An AIAPCer must have written Answer #4. It is ISRAELI NUKES that are fueling nuclear ambitions in the Middle East, as Israel's geo-political rivals (Iran, Syria, etc.) seek to match Israel's nuclear capability.

This is similar to the India-Pakistan situation, in which Pakistan sought nuclear weapons to match India's nuclear capability, which is their geo-political rival.

AIPAC and the Israeli government have done a wonderful job of distracting attention away from Israel's nuclear weapons development, and the mainstream press, which is obviously not controlled by these powerful Jews, refuses to talk about Israeli nukes as the root cause of the proliferation problem in the Middle East.

Posted by Metteyya at 10/22/2007

IT'S THE LOOSE NUKES, STUPID!

Jesus, what does it take? "All of the above" is a cop-out, since the questions asks, "What is the MOST destabilizing force in Pakistan today?" All of the listed factors can't be the "most." Without the loose nukes, the fact that Pakistan is basically a political, cultural, and economic basket-case would not be quite so worrisome. Here we have a seriously underdeveloped country with dozens of nuclear weapons, mostly aimed at neighbor India. Hopefully, Bhutto will win, reaquire power, and continue her struggle to bring some real sanity to the country. But it's a long, uphill battle. Ultimately, though, whatever the outcome, she's a force for greater stability in the region not less....

Posted by w_m_bear at 10/23/2007

Posted by METTEYYA 10/22/2007 @ 6:33pm

BTW, I completely agree with your points about Israel and AIPAC. But the fact remains that Pakistani nukes are ALSO a major threat to the region, and that was what the question asked....

Posted by w_m_bear at 10/24/2007

Hi W_M_Bear,

I was just trying to get across the point that Iran and Syria do not want nuclear weapons because Pakistan has them, as Answer #4 suggests, they want them because ISRAEL has them!

Posted by Metteyya at 10/24/2007

The MOST destabilizing force in Pakistan today is Pakistan's loose nukes, which endanger the region and fuel nuclear ambitions in the Mideast. W_M_BEAR is correct.

Posted by annieted at 10/26/2007

Yeah, I chose #6 which would have been less of a "cop out" without #2, IMHO.

Posted by lewwelge at 10/28/2007

I chose al-qaida and the extremist Islamic schools. it is true that Bhutto stole money from the Pakistani treasury, accoording to my Pakistani doctor friend, but the other exiled former ruler was the one who allowed the formation of these madras schools.

American foreign policy has always been about domination, favorable political alliances for multi-national greed. Now we are faced with the possibility that a rabid anti-American breakdown would result in nuclear weaponry becoming accessable to armeggadon idiots, not unlike our own predident. So I am in favor of the current military arm sliding behind the facade of democracy, while we Americans try to elect a less rabid leader.

Posted by Jim Willingham at 10/29/2007

All because of Israel right, Metteyya? That's why Sunnis are slaughtering Shiites, Hamas killing Fatah, Lebanese killing Palestinian refugees, Kurdish insurgents killing Turks, Syrians killing Lebanese, and on and on and on. For centuries these morons have been slaughtering each other before Israel, with Israel there and will be long after Israel is gone. Israel is the only decent thing worth saving in that toilet of a region and that's why Jew haters like you want her destroyed. Have a nice day.

Posted by bean22 at 10/29/2007

Regarding Israel being nuclear-capable, unfortunately, if it wasn't for the rhetoric and behavior of her surrounding countries, no one would have to be concerned about it. Funny what a big deal is being made about a tiny strip of land with no oil that was given to the brothers (yes, Jew and Muslim derive from the same seed) of those inhabiting the area in order to save their lives. Tsk tsk tsk--and all their generations of Muslim poisoned with hatred (because of it?).

Posted by ellenl at 10/30/2007

Posted by METTEYYA 10/22/2007 @ 6:33pm

METTE is that portion of tha "anti-AIPAC" crowd who ARE anti-Semites. Note that post..."and the mainstream press, which is obviously not controlled by these powerful Jews, refuses to talk".

Of course he thinks "the Jews who control the Media" got Arsenio fired for having Farrakhan on....heheh

Posted by Mask at 11/1/2007

there is no real hope for the "middle east" they're(general population) all so"backward",

Posted by acerigger at 11/1/2007

The difficulty is that Musharraf is playing the same game that Bush is: using threats to justify any exigency. This is something Clinton recognized when faced with an earlier, "Support me, or terrorists take over." Clinton said, "Well, we hate to see you go," but Bush has said, "Oh, by all means. Anything to prevent the terrarists." Bush and Musharraf have both played this trade of liberty for "security" to take increasing liberties and offer less and less security. The poll offers us several evils, but they are neither equal nor equivalent. The answer, most of all, is "Abdication of foreign policy by the White House, annihilation of intelligence by the American people, and impotence by the world to affect any changes or do more than rattle a begging bowl at the elected but dangerous."

Posted by Geogre at 11/4/2007

I said a whole year before the CIA did where Osama was hidding .I can not believe what is actually going on here in the United States its like everyones on DRUGS! BUSH should be HUNG along with Cheney like they hung Saddom ~!

Posted by elizajane at 11/13/2007

The "all of the above" response seems to me that most of us don't know enough about Pakistan

Posted by dustinchicago at 12/20/2007

I would add extreme poverty and opium

Posted by dustinchicago at 12/20/2007