article&node=&contentId=A61219-2001Oct2


And don't forget how GW stopped ongoing terrorist investigations:

FBI claims Bin Laden inquiry was frustrated
Officials told to 'back off' on Saudis before September 11
Greg Palast and David Pallister
The Guardian Wednesday November 7, 2001

FBI and military intelligence officials in Washington say they were prevented for political reasons from carrying out full investigations into members of the Bin Laden family in the US before the terrorist attacks of September 11.

US intelligence agencies have come under criticism for their wholesale failure to predict the catastrophe at the World Trade Centre. But some are complaining that their hands were tied.
…
They said the restrictions became worse after the Bush administration took over this year. The intelligence agencies had been told to “back off” from investigations involving other members of the Bin Laden family, the Saudi royals, and possible Saudi links to the acquisition of nuclear weapons by Pakistan.

“There were particular investigations that were effectively killed.”
Only after the September 11 attacks was the stance of political and commercial closeness reversed towards the other members of the large Bin Laden clan, who have classed Osama bin Laden as their “black sheep”.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/Archive/Article/0,4273,4293682,00.html

Hart-Rudman
Not only did Clinton's actions prevent Y2K terrorist acts (eg, a bomber headed off on his way to the celebration in Seattle), but much more occurred in his administration to ward off terrorism ~ only to be scuttled by the Bushistas:

Commission warned Bush
But White House passed on recommendations by a bipartisan, Defense department-ordered commission on domestic terrorism.
by Jake Tapper

Sept. 12, 2001 | WASHINGTON -- They went to great pains not to sound as though they were telling the president “We told you so.”

But on Wednesday, two former senators, the bipartisan co-chairs of a Defense Department-chartered commission on national security, spoke with something between frustration and regret about how White House officials failed to embrace any of the recommendations to prevent acts of domestic terrorism delivered earlier this year.

Bush administration officials told former Sens. Gary Hart, D-Colo., and Warren Rudman, R-N.H., that they preferred instead to put aside the recommendations issued in the January report by the U.S. Commission on National Security/21st Century. Instead, the White House announced in May that it would have Vice President Dick Cheney study the potential problem of domestic terrorism -- which the bipartisan group had already spent two and a half years studying -- while assigning responsibility for dealing with the issue to the Federal Emergency Management Agency, headed by former Bush campaign manager Joe Allbaugh.
…
Before the White House decided to go in its own direction, Congress seemed to be taking the commission's suggestions seriously, according to Hart and Rudman. “Frankly, the White House shut it down,” Hart says. “The president said 'Please wait, we're going to turn this over to the vice president. We believe FEMA is competent to coordinate this effort.' And so Congress moved on to other things, like tax cuts and the issue of the day.”

“We predicted it,” Hart says of Tuesday's horrific events. “We said Americans will likely die on American soil, possibly in large numbers -- that's a quote (from the commission's Phase One Report) from the fall of 1999.”
…
http://www.salon.com/politics/feature/2001/09/12/bush/

The Gore Commission
also known as the White House Commission on Aviation Safety and Security.
http://www.airportnet.org/depts/regulatory/gorecom.htm

Here is what seems to have happened to the recomendations of the Gore Commission:
We begin our news with a quote: “The federal government should consider aviation security as a national security issue, and provide substantial funding for capital improvements. The Commission believes that terrorist attacks on civil aviation are directed at the United States, and that there should be an ongoing federal commitment to reducing the threats that they pose.”

If you think that comes from a recent Bush White House report, guess again. In the summer of 1996, shortly after the crash of TWA flight 800, President Clinton asked Vice President Al Gore to chair a commission on improving air transportation safety. As a result, the White House Commission on Aviation Safety and Security, commonly known as the Gore Commission, conducted an in-depth analysis of the U.S. commercial airlines' safeguards against terrorist attacks. In its final report, which is what I quoted from a moment ago, the Gore Commission found that security measures used by U.S. airlines were extremely inadequate, and made over 50 recommendations to improve security.

What happened? Well, the Gore Commission demanded tougher airline security, but airlines and conservatives said no. Specifically, the airline industry dismissed the threat of terrorists, and attacked the commission. Indeed, the day after the final report was published, the Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association fought back with a legislative action of their own that claimed the Gore Commission existed simply to thwart the will of the Republican Congress.

And conservative ideologues rejected the proposal on “cost-effectiveness” grounds. OK, so how much are 6,000 lives worth - not to mention the dollar value placed on the World Trade Center, a portion of the Pentagon, an economic recession, and America's security?
http://www.d28dems.org/pspeak/psE85.htm

For instance, the commission, headed by then-Vice President Al Gore, wanted airlines to screen all passengers with computerized profiling systems to detect potential terrorists.
http://www.detnews.com/2001/nation/0110/06/nation-312052.htm
http://www.democraticunderground.com/cgi-bin/duforum/duboard.cgi?az=show_thread&om=25100&forum=DCForumID35

I think that what Shrub is doing is *creating* terrorism and murdering hundreds of thousands of innocent people and whole families.
Before 9.11:
Bush defunds international organizations that provide abortions or abortion counseling to poor women.
Bush postures over North Korea.
Bush pulls out of the Kyoto treaty.
Bush makes a gaffe over Taiwan/China policy.
Bush returns the world to a Cold War-level arms race.
Bush rejects a protocol to enforce germ warfare treaty.
Bush denies Africans AIDS drugs through international aid agency.
Bush isolates United States in denying support for Kyoto treaty.
Bush officially rejects germ warfare treaty protocol.
Bush announces that the United States will withdraw from the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty.
Bush skips an international conference on racism.
After 9.11:
Bush tries to end arms sanctions.
Bush approves the assassination of Osama bin Laden.
Bush proposes trying suspected terrorists with military tribunals.
Bush abandons ABM treaty.
Bush plans to store--rather than destroy--nuclear weapons slated for reduction.
Bush invents the “axis of evil.”
Bush tries to limit Congressional probes of September 11 terrorist attacks.
Bush releases his laughable global warming plan.
Bush makes the possibility of using nuclear weapons much more likely.
Bush lifts restrictions on aid to Colombia.
http://www.wage-slave.org/scorecard.html

…
In 2000, when Prime Minister Ehud Barak, PLO Chairman Yasser Arafat and President Clinton were meeting at Camp David, Perle made news when he warned Barak not to let Vice President Al Gore become involved in the peace summit, for fear it would boost Gore's election prospects. He also told Barak to “walk away” from a peace plan if it left the thorny issue of a divided Jerusalem unresolved. Working as an advisor to candidate Bush, Perle warned Barak he would urge the Texas governor to condemn any peace plan that gave the PLO a foothold in Jerusalem. The Bush campaign quickly distanced itself from Perle's remarks.
…
http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2002/09/05/perle/index.html

Anger at peace talks 'meddling'
Political scandal in US as Bush advisers tell Israelis to be ready to walk out of Camp David negotiations
http://www.guardian.co.uk/israel/Story/0,2763,342857,00.html

You’re Invited to the War Party (“Bush at War” book review)
By Georgie Anne Geyer
…
Another time, he says to Woodward, “I’m the commander—see, I don’t need to explain—I do not need to explain why I say things. That’s the interesting thing about being the president. Maybe somebody needs to explain to me why they say something, but I don’t feel like I owe anybody an explanation.”

At still another point after the Afghan war has started, the president says to his staff, “Look, our strategy is to create chaos, to create a vacuum.” And Woodward ends the book with another quote from the president, in which he again reflects the obsessive chaos theory of the neoconservatives surrounding him like sentinels and for whom Iraq has become the sina quo non of political existence: “We will export death and violence to the four corners of the earth in defense of our great nation.” Whew.
http://www.amconmag.com/01_13_03/geyer7.html

Global Warming
…
GLOBAL TEMPERATURE WARMEST ON RECORD FOR SEPTEMBER
…
Globe:
The average global surface temperature for combined land and ocean surfaces during September 2003 (http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/research/2003/sep/global.html) (based on preliminary data) was 1.0°F (0.6°C) above the 1880-2002 long-term mean, the warmest September (http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/img/climate/research/2003/sep/glob_sep_pg.gif) since 1880 (the beginning of reliable instrumental records). The 2nd and 3rd warmest on record occurred in 1997 and 1998, respectively. Since 1900, global surface temperatures have risen at a rate of 1.0°F/century (0.6°C/century), but the rate has increased to approximately three times the century-scale trend since 1976.

Land surface temperatures were second warmest for September. Temperatures were extremely warm (http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/img/climate/research/2003/sep/map_mntp_09_2003_pg.gif) throughout much of eastern Canada, where monthly anomalies in excess of 4.0° F(2.2°C) were widespread. Unusually warm temperatures also covered much of Asia and Europe. The global ocean surface temperature was warmest on record, and temperatures in much of the central and eastern equatorial Pacific (http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/research/2003/sep/eaimages.html) were near average as the neutral phase of ENSO (El Niño/Southern Oscillation) continued.
…
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/research/2003/sep/sep03.html

…
WHITMAN {CNN CROSSFIRE}: He has also been very clear that the science is good on global warming. It does exist. There is a real problem that we as a world face from global warming.
…
BASKIN: Controversy dogged Christie Whitman up until she resigned last spring. Once again the issue was global warming.

One of Whitman's first directives as EPA administrator had been to order up a report card on the environment...a report card which, by the spring of 2003, had become politically radioactive. A trail of internal documents reveal what happened.

A November 2002 draft of the report contained strong language on global warming concluding that climate change has, quote, "global consequences for human health and the environment" and that global warming is, quote, "most likely a result of human activities."

But by the following April, an internal EPA document shows the White House removed that language and declared, quote, "no further changes may be made" to the report.

And it came at a time when environmentalists were pressing Whitman to stand up to the White House. Eric Schaeffer is the EPA's former Director of Enforcement.
…
BASKIN: But internal EPA documents refer to a quote "scientific consensus" within the EPA on global warming. So who exactly was opposed?

It turns out it was the White House Council on Environmental Quality. Its offices are across the street from the West Wing. And how many scientists are on its staff? None.

It's headed by James Connaughton, and who is he? A former lobbyist for power and electric utilities, the same industries who once opposed the very idea of global warming. That's where the ultimatum came from.
…
http://www.pbs.org/now/transcript/transcript_clearingtheair.html

Arctic ice shelf breakup reported
Largest ice shelf in region was solid for 3,000 years

WASHINGTON, Sept. 22 — The largest ice shelf in the Arctic, a solid feature for 3,000 years, has broken up, scientists in the United States and Canada said Monday. They said the Ward Hunt Ice Shelf, on the north coast of Ellesmere Island in Canada’s Nunavut territory, broke into two main parts, themselves cut through with fissures. A freshwater lake drained into the sea, the researchers reported.

LARGE ICE ISLANDS also calved off from the shelf and some are large enough to be dangerous to shipping and to drilling platforms in the Beaufort Sea.
…
Records indicate an increase of four-tenths of a degree centigrade every 10 years since 1967. The average July temperature has been 1.3 degrees Celsius or 34 degrees F —just above the freezing point — since 1967.

Climate change has affected ocean temperature, salinity and flow patterns, which also influence the break-up of ice shelves in the Antarctic. “It’s not just as simple as it gets x degrees warmer and the ice melts this much,” Mueller said.

Warmer temperatures weaken the ice, leaving it vulnerable to changed currents and other forces.
http://stacks.msnbc.com/news/970325.asp?0cv=cb10

Britain bakes, Europe burns. Is this proof of global warming?
…
If it isn't proof of global warming at last, it certainly looks like it. As much of Europe burns like a furnace and rivers run dry across the continent, Britain is bracing itself for its own record temperature.

Sometime tomorrow, in southern England or the Midlands, the mercury in the thermometer may pass 37.1C, which became the national record when registered in Cheltenham on 3 August 1990. That centigrade peak translates as 98.8 Fahrenheit, so the remarkable figure for Britain of 99 or even 100F- is on the cards.

A record would be hugely significant - a three-figure Fahrenheit temperature for the UK would be breaking psychological as well as new meteorological ground as it would give many people for the first time the perception that global warning is a real, not a theoretical phenomenon - and that it is happening to them.
…
http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/environment/story.jsp?story=430750

Canada anxious about snow melting in Arctic
…
Snow melting in the Arctic as a result of global warming can pose a threat to the population of Canada's northern provinces, said Canadian Environment Minister David Anderson at the World Conference on Climate Change held in Moscow on Monday.

"Climate changes already pose a serious threat in the Arctic, and this bears directly on Canada," he pointed out. In this connection the Canadian minister did not rule out a possibility of resettling the population of the country's northern districts.
…
According to Norwegian Environment Minister Borge Brende, in the recent decades global warming has become evident.

"Scientist forecast that during the forthcoming century, the average air temperature on the Earth may increase by 5.4 degrees, while over the last 10,000 years the temperature growth has not exceeded 8 degrees," Brende pointed out.
…
http://newsfromrussia.com/world/2003/09/29/50234.html

[benewton]

Long post, my time and interest wane, do I need to read these cites?

Let's see who's listed in the sources:

ACLU
CNN
PBS
Washington Post
newsfromrussia
democraticunderground

Don't recognize the rest, but I can easily guess that the rest resemble this choice sample...

Na, just flush it quickly and head toward sanity elsewhere.

[Sean Smith]

Democratic Underground and wage-slave.org are really convincing sources... :rolleyes:

w4rma = troll.

[tiberius]

w4rma = troll.

Since all of his posts are in L&P, he obviously has no interest in guns, so you are probably right on this.

[bountyhunter]

Interesting. The person you just labeled a troll has 55 posts made to this board in the ten days he has been registered (so far).

[Benjamin]

Gentlemen, I'd like to bring this back on topic.

So far, the evidence of this deal is:

one report from drudge
some info from DEBKA

The article from Dawn and sify cite previous discussions between Powell & Mushariff, in which the US supposedly received concrete assurances that exactly this situation wouldn't happen. (I know, I know...)

US military forces are currently in Pakistan in some number, as part of the war on terror & hunt for bin Laden.

Somehow this story just doesn't pass the BS meter. No AP confirmation, no names named, no independent proof, multiple denials frim consular sources.

[greyhound]

w4rma

Good Lord, man, that post was too long to read. Not trying to be a wiseacre, but that had to take a couple hours. On a serious note, and I said it before, I doubt you'll do much converting here to Dean (or convince most that Clinton was a "hawk"). But I do admire your passion on the subjects....

I for one am tired of trying to help other countries and getting the bums rush in return.

I agree 100%. Just don't know what to do about it. The world is much more connected now than it was 25 years ago. Dang internet. (oh, wait a minute :rolleyes: )

[greyhound]

(Somewhat off topic then I'm done)

Honestly, folks even though W4rma lists "democraticunderground.org" as his home page, I for one say he has taken the high road here - he really pushes for Dean, but is a good debater and doesn't resort to personal attacks. I for one am happy to see an opposing viewpoint once in a while.

Mr. W4ma, I would like to see you weigh in on the guns things too, if your style in "L&P" is any indication you may have some good debating....

And on topic, if the Saudis get nukes, Bush is finished. The left will run those pictures of him and the Crown Prince all cozy in Texas till the cows come home.
Though I am a little skeptical myself, lately it seems the Saudis were coming around to our point of view.....

[Jeff White]

Washington Times
October 22, 2003
Pg. 1

Pakistan, Saudi Arabia In Secret Nuke Pact

By Arnaud de Borchgrave, The Washington Times

ISLAMABAD, Pakistan — Pakistan and Saudi Arabia have concluded a secret agreement on "nuclear cooperation" that will provide the Saudis with nuclear-weapons technology in exchange for cheap oil, according to a ranking Pakistani insider.

The disclosure came at the end of a 26-hour state visit to Islamabad last weekend by Crown Prince Abdullah bin Abdulaziz, Saudi Arabia's de facto ruler, who flew across the Arabian Sea with an entourage of 200, including Foreign Minister Prince Saud Al Faisal and several Cabinet ministers.

Prince Sultan bin Abdul Aziz Al Saud, the pro-American defense minister who is next in line to the throne after the crown prince, was not part of the delegation.

"It will be vehemently denied by both countries," said the Pakistani source, whose information has proven reliable for more than a decade, "but future events will confirm that Pakistan has agreed to provide [Saudi Arabia] with the wherewithal for a nuclear deterrent."

As predicted, Saudi Arabia — which has faced strong international suspicion for years that it was seeking a nuclear capability through Pakistan — strongly denied the claim.

Prince Sultan was quoted in the Saudi newspaper Okaz yesterday saying that "no military agreements were concluded between the kingdom and Pakistan during [Prince Abdullah´s] visit to Islamabad."

Mohammad Sadiq, deputy chief of mission for Pakistan's embassy in Washington, also denied any nuclear deal was in the works. "That is totally incorrect," he said in a telephone interview. "We have a clear policy: We will not export our nuclear expertise."

But the CIA believes Pakistan already has shared its nuclear know-how, working with North Korea in exchange for missile technology.

A Pakistani C-130 was spotted by satellite loading North Korean missiles at Pyongyang airport last year. Pakistan, which is estimated to have between 35 and 60 nuclear weapons, said this was a straight purchase for cash and strongly denied a nuclear quid pro quo.

"Both Pakistan and Saudi Arabia," the Pakistani source said, "see a world that is moving from nonproliferation to proliferation of nuclear weapons."

The Saudi rulers, who are Sunni Muslims, are believed to have concluded that nothing will deter the Shi'ite Muslims who rule Iran from continuing their quest for a nuclear weapons capability.

Pakistan, meanwhile, is concerned about a recent arms agreement between India, its nuclear archrival, and Israel, a longtime nuclear power whose inventory is estimated at between 200 and 400 weapons.

To counter what Pakistani and Saudi leaders regard as multiple regional threats, the two countries have decided to quietly move ahead with an exchange of free or cheap Saudi oil for Pakistani nuclear know-how, the Pakistani source said.

Pakistanis have worked as contract pilots for the Royal Saudi Air Force for the past 30 years. Several hundred thousand Pakistani workers are employed by the Gulf states, both as skilled and unskilled workers, and their remittances are a hard currency boon for the Pakistani treasury.

Prince Abdullah reportedly sees Saudi oil reserves, the world's largest, as becoming increasingly vulnerable over the next 10 years.

By mutual agreement, U.S. forces withdrew from Saudi Arabia earlier this year to relocate across the border in the tiny oil sheikdom of Qatar.

Saudi officials also are still chafing over a closed meeting — later well publicized — of the U.S. Defense Policy Board in 2002, where an expert explained, with a 16-slide Powerpoint presentation, why and how the United States should seize and occupy oil fields in the country's Eastern Province.

Several incidents have raised questions over the extent of Saudi-Pakistani cooperation in defense matters.

A new policy paper by Simon Henderson, an analyst with the Washington Institute for Near East Policy, noted that Prince Sultan visited Pakistan's highly restricted Kahuta uranium enrichment and missile assembly factory in 1999, a visit that prompted a formal diplomatic complaint from Washington.

And a son of Prince Abdullah attended Pakistan's test-firing last year of its Ghauri-class missile, which has a range of 950 miles and could be used to deliver a nuclear payload.

President Bush was reported to have confronted Pervez Musharraf over the Saudi nuclear issue during the Pakistani president's visit to Camp David this summer, and Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage raised the issue during a trip to Islamabad earlier this month, according to Mr. Henderson's paper.

"Apart from proliferation concerns, Washington likely harbors more general fears about what would happen if either of the regimes in Riyadh or Islamabad became radically Islamic," according to Mr. Henderson.

GlobalSecurity.org, a well-connected defense Internet site, found in a recent survey that Saudi Arabia has the infrastructure to exploit such nuclear exports very quickly.

"While there is no direct evidence that Saudi Arabia has chosen a nuclear option, the Saudis have in place a foundation for building a nuclear deterrent," according to the Web site.

Arnaud de Borchgrave, editor at large of The Washington Times, is editor at large of United Press International as well.

[Jeff White]

Defense & Foreign Affairs Daily
October 22, 2003

Pakistan Agrees To Station Nuclear Weapons, Long-Range Missiles In Saudi Arabia; European, Indian Targets Within Reach

Exclusive. Analysis. By Yossef Bodansky and Gregory R. Copley. With input from GIS (Global Information System) Stations Islamabad, Riyadh and Kuala Lumpur.

Pakistan has reached a secret but definitive agreement to station nuclear weapons on Saudi soil, fitted to a new generation of Chinese (PRC)-supplied long-range (4,000 to 5,000km) ballistic missiles which would be under Pakistani command, but clearly with some form of joint Saudi-Pakistani command and control.

The new systems would be able to reach European and Indian targets, increasing Saudi political influence in Europe and giving Pakistan the strategic depth it needs to have a second-strike capability against Indian nuclear capabilities. This radically changes the balance of power in South Asia.

Highly-reliable GIS/Defense & Foreign Affairs Daily sources in Islamabad and Riyadh reported on October 21, 2003, that Saudi Arabia’s effective ruler, Crown Prince and Deputy Prime Minister ‘Abdallah bin ‘Abd al-’Aziz al Sa’ud, reached the agreement with Pakistan Pres. Pervez Musharraf and Pakistani Prime Minister Mir Zafarullah Jamali during the visit of the Saudi delegation to Pakistan October 18-20, 2003. The agreement is the culmination of a long and sustained series of Saudi requests to Pakistan. A significant, unreported one-on-one meeting between Pres. Musharraf and Crown Prince ‘Abdallah in Kuala Lumpur, at the Organization for Islamic Conference (OIC) on October 15, 2003, was also significant in the process.

It was clearly the fact that the Saudi basing would give Pakistan the capability to credibly deter an Indian nuclear or conventional attack on Pakistan which was the decisive element for the Pakistani leadership. Pakistan’s domestically-based nuclear capability is insufficient to deter the threat even of an overwhelming Indian military thrust into the country. However, the basing of an IRBM capability, with nuclear weapons, in Saudi Arabia, adds a complex second-strike capability to Pakistan’s deterrence and bargaining power with India.

Pakistani Prime Minister Mir Zafarullah Jamali arrived in Tehran on October 21, 2003, for a three-day visit, ostensibly about trade, but the Pakistani Government wished to use the visit to explain the Saudi-Pakistani deal with Iranian officials, in order to ensure that Iran did not see the new arrangement as a threat to Iran. Iran is conscious of the fact that the 1987 Saudi CSS-2 acquisition was specifically designed to deter Iranian attacks on Saudi Arabia.

It was understood that, under the Saudi-Pakistani pact, the nuclear weapons deployed to Saudi Arabia would remain as Pakistani systems, and the new series of ballistic missiles — which would replace the existing Saudi CSS-2 missiles (2,800km+ range), provided by the PRC and based on the DF-3A — would be paid-for by Saudi Arabia while being marked as Pakistani systems. The new systems would have a range of at least 4,000km and possibly 5,000km.

Saudi Arabia acquired its CSS-2s in 1987, principally to counter potential threats from Iran. The Saudi systems, which were obsolescent even then, were fitted with conventional warheads, although it was believed that Saudi Arabia had developed chemical and/or biological warhead capabilities for the missiles. The Royal Saudi Air Force (Al Quwwat al Jawwiya al Malakiya as Sa’udiya) operates a total of 50 CSS-2 IRBMs, in two squadrons; one at al-Joffer, the other at Sulayel (the principal missile base). The CSS-2 is a road-transportable, liquid-fueled IRBM, and can be launched from either permanent launch pads or from portable launch stands, although the RSAF approach appears to be to base the systems at fixed sites.

It was understood that the new systems would replace the CSS-2s at al-Joffer and Sulayel. Ideally, according to the sources, the new systems would be solid-fuel missiles, although it was possible that a derivative of the DF-4 liquid-fueled system (4,750km range) could be obtained, surplus from PRC stocks as an interim measure. The DF-4 operates from fixed bases. No specific timetable was put on the proposed new deployment of Pakistani strategic systems in Saudi Arabia, but a DF-4 acquisition option could make the plan operational within a very short timeframe.

In about February 2002, Saudi workers began a major expansion program at Sulayel. By early March 2002, there were significant numbers of new buildings and fortified storage facilities. New facilities were also built at the nearby King Khalid Military City, to support the Sulayel expansion. New launch pads were created and, significantly, new fortified storage facilities were built for missiles which would be longer than the CSS-2s currently in service. Two underground facilities were also noted.

The implication of the Saudi-Pakistani deal is that it (a) gives Saudi Arabia more credibility and leverage in dealing with European states and the US; and (b) makes Saudi Arabia now a part of the threat matrix for India.

It was no coincidence that, during the three-day Saudi visit to Pakistan that Saudi Foreign Minister Prince Sa’ud al-Faisal bin Abd al-Aziz Al-Sa’ud said in Islamabad on October 19, 2003, that Indian-Israel military cooperation was a "worrying element" which could unleash instability and arms race in the region. Speaking at a joint news conference with Pakistani Foreign Minister Khurshid Mehmood Kasuri, he addressed the recently-concluded defense supply agreement in Delhi among India, Israel and Russia, Prince Sa’ud said: "Indeed what we are hearing of this cooperation (Indo-Israel deal) is that it is aimed not at the good of the region, but to inflame the region, to further add to the arms race in the region." In the same context, he recalled how some Israeli think tanks demonstrated "similar sinister designs" in the Middle East concerning the "security of Israel". He observed: "It is a country of four-million or so people that believes its security extends from the Indus River to the Atlantic Ocean."

The Saudi mission to Islamabad — the first at this level since the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks on the US — demonstrated the extent of concern which the Saudi leadership felt about the India-Israel strategic relations which had also blossomed since 2001.

The Saudi Crown Prince held talks with Gen. Musharraf and Prime Minister Mir Zafarullah Jamali, and Pakistani official sources said that the visit was as a result of an invitation delivered to the Crown Prince recently by Pres. Musharraf’s special envoy. However, Saudi sources said that the visit was as much as a result of Saudi wishes as Pakistani. The visit also resulted in a complete harmony of expressed views on all common foreign policy issues — including whether Pakistan should, or should not, supply peacekeepers to Iraq [the consensus was to wait for an Iraqi invitation] — and a statement that Saudi economic aid to Pakistan would increase from $65-million to $100-million a year "as a token of its appreciation for Pakistan’s impressive economic performance over the last four years".

Crown Prince ‘Abdullah on October 19, 2003, visited an exhibition of defense equipment in Islamabad, and was accompanied by the Pakistani President and Prime Minister. The extensive display and demonstrations were not, according to Pakistani sources, just for show. There was a direct interest by Saudi Arabia in Pakistani-built systems.

Significantly, however, there were now routine cooperative exercises underway between RSAF and Pakistan Air Force (PAF) units in joint asset protection — air defense — deployments. These, too, were more than routine, and were, according to sources, aimed at developing joint capabilities to defend the proposed new strategic missile facilities in Saudi Arabia.

Saudi-Pakistani nuclear weapons planning and cooperation has been underway for some years, but it had always been felt that Pakistani officials were resisting pressure from Riyadh to provide actual weapons to Saudi Arabia. [Even now, the formula addresses Saudi needs, but keeps the weapons in Pakistani hands, at least nominally and for some purposes.] However, the trail of events makes it clear that Saudi Arabia had consistently worked toward the acquisition of a nuclear capability, provided by Pakistan.

It will be recalled that on May 6-7, 1999, then-Pakistan Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif escorted Saudi Minister of Defense & Aviation Prince Sultan bin ‘Abd al-Aziz al-Saud on a visit to Pakistani nuclear research facilities and the manufacturing facilities for the Ghauri liquid-fueled strategic ballistic missile (a derivative of the DPRK NoDong-1) in Kahuta. This was the first and only visit by a foreign dignitary to the facilities, and only the third by a Pakistani head-of-government. The host was Dr Abdul Qadir Khan, at that time regarded as the "father" of the Pakistani nuclear capability. Prince Sultan at this time was known to have engaged in what were described by sources as "very substantive" discussions with Pakistani officials for the acquisition of both nuclear weapons and Ghauri MRBMs.

The Ghauri, with a range of only some 2,600km, was later to be bypassed, partly because of the range question; partly because it was liquid-fueled and not solid-fueled; and partly because of problems with the NoDong-1s being faced by its originator, the DPRK. Pakistani sources have said, however, that the Ghauri derivatives were likely to resume and were still viable.

Prince Sultan’s visit to Pakistan was followed by a visit to Saudi Arabia in mid-September 2000 by a Pakistani strategic policy and nuclear delegation led by Dr Abdul Qadir Khan, Dr Ijaz Shafi Ghilani and Dr M. Younus But. They were guests of Prince Sultan, and at a speech on about September 20, 2000, Dr Abdul Qadir Khan thanked the Saudi Government for contributing to the success of the Pakistani nuclear weapons tests on May 28, 1998. That indicated a Saudi involvement in the Pakistani nuclear weapons program much earlier than Pakistani officials have generally acknowledged. [Saudi financial support for Pakistani nuclear research was, however, assumed even during the Zia ul-Haq era of the 1980s, but without any known understanding of a direct quid pro quo for Saudi Arabia.]

On October 15, 2003, Pres. Musharraf met in Kuala Lumpur with Crown Prince ‘Abdallah at the Organization of Islamic Conference (OIC). The meeting was not reported, and was a one-on-one affair. That night, Pres. Musharraf met with a number of Pakistani officials and Pakistani expatriates, including a number of scientists who had come especially to Kuala Lumpur from China. One GIS source made notes of Pres. Musharraf’s remarks, which were not reported, and which were deemed to be private.

The source, who made the notes available to GIS, noted that the President said that he was encouraged and optimistic and that Pakistan was about the spread its wings on the world stage. He said that the world was looking for a rôle for Pakistan, and that it could contributing something which nobody else could. He said that Pakistan was at a crossroads and that it could decide whether it would accept this challenge for the ummah (Islamic world) and Islam.

Pres. Musharraf said that the situation in South Asia was changing, as a result of which Pakistan would not be disconcerted by India’s stockpiling of arms. Pakistan, he said, would no longer be cowed in this manner.

By the grace of God, Pakistan was strong and getting stronger, Pres. Musharraf said, and would maintain its deterrence at all costs.

Meanwhile, the Government of Iran was itself maneuvering to continue its nuclear weapons development without a direct confrontation with the international community. On October 21, 2001, the clerical Government of Iran agreed with EU foreign ministers to suspend its disputed uranium enrichment program and sign an agreement allowing more comprehensive inspections of its nuclear sites by the United Nations’ International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA). An unnamed Iranian official said: "We agreed to will suspend enrichment and sign the protocol" on tougher inspections. A European diplomat had earlier told Reuters news agency that Iran had agreed to halt uranium enrichment and reprocessing of nuclear fuel.

Key Iranian opposition leader Dr Assad Homayoun, of the nationalist Azadegan Foundation, noted, in a report published in Defense & Foreign Affairs Daily on September 25, 2003: "I believe that if the clerical Government, even under political, economic and technical pressures, decided to sign the New Safeguards Measures of IAEA, it would not ratify it. There would be many ways and means to escape from the watching eyes of IAEA, and the clerical Government will never abandon its drive to acquire the atomic bomb."

The new Saudi-Pakistan accord on nuclear weapons deployment provides continued pressure, as far as the Iranian clerical leaders are concerned, to continue their own nuclear weapons program. Indeed, they have committed so much of the national capability toward acquisition of nuclear weapons that it was unlikely that they would stop at this point, particularly given the amount of maneuvering room which the IAEA normally would provide. So the October 21, 2003, statement by Iran constituted the political maneuvering to which Dr Homayoun referred on September 25, 2003. IAEA head Mohamed al-Baradei also flew into Iran and said there on October 17, 2003, that Iranian officials had promised "full cooperation" with IAEA inspectors.

Iranian sources have said that the Iranian nuclear development programs — including the civil programs — were now scattered through so many sites around the country that it would be almost impossible for an IAEA inspection team to get to the most secret facilities in a short time.

The visit by Pakistan Prime Minister Zafarullah Jamali to Iran was ostensibly at the invitation of Iranian Pres. Seyed Mohammad Khatami. The Prime Minister was accompanied by Minister of Information and Broadcasting Sheikh Rashid Ahmed, Minister of Commerce Humayun Akhtar, Minister for Petroleum and Natural Resources Nourez Shakoor and other senior officials, and was nominally to discuss the matter of natural gas imports from Iran. At present, three studies were being prepared on the proposed gas pipeline from Iran to India via Pakistan. India had shown reservations on laying of pipeline through Pakistan and has engaged companies for making feasibility reports on deep-sea, shallow waters and offshore pipeline.

Meanwhile, Pakistan on October 14, 2003, fired a medium-range nuclear missile Hatf IV capable of targeting India, its third and last in the current round of testing which began 11 days earlier. The testing of the surface-to-surface Hatf IV or Shaheen 1, which has a range of 700km, from an undisclosed location was the second in six days.

And on October 21, 2003, Pakistan and the People’s Republic of China began a joint naval exercise "to further develop bilateral cooperation in the defense sector". It was also the PRC’s first naval exercise with any foreign country. The exercise began near the Shanghai coast, involving frontline warships, maritime aircraft and helicopters from both sides, including two Pakistani warships.

[w4rma]

My view on why enough Americans, to keep the powers that be on their toes, should stay armed:

I think that Americans need to stay armed in part to keep **ANY** conglomeration of power, either the government or an overseas/domestic economic (or otherwise) power, that would take control over the United States government and therefore our armed forces. Power corrupts, absolute power corrupts absolutely. I do not want to see an American aristocracy created. America's founding fathers rebelled, and many patriots paid for our freedom with their lives, against the English aristocracy. We don't need a new one.

I think too many folks think that the government is the only power with the potential for oppression. They are darn correct that the government has the potential for oppression, but to say that a government is the only power with that potential is incorrect.

"The price of freedom is eternal vigilance." - Thomas Jefferson

There are *many* progressives who are pro-gun. :)

Now, on sources. IMHO, folks need to be careful about discounting all "news" sources except those that are owned by either Rev. Moon (Washington Times, UPI, Newsmax) or Rupert Murdoch (NY Post, FOX News, The Weekly Standard). Discounting other sources means that *they* decide what "news" you get…and don't get.

Moon Shadow
With Help From Congressional Republicans And The Bush 'Faith-Based' Initiative, Controversial Korean Evangelist Sun Myung Moon Is Trying To Expand His Religious-Political Empire
…
Reading further, they would have found out that the ALC is a project of the American Family Coalition and The Washington Times Foundation – both front organizations for the Rev. Sun Myung Moon, a controversial Korean evangelist and founder of the Unification Church. The "faith-based summit" itself was sponsored by Watts (R-Okla.), Sen. Rick Santorum (R-Pa.) and other top congressional Republicans, but efforts to promote it at the grassroots level were turned over to a Moon organization.
…
http://www.au.org/churchstate/cs6013.htm

HON. RON PAUL OF TEXAS
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
July 10, 2003
Neo – CONNED !
…
In addition to publications, multiple think tanks and projects were created to promote their agenda. A product of the Bradley Foundation, the American Enterprise Institute (AEI) led the neocon charge, but the real push for war came from the Project for a New American Century (PNAC) another organization helped by the Bradley Foundation. This occurred in 1998 and was chaired by Weekly Standard editor Bill Kristol. They urged early on for war against Iraq, but were disappointed with the Clinton administration, which never followed through with its periodic bombings. Obviously, these bombings were motivated more by Clinton’s personal and political problems than a belief in the neocon agenda.
…
The money and views of Rupert Murdoch also played a key role in promoting the neocon views, as well as rallying support by the general population, through his News Corporation, which owns Fox News Network, the New York Post, and Weekly Standard. This powerful and influential media empire did more to galvanize public support for the Iraqi invasion than one might imagine. This facilitated the Rumsfeld/Cheney policy as their plans to attack Iraq came to fruition. It would have been difficult for the neocons to usurp foreign policy from the restraints of Colin Powell’s State Department without the successful agitation of the Rupert Murdoch empire. Max Boot was satisfied, as he explained: “Neoconservatives believe in using American might to promote American ideals abroad.” This attitude is a far cry from the advice of the Founders, who advocated no entangling alliances and neutrality as the proper goal of American foreign policy.
…
http://www.house.gov/paul/congrec/congrec2003/cr071003.htm

Btw, if you don't think that Bush is a conservative. It's because he's not. He's a neo-conservative.

[Gary H]

w4rma:

I'll go back and read what you have posted, but I must say that Clinton has admitted that the worst decision of his life was not accepting the transfer of OBL into our custody. This would not have ended terrorism, but it would have ended Osama's role in such activity. The truth is that with the exception of the F-111 bombing of Kadafe, all of the recent presidents failed to deal with the growing threat of Middle Eastern terrorism.

OK, I've looked at your information and find it to be a bit misleading-misguided.

Global warming is a joke. You want the Kyoto treaty, which the U.S. Congress opposed (bipartisan). Even Putin tossed it aside. It was just an effort to destroy the U.S. economy. Satellite and oceanic data doesn't provide the information needed to support man induced global warming. Only land based temperatures, many of which are monitored at airports have shown this possible connection. Folks that support Kyoto are betraying this country based on little evidence and ignoring the use of carbon based fuels in the majority of countries. This "treaty" would have greatly hurt the U.S. How would it have limited China? They have a five trillion dollar economy and growing 8 - 10% a year.

Your list of Bush evils contains some good point, but much of it is silly. For example, how do you propose to protect this country from nuclear missiles? I forgot, Jimmy Carter to Korea. The ABM treaty, once again, is a treaty that goes against the interests of the U.S. and the safety of our population. I believe that Bush has not done enough with regards to Korea, but I also think that China may be behind this mess, or at least not completely unhappy with our position. Korea is another issue that Clinton tried to sweep under the rug. Of course, Bush will do the same if he can.

Bush approves the assassination of Osama bin Laden

This is bad? I guess that you favor putting him in jail and allowing many people to die in the process. Can you imagine the hostage taking and terrorism that would result. Best that he be missing in action. Not clearly dead, but not clearly alive.

What exactly is your conference on international racism going to do?

I'm out of here, but your politics are unfathomable to me. I see the destruction of national borders and the fall of this country should your friends have their way. Maybe this was the group of people that you were discussing. These are the forces that we need to arm ourselves against. Guns alone will not do.

Back on topic:

Nuclear weapons in Pakistan is a nightmare. The same in the country that promotes our enemies and is populated by Wahabis is not tollerable. This will not be pretty, but I believe that our pussy footing with North Korea has put us in this position. Just like our soft reactions to previous terrorist actions got us into this war.