And, surely enough, Pakistan has proved to be more hostile and dangerous than ever before. Thanks to the Wikileak cables that have been quite ever-so controversial of late, it has come to the attention of the American public that the nuclear-ready regime might actually be nuclear-capable or even armed. If this were true, could you just imagine how hypocritical the American government was? On one hand, they were fighting a war against a Muslim dictator under a false notion of hidden "Weapons of Mass Destruction." When just a few doors over, there was a man of the same profile and a regime of the same caliber who were left alone, even though they really did have nukes.
So, what is the difference between Iran, Iraq and Pakistan? If we attacked Iraq so cold-heartedly, shouldn't we do the same to Iran and Pakistan. But, oh, only if Congress could trust the president again after all the shit Bush and his buddies laid out. Alas, I'm not calling for War here. But, just this: if we're in Iraq, why can't we do something about Iran and Pakistan? Don't forget, America wires billions of dollars to this "democracy." Ha, another example America's two foremost traditions: hypocrisy and folly.
Less than a month after President Obama testily assured reporters in 2009 that Pakistan’s nuclear materials “will remain out of militant hands,” his ambassador here sent a secret message to Washington suggesting that she was worried about just that.
The ambassador’s concern was a stockpile of highly enriched uranium, sitting for years near an aging research nuclear reactor in Pakistan. There was enough to build several “dirty bombs” or, in skilled hands, possibly enough for an actual nuclear bomb.
In the cable dated May 27, 2009, the ambassador, Anne W. Patterson, reported that the Pakistani government was yet again dragging its feet on an agreement reached two years earlier to have the United States remove the material. More>
No comments:
Post a Comment