Full Version: Where Did All the F-16s Go?
Full story here: http://aolsvc.news.aol.com/news/article.ad...325144809990011
Questions for Debate:
Now that Bush has agreed to sell F-16s to Pakistan do you see a drastic change in power in Southern Asia? Why or why not?
If yes, will this change benefit us in the long-run? How?
Is Bush within his right to sell the F-16s? Why or why not?
Is India in any real danger, or are they being alarmists?
Now that India has been given a green light to purchase its own "sophisticated" weapons will they become an allay? Why or why not?
Questions for Debate:
Now that Bush has agreed to sell F-16s to Pakistan do you see a drastic change in power in Southern Asia? Why or why not?
If yes, will this change benefit us in the long-run? How?
Is Bush within his right to sell the F-16s? Why or why not?
Is India in any real danger, or are they being alarmists?
Now that India has been given a green light to purchase its own "sophisticated" weapons will they become an allay? Why or why not?
Now that Bush has agreed to sell F-16s to Pakistan do you see a drastic change in power in Southern Asia? Why or why not?
China, Pakistan and India are nuclear powers, therefore I fail to see why a couple of F-16s are supposed to change that drastically.
Is Bush within his right to sell the F-16s? Why or why not?
Are the United States within their rights to see F-16s? Of course they are. I cannot remember any ban on planes or sanctions on Pakistan.
However, Pakistan is scarcely democratic, it's got basically a military regime right about now, therefore I don't think selling planes to the country is too good an idea. Well, I generally think that weapons should not be sold to other countries, so I do have a hidden agenda when I say this.
Still, instead of rewarding Pakistan with F-16s the administration should put pressure on India and Pakistan to resolve their ongoing conflict about Cashmere as well as the pursuit of terrorist groups in the border region to Afghanistan.
Is India in any real danger, or are they being alarmists?
I can understand Indias concern for such a deal encourages India to properly defend themselves against the new threat. That goes on and on and is called arms race. Another reason to oppose the deal.
Now that India has been given a green light to purchase its own "sophisticated" weapons will they become an allay? Why or why not?
As I said, that would lead to a conventional arms race. They are already in a nuclear arms race.
So I fail to see the logic behind the selling of such weapons.
China, Pakistan and India are nuclear powers, therefore I fail to see why a couple of F-16s are supposed to change that drastically.
Is Bush within his right to sell the F-16s? Why or why not?
Are the United States within their rights to see F-16s? Of course they are. I cannot remember any ban on planes or sanctions on Pakistan.
However, Pakistan is scarcely democratic, it's got basically a military regime right about now, therefore I don't think selling planes to the country is too good an idea. Well, I generally think that weapons should not be sold to other countries, so I do have a hidden agenda when I say this.
Still, instead of rewarding Pakistan with F-16s the administration should put pressure on India and Pakistan to resolve their ongoing conflict about Cashmere as well as the pursuit of terrorist groups in the border region to Afghanistan.
Is India in any real danger, or are they being alarmists?
I can understand Indias concern for such a deal encourages India to properly defend themselves against the new threat. That goes on and on and is called arms race. Another reason to oppose the deal.
Now that India has been given a green light to purchase its own "sophisticated" weapons will they become an allay? Why or why not?
As I said, that would lead to a conventional arms race. They are already in a nuclear arms race.
So I fail to see the logic behind the selling of such weapons.
Now that Bush has agreed to sell F-16s to Pakistan do you see a drastic change in power in Southern Asia? Why or why not?
Probably not. The fact is, Pakistan has had F16s for almost as long as we have. They received their first batch during the 1980s, and we've been sending them replacement parts since then. It is reasonable to replace their aging aircraft, and I don't think new planes will change the power equation. Here is an inventory of what they currently have.
Probably not. The fact is, Pakistan has had F16s for almost as long as we have. They received their first batch during the 1980s, and we've been sending them replacement parts since then. It is reasonable to replace their aging aircraft, and I don't think new planes will change the power equation. Here is an inventory of what they currently have.
The probem with this decision is not in any real difference it will make in the balance of power in South Asia. The problem is the way in which this sale will be perceived by both the Pakistani regime and around the world.
One of the oft-stated primary threats to our national security, inextricably intertwined with the GWOT, is nuclear proliferation. Pakistan has nukes and is a known proliferator. Not to mention that elements within the Pakistani regime still support radical terrorist networks. All of their supposed "cooperation" in the GWOT, is only gained through intense negotiation, granting of special favors, and demands through diplomatic channels that end up having to escalate to outright threats.
Pakistan's Nuclear Proliferation Activities and the Recommendations of the 9/11 Commission
This sale is simply another attempt to maintain positive relations with the shaky Musharraf regime. The Pakistani population, in general, ain't too happy with him - and most of'em do not like us.
Pakistan's Domestic Political Developments
The potential for catastrophic consquences resulting from elements within the Pakistani regime proliferating nuclear tech to vicious Islamist radicals is not worth any relative operational advantages in-theater that we gain by coddling the Pakistani regime. Here's looking at a couple of scenarios:
Nuclear Terrorism: A Brief Review of Threats and Responses
Terrorist Nuclear Attacks on Seaports: Threat and Response
Potential for Terrorist Nuclear Attack Using Oil Tankers
What it all boils down to in this case, is that the Pakistanis know, and everyone else around the world can see, that American ideals and goals as so often and clearly stated in the Global War on Terror, are ready to be dropped by the American government for expediency's sake. It is sign of both strategic and moral weakness.
One of the oft-stated primary threats to our national security, inextricably intertwined with the GWOT, is nuclear proliferation. Pakistan has nukes and is a known proliferator. Not to mention that elements within the Pakistani regime still support radical terrorist networks. All of their supposed "cooperation" in the GWOT, is only gained through intense negotiation, granting of special favors, and demands through diplomatic channels that end up having to escalate to outright threats.
Pakistan's Nuclear Proliferation Activities and the Recommendations of the 9/11 Commission
This sale is simply another attempt to maintain positive relations with the shaky Musharraf regime. The Pakistani population, in general, ain't too happy with him - and most of'em do not like us.
Pakistan's Domestic Political Developments
QUOTE
Anti-American sentiment among Pakistani citizens is not limited to Islamic groups: A March 2004 Pew Center opinion poll found that 65% of Pakistanis held a favorable view of Al Qaeda founder Osama bin Laden. This Pew survey also found that only 6% of Pakistanis believed the United States was sincere in its efforts to combat terrorism; about half viewed the United States as seeking to “dominate the world.” The Pakistani army, which was significantly radicalized by Gen. Zia’s policies in the 1980s, continues to be home to Muslim hardliners at the middle and lower ranks. In 2004 testimony before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, one senior expert opined that “Pakistan is probably the most anti-American country in the world right now, ranging from the radical Islamists on one side to the liberals and Westernized elites on the other side.” Most analysts contend that two December 2003 attempts to assassinate President Musharraf were carried out by Islamic militants angered by Pakistan’s post-September 2001 policy shift.
The potential for catastrophic consquences resulting from elements within the Pakistani regime proliferating nuclear tech to vicious Islamist radicals is not worth any relative operational advantages in-theater that we gain by coddling the Pakistani regime. Here's looking at a couple of scenarios:
Nuclear Terrorism: A Brief Review of Threats and Responses
Terrorist Nuclear Attacks on Seaports: Threat and Response
Potential for Terrorist Nuclear Attack Using Oil Tankers
What it all boils down to in this case, is that the Pakistanis know, and everyone else around the world can see, that American ideals and goals as so often and clearly stated in the Global War on Terror, are ready to be dropped by the American government for expediency's sake. It is sign of both strategic and moral weakness.
QUOTE(VDemosthenes @ Mar 27 2005, 05:28 AM)
Now that Bush has agreed to sell F-16s to Pakistan do you see a drastic change in power in Southern Asia? Why or why not?
No, India still has 2~3 times more modern fighters than Pakistan does. Plus this sale is more of an economic move, since Pakistan is contemplating the purchase of our J-10. By all means, this sale is gonna benefit, not hurt, the US.
QUOTE
Is Bush within his right to sell the F-16s? Why or why not?
Geez, he's the president, it's in his job description.
QUOTE
Is India in any real danger, or are they being alarmists?
So are we in danger when Bush Sr. sold Taiwan F-16s -- Taiwan's air force has run simulated attack on the Three Gorges Dam with them F-16s. Do you see us whining? Well, we did a little, but hey, c'est la vie.
QUOTE
Now that India has been given a green light to purchase its own "sophisticated" weapons will they become an allay? Why or why not?
Alliances are a product of convenience. An ally today may very well become an enemy tomorrow, just look at the AARP
This is a simplified version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.