al Qaeda, nuclear weapons, Iraq & Pakistan
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
April 23, 2024, 10:28:10 PM
News: Election Simulator 2.0 Released. Senate/Gubernatorial maps, proportional electoral votes, and more - Read more

  Talk Elections
  General Politics
  U.S. General Discussion (Moderators: The Dowager Mod, Chancellor Tanterterg)
  al Qaeda, nuclear weapons, Iraq & Pakistan
« previous next »
Pages: [1]
Poll
Question: Before President Bush ordered the invasion of Iraq, which country was more likely to be a conduit for providing al Qaeda with nuclear weapons?
#1
Iraq
 
#2
Pakistan
 
#3
neither were a risk
 
#4
both were equally a risk
 
#5
undecided/unsure/unknown
 
Show Pie Chart
Partisan results

Total Voters: 16

Author Topic: al Qaeda, nuclear weapons, Iraq & Pakistan  (Read 2431 times)
CollectiveInterest
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 511


WWW Show only this user's posts in this thread
« on: October 27, 2004, 10:49:05 AM »

President Bush ordered Iraq invaded. But wouldn't it be more likely al Qaeda would get nuclear weapons from Pakistan?

1. Pakistan has nuclear weapons; Iraq didn't.
2. Pakistan's government collaberated with the Taliban and probably al Qaeda; Iraq didn't.
3. Pakistan has a history of changing governments through coups. The faction likely to oust Musharaf is close to the Taliban and probably al Qaeda. Iraq was stable before Bush ordered the invasion.

As a nuclear weapons non-proliferation strategy, did invading Iraq make sense?
Logged
Silent Hunter
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 9,319
United Kingdom


WWW Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #1 on: October 27, 2004, 01:24:04 PM »

Unsure. Iraq was planning to develop nukes and had cooperated with other ME terrorist groups (Al-Q is not the be-all and end-all of Islamic terrorism).

Pakistan's nukes are largely secure and Musharaf isn't that likely to fall any time soon.

I could have gone neither. They'd be more likely to get them from Central Asia.
Logged
The Duke
JohnD.Ford
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 9,270


Political Matrix
E: 0.13, S: -1.23

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #2 on: October 27, 2004, 01:29:47 PM »

I'm not sure what your point is.  Invade Pakistan or something?  Idiotic.
Logged
Silent Hunter
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 9,319
United Kingdom


WWW Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #3 on: October 27, 2004, 01:53:01 PM »

Pakistan are signatories to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty.
Logged
CollectiveInterest
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 511


WWW Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #4 on: October 27, 2004, 03:34:42 PM »

I'm not sure what your point is.  Invade Pakistan or something?  Idiotic.

I'm not saying the US should have invaded Pakistan.

But invading Iraq didn't make sense as part of a strategy to prevent terrorists from getting nuclear weapons.
Logged
The Duke
JohnD.Ford
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 9,270


Political Matrix
E: 0.13, S: -1.23

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #5 on: October 27, 2004, 08:00:23 PM »

I'm not sure what your point is.  Invade Pakistan or something?  Idiotic.

I'm not saying the US should have invaded Pakistan.

But invading Iraq didn't make sense as part of a strategy to prevent terrorists from getting nuclear weapons.

It wasn't just about nukes, it was about all WMD.  Iraq was sitting on 500 tons of uranium that could turned into a dirty bomb.  There's your WMD.
Logged
khirkhib
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 967


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #6 on: October 27, 2004, 08:11:31 PM »

[url]http://www.signonsandiego.com/uniontrib/20040522/news_1n22uranium.html[/ur]

Oh the low grade uranium in the facility that the UN had control of since 1991.

The uranium that could not be used to make a nuclear weapon.

The Uranium that was being dumped out by looters that were stealing its containers to boil water.

Do you think we should fly it out, should we have in 1991.  What do you suggest?

Read the article.
Logged
CollectiveInterest
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 511


WWW Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #7 on: October 29, 2004, 11:15:03 AM »

So Pakistan should have been a higher foreign policy priority than Iraq?
Logged
Pages: [1]  
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

Page created in 0.035 seconds with 13 queries.