tiberius
Member
Since all of his posts are in L&P, he obviously has no interest in guns, so you are probably right on this.
Nuclear Weapons for Saudi Arabia Possible
- Thread starter Gary H
- Start date
- Status
Since all of his posts are in L&P, he obviously has no interest in guns, so you are probably right on this.
bountyhunter
member
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
Member
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.
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
Member
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 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
)greyhound
Member
(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.....
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.....
Debka, Drudge, Now the Washington Times
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.
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.
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.
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
member
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Last edited:
- Status