Does any one see a problem with this?

[Chris Alger]

[ QUOTE ]
I would say that selling Pakistan F-16s rewards them despite all those reasons you listed, which is a bit different than saying it rewards them for those reasons, an assertion I don't think is really true

[/ QUOTE ]
I agree and didn't mean to imply that the U.S. rewarded Musharrif's regime for its many offenses. Like Syria, Pakistan is run by a rotten, corrupt, terror-supporting regime. The difference is that it's one of our rotten, corrupt terror-supporting regimes, and therefore gets rewarded with huge shipments of military hardware while Syria is the exemplar of All That We Oppose. If the alignment were otherwise the rhetoric would be the same; you'd just have to substitute the names of the countries. Then we'd see the same robots on this forum spouting all sorts of indignation against Pakistani Islamicism, Pakistani honor killings, Pakistani harboring of al Qaeda, Pakistani terrorism against India, while parroting propaganda about Syria as an "ally" embarking on the long, hard road to democracy, freedom, etc. etc.

It's not a question of U.S. rhetoric being overblown or oversimplified. Its that the rhetoric has a zero correlation to reality.

[ACPlayer]

We need a new NPT -- Nuke Proliferation Treaty.

Nukes for all.

[ACPlayer]

Bingo.

And of course, in ten years our friends are our enemies and we have made them. Didn't Cheney do the same two step with Saddam.

Supporting Mushie given his real track record is stupid and short sighted.

[trippin bily]

" THE ENEMY OF MY ENEMY IS MY FRIEND "

[Felix_Nietsche]

Your right about Pakistan's role in spreading nuclear weapons technology.
Pakistan falls under the category: "with friends like these, who needs enemies".

The original discussion was on the F16, was its ability to alter Pakistan's ability to wage a nuclear war. Selling F16s (export versions) to Pakistan will have little or no effect in Pakistan's nuclear capabilities.

F16s WILL improved Pakistan's ability to wage a conventional war.
F16s are excellent fighters and very economical. I believe India already has F16's, so Pakistan having F16s will even the balance of air power between India and Pakistan (and bring jobs to Ft.Worth, Tx).

[Chris Alger]

[ QUOTE ]
Pakistan falls under the category: "with friends like these, who needs enemies".

[/ QUOTE ]
Which applies with equal force to Pakistan's most powerful foreign supporter, President Bush.

[BillUCF]

The F-16 comes in versions A, B, C, D, E, and F. Maybe more since I was in the USAF. We sell the stripped down versions to 3rd world countries like Pakistan. From a military point of view it is to our advantage to sell these aircraft to Pakistan as opposed to Pakistan getting aircraft from some other country. Since we make the F-16 and know every capability of the aircraft, if we end up having to fight against it one day we know exactly what we would be up against. We would be able to destroy all of their F-16's quite easily if it came to that. Also it provides business for US industry as opposed to a business from another country.

[Dr. Strangelove]

This is an interesting point, and not without merit. I would rather we were more open about the fact that the Pentagon is just our society's way of publicly subsidizing high technology. I'd rather we didn't have to build better weapons so we have better weapons than the people we sold our old one's to. If you think about it spending on weapons is a huge waste of money, because they aren't wealth. The work that goes into building them doesn't result in wealth the way investment in infrastructure does.

[Gamblor]

[ QUOTE ]
Then you better check with Sam H. and see how Israel destroyed the Iranian nuclear plant, since they used useless F16s on that mission.
[img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]

[/ QUOTE ]

They actually destroyed an Iraqi nuclear plant, the reactor in Osirak in 1982.

It is noteworthy that Space Shuttle Columbia astronaut Ilan Ramon was one of the pilots on that mission.