4 ms·
possibility of disarmament Pakistani nuclear is the funniest thing I have read in some time. In case you don't know USA is _heavily_ investing on Pakistan and t
by pavs 16y ago
possibility of disarmament Pakistani nuclear is the funniest thing I have read in some time. In case you don't know USA is _heavily_ investing on Pakistan and training them how to secure their nuclear facilities.
How about the so-called terrorist who have been funded by USA government in the first place?
Securing internet infrastructure has less to do with the "good stuff" and more to do with self preservation. As for Nuclear disarmament, USA don't really have a moral high ground telling other countries to not produce nuclear weapons when they are sitting on the one of the largest nuclear stockpile (and actively developing new generations of nuclear weapons) and the only country in the world to have used nuclear weapons during a war.
You can cherry pick "good stuff" USA government did, but the end up day if were to draw a line and sum up the "good stuff" and the bad stuff the government did, the bad stuff overwhelms what you claim to be "good stuff".
- lionhearted 16y ago> possibility of disarmament Pakistani nuclear is the funniest thing I have read in some time. In case you don't know USA is _heavily_ investing on Pakistan and training them how to secure their nuclear facilities. So I take it you didn't actually read the articles or dispatches at all? This was the very first part of the New York Times summary: > A dangerous standoff with Pakistan over nuclear fuel: Since 2007, the United States has mounted a highly secret effort, so far unsuccessful, to remove from a Pakistani research reactor highly enriched uranium that American officials fear could be diverted for use in an illicit nuclear device. In May 2009, Ambassador Anne W. Patterson reported that Pakistan was refusing to schedule a visit by American technical experts because, as a Pakistani official said, “if the local media got word of the fuel removal, ‘they certainly would portray it as the United States taking Pakistan’s nuclear weapons,’ he argued.”
- pavs 16y agoThis has nothing to do with disarmament.
- lionhearted 16y agoTrying to remove weapons-grade uranium that you're afraid can be used in nuclear weapons doesn't have anything to do with disarmament? C'mon dude. Seriously. Anyway, I'm done here. I'm getting my morning started in Malaysia, and I need a little extra time to make sure there aren't any dispatches likely to cause a storm this morning in Kuala Lumpur.
- gwern 16y agoUnless your national leader is one of those discussed in the first batch of leaks, I don't see Malaysia mentioned in any of the upcoming topic-specific leaks, so you'll have a breather: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/politics/8165041/Embarrassment-for-Coalition-as-Wikileaks-prepares-to-release-secret-US-papers.html http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/politics/8165041/...
- deleted 16y ago[deleted]
- commandar 16y ago>In case you don't know USA is _heavily_ investing on Pakistan and training them how to secure their nuclear facilities. That's because the Pakistani government is of shaky stability at best, and while Pakistan having nukes in the first place is bad, the Pakistani government toppling and those nukes falling into who only knows' hands is much, much worse. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pakistan_and_weapons_of_mass_destruction#U.S._assistance http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pakistan_and_weapons_of_mass_de... Making sure that their weapons are secure is a good thing.