Anyone watched the movie or read the book or otherwise familiar with the true story where Israel, Egypt, Pakistan and Saudi Arabia joined their good will to defeat the Soviets?

I saw the movie, and I'd like to read the book, to see if it deals more seriously with the origins of the Taliban. The movie was entertaining, but it treats the tragedy of war with typical Hollywood detachment. It's good enough to pique one's interest in the subject, so it does have some informative value. I give it 2 stars for realism, and 4 for acting.

Along these lines in literature I have read, I still recommend The Ugly American (http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/movies/123423_ugly27.html?searchpagefrom=1&;searchdiff=710)- In this case I haven't seen the movie, but I know the story is a highly-applicable parable of the USAmerican experience in Iraq today.

Anyone watched the movie or read the book or otherwise familiar with the true story where Israel, Egypt, Pakistan and Saudi Arabia joined their good will to defeat the Soviets?

Read the book about four years ago. Very entertaining read, although some of it is a bit too incredible to believe. Regardless of your feelings about Charlie Wilson, there's a lot of history in the book and a lot of relevant information that helps you understand how we got to where we are today, with regards to Afghanistan.

You are only 2 months late with this thread:

http://sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=75739&highlight=charlie+wilson

But the movie is more interesting. May be someone can merge the two threads...??? It does belong in history....

gawd I hate that dude if he ever existed, I would slit his throat for what he has done to Soviet Union. But hahahahahaaaaaa the USA is getting the same shit they gave Soviet Union, for themselves.

The dude still living and represents Pakistan interests in USA....

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Wilson_%28Texas_politician%29

assassination time

When the white van shows up in front of your street, and some serious looking dudes come to your door, don't act surprised.:)

When the white van shows up in front of your street, and some serious looking dudes come to your door, don't act surprised.:)

I am nobody...

no one will show up

I am nobody...

no one will show up

Keep making threatening posts about current and former members of the government, and see what happens.

Keep making threatening posts about current and former members of the government, and see what happens.

fine. :cool: hahaha that was a joke everyone. :p what a silly joke

This day and age with Fusion Centers poping up like Mushrooms...it is a bad idea to even make threatening jokes. There was this guy at the airport going through the scanner and said...you think I am carrying a bomb....they hauled him out immidiately...he was detained for over 2 hours....

Charlie Wilson's War is indeed an excellent and funny book, but if anyone wants to understand the rise of the Taliban (or what really happened in country) they should look elsewhere. Crile's book is largely about personalities and how things get done in Washington and abroad.

I'd suggest Ahmed Rashid's Taliban, as it's the authoritative book on that group. A good holistic account of the Afghan war can be found in Steve Coll's Ghost Wars or Milton Bearden's The Main Enemy. I've made this topic sort of my hobby. There is plenty of material out there about it...

So what is the Cliff notes version ?

Both Charlie Wilson and the Ugly American are about intentions too naive to turn out for good; Two parables of hubris.

Sorry, but I don't think that's accurate. Crile is obviously sympathetic to his protagonists, so much so that he overlooks Wilson's glaring deficiencies. And while he does allow that Sept. 11 is related to the Afghan war, he also lets Wilson — and others — make the claim that the war was very much worth supporting. I think, to crudely quote Charlie, it was the "end game" the US screwed up.

That is, by walking away from Afghanistan — and indeed the entire region — after the war, the US allowed a power vacancy to develop, which the freakish Taliban sought to fill after the fractious Afghan war lords decimated the place. The other pertinent factor, that Crile totally overlooks in his zeal to make Zia al Haq look like a "funny" dictator, is how Saudis enabled the rise of militant Islam by injecting Wahhabism into the region through the thousands of madrassas it built there. Zia, a rabid Muslim, egged this on, and he is more responsible for injecting radical Islam into Pakistan (originally a secular state) — and through the ISI, into Afghanistan — than anybody else.

The Taliban truly are an anathema, in the sense that they have no historical underpinning or support from the people. They're just religious zealots with weapons. They culled some of the warlord-ism, which briefly made them palatable to the people there, and to a lesser degree, the US and part of the international community. It wasn't long until the Afghan people grew tired of the Taliban, and other nations realized dealing with them was impossible.

Then, of course, they welcomed OBL, sheltered him, etc. and didn't bat an eye when he continued his worldwide jihad. They refused to give him up to both the Saudis and the US.

Screwing up the end game:

U.S. is very good in that department. We did the same thing with respect to Russia and everywhere else. The primary reason is that U.S. does not have a department to manage that. The State department is not equiped financially or structurally to handle that. They have to beg defense funds, CIA activities etc...to get anything done.

The CIA and its counterpart NSA is supposed to look out for the U.S. economic interests - and the DIA (Defense Intelligence Agency) is supposed to look after the U.S. security interest, but it is backwards. It is all due to pure politics.

It is like the word "Knowledge Management" is used in the management of hundreds of file cabinets and documents. When you use dentists to do brain surgery - you get what you deserve...

I agree with your remarks about the State Dept., but let me correct something.

The CIA and the NSA are not supposed to look out for US economic interests. That they have on certain occasions is not relevant. The CIA is supposed to gather information to assist policy-makers in their decisions. They are also charged with assessing intelligence, making forecasts and implementing some aspects of US foreign policy. The NSA, part of the Department of Defense, secures American communications and attempts to "break" those of other nations.

The US failures in endgames have little to do with either agency, as the policy that leads to the woeful endgame is generated elsewhere. The CIA, for example, wanted to be active in Afghanistan and Pakistan after the war ended there, but it saw its station shutdown completely in the former and reduced greatly in the latter.

The U.S. has a terrible habit of being too focused on the here and now to appreciate the long-term consequences of meddling in the affairs of regions they don't understand. Part of this is because at least every eight years there is a new administration in the White House with new priorities. While the State Dept may have less turnover and longer views on diplomacy, they are undoubtedly pressured by the White House to affect changes perceived as being favorable to U.S. interests in the short term. Nothing new really, as this has been done for as long as there have been political affiliations, but what might make it different in this case is that, at best, a movement gets a solid eight years to make traction before someone else comes along and changes the order of battle.

If you compare that to say, China, where the names may have changed, but many of the general ideas have remained unchanged for fifty years, you see more of consistency in foreign policy in working toward a long term plan. The Chinese see the world in 100 and 1,000 year increments, whereas the U.S. may at best plan for 10 years down the road. A symptom of our youth as a nation and a culture, I suspect.

Whether or not it was wrong to engage Afghanistan in the way it was done is not for me to second guess. It happened, can't do anything about it now. But what was wrong was to forget about them as soon as the Soviets pulled out. And that's on NATO as a whole, not just the U.S. Of course, the Reaganites probably weren't so eager in 1989 to draw attention to everything that had been going on over there, but they should have known better than to leave the place completely unmonitored for so long. In the absence of any meaningful diplomacy, a cancer was allowed to grow that ultimately cost everyone a piece of their freedom. The same thing could happen in Iraq if the U.S. were to suddenly just pull out and leave the place unsettled, and ripe with pockets of Al Qaeda just waiting for a chance to regroup. Unfortunately, this is why the U.S. must stay in Iraq for many years to come. The upside is that maybe a low-impact U.S. presence there will allow a burgeoning democracy to flourish in a region known more for totalitarianism than freedom.

The CIA and the NSA are not supposed to look out for US economic interests. That they have on certain occasions is not relevant. The CIA is supposed to gather information to assist policy-makers in their decisions. They are also charged with assessing intelligence, making forecasts and implementing some aspects of US foreign policy. The NSA, part of the Department of Defense, secures American communications and attempts to "break" those of other nations.



The CIA website says:

"The National Security Act charged the CIA with coordinating the nation’s intelligence activities and correlating, evaluating and disseminating intelligence affecting national security."

Without economic security, the nation can not sustain itself...what kind of national security does not take account economic, political security?

What is the pupose of part-intelligence ?

As to NSA, it is my mistake. According to them:

"The ability to understand the secret communications of our foreign adversaries while protecting our own communications -- a capability in which the United States leads the world -- gives our nation a unique advantage."

They are more of a Communication Management Group than a real National Security Group that protects American economic interest.

Looks like we do not have a group....like Japan's MITI....or China's CCPIT...to look after U.S. economic interest, otherwise we would not be in such a mess and does not look like it is going to change soon.

The same thing could happen in Iraq if the U.S. were to suddenly just pull out and leave the place unsettled, and ripe with pockets of Al Qaeda just waiting for a chance to regroup. Unfortunately, this is why the U.S. must stay in Iraq for many years to come. The upside is that maybe a low-impact U.S. presence there will allow a burgeoning democracy to flourish in a region known more for totalitarianism than freedom.

Not really...what will happen is that the three groups align themselves under their respective spiritual leaders with a chief operating officer for each. That would happen one way or the other. That is their culture. We can not even dismantle small gangs in this country and you think we can do that in a Muslim country with 3 major gangs (tribes, factions...)

You're right to assert that economic interests play a critical role in national security, something this web site's belligerent socialists tend to overlook or ignore, based on their own bias.

I reacted the way I did to your initial statement because it seemed to suggest that it's up the CIA to "protect" US economic interests. And it does do this — after a fashion. However, one shouldn't start thinking that the CIA is doing things like looking for ways to prop up the dollar or advance the interests of American companies. That's not its mission. But yes, national security does intersect with the economy, to a certain degree...

the Reaganites probably weren't so eager in 1989 to draw attention to everything that had been going on over there, but they should have known better than to leave the place completely unmonitored for so long. In the absence of any meaningful diplomacy, a cancer was allowed to grow that ultimately cost everyone a piece of their freedom.

I agree with much of what you say, but the ball was really dropped in the first Bush administration, where the breakup of communism caused high-level policy makers to forget about Central Asia.

Bush had no real policy in the region, largely because he didn't want to embroil the US in the civil war being waged by the Afghan tribes. However, in Bush's defense, it's difficult to see a political scenario where he could have convinced the Congress to care about this conflict, much less pick a side and fund it. Not only would the US would have been criticized for doing this, but typical Americans would have asked why we were building schools in Afghanistant, something Wilson famously wanted, and not in Detroit.

The problem continued under Clinton, who decided to accept the Taliban, in the hope of ending the war and curbing narcotics traffic, then rejected it, primarily because of pressure exerted on his wife and on Albright by various feminist groups who were outraged at the treatment of women. No real policy towards Afghanistan was ever developed. Plus, the US had totally cut ties with Pakistan, a nation which was supporting the rise of the Taliban, so we had no pull there, either. Clinton deserves more credit than he gets when it comes to chasing bin Laden, but he and the high-level people at the CIA, resisted taking the gloves off on several occasions. A famous example is that Clinton did not want bin Laden killed, if women and children could die in the attack...

Actually, CIA is the primary intelligence provider to the President everyday about the country. It is like Business Intelligence reports to the CEO of a company. In old day, it was called MIS - Management Information Systems. Now, there is Management Cockpits, Competitive Intelligence etc that tells the upper management who is eating their lunch. Security is a small (but needed) part of the overall Business Process. If the company is going out of business, it does not matter if you have guards on every door.

My point is - there should be a major organization whose job should be to look after the economic interest of the country. I thought CIA could be doing that since they are the cockpit of the President. Oh...well...

Looks like the present President is flying blind and so would the future Presidents....

And what is the point of having superior military when the economy of the country shrivels up and we have foreign masters we work for....

With Stupidity the size of a Grand Canyon....

You're right to assert that economic interests play a critical role in national security, something this web site's belligerent socialists tend to overlook or ignore, based on their own bias.


Perhaps because it is so given that members do not think about it. Glad you got it....:thumbsup:

If you read Robert Baer's See No Evil, which is the book that is the basis for Syriana, he paints a picture of the agency as being too concerned about the nation's economic interests...

I mean, it happens. Some times certain business interests intersect with American foreign policy. I just don't think the CIA specifically pays attention to those interests. Rather it deals with them on an ad hoc basis.

If you read Robert Baer's See No Evil, which is the book that is the basis for Syriana, he paints a picture of the agency as being too concerned about the nation's economic interests...

I mean, it happens. Some times certain business interests intersect with American foreign policy. I just don't think the CIA specifically pays attention to those interests. Rather it deals with them on an ad hoc basis.

When I was the VP of International Operations for a high Tech company, we were prohibited to export certain high tech products to certain countries. We were approached by the International Trade Administration which I think is a part of the Department of Commerce to provide economic intelligence. They also told us that the CIA too collects such information that is used for our economic security (I forgot about that!). The G8 countries do that all the time.

I think, over the years, the CIA focused more on assassinations, and covert wars, drug wars etc than our economic security. And while I got excellent customer service from ITA then, they are no longer a useful agency for small and medium businesses of USA. Now, if you are a mega corporation, and want to go to a country to setup your operation, then they can help you for a fee. But since most of U.S. businesses are being taken over by foreign companies, their (ITA) value is diminishing and so is our economic future.

Oh! they are talking about "economic security" in CSPAN on the lost of Boeing contract. Finally somebody gets it (Rep: Tod Teahart)

I know the CIA often briefs business leaders operating overseas, especially when said leaders are trading in places like China and the Middle East. I also know the CIA, in conjunction with the FBI, teaches businesses how to protect themselves from industrial espionage, something China is notoriously adept at.

I know the CIA often briefs business leaders operating overseas, especially when said leaders are trading in places like China and the Middle East. I also know the CIA, in conjunction with the FBI, teaches businesses how to protect themselves from industrial espionage, something China is notoriously adept at.

Actually the Japanese started it. My run in was in late seventies when I was in the oil/gas industry. At the time, the Houston astrodome hosted oil/gas exhibitions. One of my vendor who supplied us specialist valves etc. told us that the previous year the Japanese took pictures of his products including the cross sections etc...and that year they are selling an exact replica. They found out that the Japanese used special camera that can capture the dimensions.

These days it is not necessary for industrial espionage...just hire retired employees and consultants...they will tell you. That is how the Chinese got the Titanium technology from an American Consulting company. In USA, everything is for sale. This morning I had a meeting with my business broker. He said it is a buyers market to buy business....property ...gold mines etc....

Houston astrodome hosted oil/gas exhibitions.....told us that the previous year the Japanese took pictures of his products including the cross sections etc...and that year they are selling an exact replica. They found out that the Japanese used special camera that can capture the dimensions.


WOW :eek: I have got to have that 3D camera...my guess it uses acoustic or IR waves...

http://www.nyp.org/masc/images/nl3_ph9.jpg

a 3D dimensional endoscopic camera...for applications in spy market

"Da Vinci three-dimensional endoscopic camera"

Actually the Japanese started it. My run in was in late seventies when I was in the oil/gas industry. At the time, the Houston astrodome hosted oil/gas exhibitions. One of my vendor who supplied us specialist valves etc. told us that the previous year the Japanese took pictures of his products including the cross sections etc...and that year they are selling an exact replica. They found out that the Japanese used special camera that can capture the dimensions.

These days it is not necessary for industrial espionage...just hire retired employees and consultants...they will tell you. That is how the Chinese got the Titanium technology from an American Consulting company. In USA, everything is for sale. This morning I had a meeting with my business broker. He said it is a buyers market to buy business....property ...gold mines etc....

You should read a book called the Nuclear Jihadist. It's about AQ Khan, the Pakistani who stole materials to foster his country's nuclear program and then started a network to sell nuclear know-how and parts to Iran, Libya and North Korea. Without the avarice of Western business owners and their willingness to look the other way when they knew they were doing something they shouldn't have been, the whole gambit would have failed.

A large number of technologies are available for the right price from even people who have never done it or are involved in a specific project. We engineers are a bunch of smart folks who can design new stuff if someone pays us. That is what is called "when there is a will...."

One does not have to look for the western business owners...the Japanese and Australians will do just fine. But it is true that in seventies, the western technology was ahead...not any more...

What I found out by interfacing with the Chinese is that they are smart but do not think out of the box...once you point them in that direction...they take off...

. It's about AQ Khan, the Pakistani who stole materials to foster his country's nuclear program ....

uranium hexa-fluoride is a sweet deal brother. :D

I was not trying to be ethnocentric, it's just that the nuclear technology was pinched from Europe, which makes sense, as that's where the weapons themselves were.

I studied nuclear engineering in my masters program...there was no restrictions....so Pakistanis might have studied in USA or Europe....

I was not trying to be ethnocentric, it's just that the nuclear technology was pinched from Europe, which makes sense, as that's where the weapons themselves were.

ummm...China...whooo....:bugeye:

Then you're aware that there is a difference between civil and weapons-oriented engineering. Khan was working for a Dutch company that was involved in weapons production, but he was supposed to be restricted as to what he could and could not see. During his time there, he stole documents, copied plans and made lists of what companies could provide the hardware to create a weapons program from scratch.

His chief obstacle, after he left, was getting the necessary equipment to weapon-ize enough Uranium to make a bomb. He did this by setting up dummy companies and relying on greedy businessmen to sell him items that were supposedly off-limits for exportation to people like Khan. He was caught many times by the West's intelligence services, but always somehow managed to remain operational and eventually get what he needed.

Have you considered that the U.S. directly or indirectly may have provided its best friend with technology to create power balance with India?

That didn't happen.

How did you know?

Because it didn't. There are numerous sources on Khan's activities, and none of them mention the complicity of a Western power.

The US was against a nuclear Pakistan from the get-go. In fact, it was written into law that the Pakistan would lose US aid and relations if it went nuclear, which is exactly what happened. The only thing the US is guilty of is turning a blind eye to what Pakistan was doing during the Afghan war. Again, you should read the book. All of this is covered.

Kirkus Reviews review of Nuclear Jihadist:

"A pair of determined journalists trace the dark career of Abdul Qadeer Khan, who led Pakistan's successful quest for a nuclear weapon, then sold supplies and plans for similar devices to eager clients like Libya and Iran.

How could proscribed nuclear technology and material circulate under the noses of Western intelligence agencies and the International Atomic Energy Agency? To answer this question, frequent co-authors Frantz and Collins (Death on the Black Sea: The Untold Story of the Struma and World War II's Holocaust at Sea, 2003, etc.) begin in Amsterdam, where the amiable Khan arrived in 1972 to take a position in a Dutch technology firm. He displayed such an insatiable curiosity about products with nuclear relevance that some of his Dutch coworkers eventually became concerned enough to report him. Khan moved back to Pakistan, where he wrestled with bureaucrats as he sought to make his country a nuclear power. He eventually rose to a position of enormous wealth and power, becoming a national hero in 1998 when Pakistan detonated five nuclear devices underground. By then, Khan had found foreign markets both for his expertise and for his uncanny ability to deliver crucial materials that were supposed to be tightly monitored and controlled. The authors show how various U.S. administrations ignored Pakistan's behavior, at first because they needed an anti-Soviet ally, then because it was a crucial ally in the war against al-Qaeda. But the buck stopped with Libyan leader Muammar al-Gaddafi. Confronted by British and American intelligence agents with proof that Libya was pursuing nuclear weapons, the dictator cut a deal and implicated Khan as his supplier. Apprehended and detained by Pakistan authorities in 2003, Khan was pardoned by Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf in return for a written confession. He remained a hero to many Pakistanis and, in the authors' view, "played a central role in ushering in the second nuclear age...threatened by a new type of proliferation."

I usually take the journalist publications with a grain of salt. There are stuff goes on that I was involved that I have never seen on print. Some I can talk about, some I can not. For example the story behind China's nuclear energy, Selling military helicopters to China by Alexandar Haig Group, Spy submarines, India's space program etc.

The same thing happens in the test books. A few years ago, my son had the Strategic Management text book in college. It gave a lot of case histories. Some of the companies mentioned were Global Crossing, Polaroid, Kodak, Corning, Data General, Digital Equipment Corporation etc. Because I consulted at these companies, I found the case history missing vital items that no one talked about (of course the author never asked me!).

But then, the general public need not know what goes on behind the scene...it is better that way.

Certainly, not everything gets reported, but the record on this issue is pretty clear. The reporting involved for this book, and some of the others I have read that address the same topic, is thorough and verifiable. It also hasn't been challenged.

Khan was the source of the proliferation, and no intelligence service, save his own country's and those he was selling information and parts to, helped him proliferate.

Khan is definitely the source...but implying that the following groups are incompetent is hard to believe...

Russia - KGB, SVR, CSR, FSB, FSK, GRU, etc....
USA - DIA/SSB, CIA, NSA, AI, NI, AFI, State, Commerce, ITA, and others (26 units)
Germany - BND, Bundesamt für Verfassungsschutz, Militärischer Abschirmdienst etc...
UK - MI6, MI5, GCHQ, NCIS, Scotland Yard etc...
France - DGSE, DRM, DPSD, BRGE, SCSSI and all military units
Japan -DIH, MOFA, MITI, JETRO etc...
China - Sixth Research Institute, Naval Intelligence, 8341 Unit, etc...
Australia -ASIS, DIW, DSD, ASIO and the military units

List of US Intelligence units:

Director of National Intelligence
Undersecretary of Defense for Intelligence
Air Force Intelligence
Army Intelligence
Central Intelligence Agency
Coast Guard Intelligence
Defense Intelligence Agency
Department of Energy
Department of Homeland Security
Department of State
Department of the Treasury
Drug Enforcement Administration
Federal Bureau of Investigation
Marine Corps Intelligence
National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency
National Reconnaissance Office
National Security Agency
Navy Intelligence

I never implied incompetence.

In the case of the CIA, for example, the agency had so thoroughly penetrated the Pakistanis nuclear program in the mid 1980s that when a visiting Pakistani intelligence chief came to Langley he was shown a model, accurate to the square-foot, of Khan's "secret" laboratory. The chief was shaken.

But there is a difference in knowing about something and helping to make it happen. Initially, you suggested that the US (or some Western power) aided Pakistan in its quest for the bomb. That didn't happen. The US was guilty of looking the other way for a number of years and of not knowing that Khan was peddling his wares to other countries. Gradually, however, the US caught on and the results are plain to see. Khan has been arrested (and pardoned) by Pakistan for proliferating and Libya gave up their weapons program.

Now it's obvious the intelligence services in the places he was proliferating (Iran, Libya and North Korea) were working with Khan, but no western power was assisting him. And why would they? These three nations are all persona non gratis with the West.

I did not say that the U.S. aided Iran, Libya or North Korea. Russia, Pakistan and China did. I am saying that there is a high probability that Pakistan developed the Nuclear Bomb with U.S. being full aware of it and perhaps indirectly helped Pakistan. For such a sensitive issue, it is naive to think that U.S. looked to other way. As soon as a junior analyst reports any such thing, a senior person must know and choose to act or not. Not to act means implicit support for such a serious program.

We would not go anywhere with this since there is no public data here.(I have not checked my sources to verify one way or the other). Secret stuff happen secretly. Let us leave at that.

Look, you're putting me in the position of proving a negative, which is impossible to do. It's incumbent on you to prove your theory with actual evidence, otherwise you're just making noise.

So far as what I am saying is concerned, I have mountains of evidence to back up my claims about Khan, both from this book I am reading now, to articles in The Economist to information in Steve Coll's Ghost Wars, the latter of which lists dozens of primary sources a person can hunt down for themselves. The fact this one man proliferated in the way he did is what makes the story so amazing, and so scary...

I am saying that there is a high probability that Pakistan developed the Nuclear Bomb with U.S. being full aware of it and perhaps indirectly helped Pakistan.

I have said the US was fully aware of it, because they were. However, they did not help Pakistan, publicly or privately, as this was against the US policy. In fact, the US did quite the opposite. On numerous occasions it dangled the carrot to Pakistan to get that nation to give up its pursuit of nuclear weapons to no avail.

For such a sensitive issue, it is naive to think that U.S. looked to other way. As soon as a junior analyst reports any such thing, a senior person must know and choose to act or not. Not to act means implicit support for such a serious program.

No, what happened was the US was seriously concerned about the issue on either side of the Afghan War. But during the Afghan war, the US chose not to press Pakistan on the nuclear issue and chose to willingly believe Pakistan's lies about the program, because it needed to use Pakistan to aid the Mujahideen and it could not afford to trigger the Congressionally-mandated sanctions that were poised to take effect if it became public that Pakistan was working on a bomb.

And so it is...

Look, I encourage you to read the book. You obviously have a high level of expertise, and I would welcome your take on it.

A related item -

Why is Afghanistan the 'Right War'? (http://www.counterpunch.org/blackburn03072008.html)

Look, I encourage you to read the book. You obviously have a high level of expertise, and I would welcome your take on it.

I encourage you to read this page and draw your own conclusions, that is what might be going on behind the scenes at every event. While I was involved in civilian nuclear power plants including the Chinese 300MW ones in 1983, I really did not have any interest in Bomb making. That is a dangerous business to be in. Therefore the Khan business is more of a opinion than a statement. Even within the civilian nuclear power plant there was so much stuff going on behind the scene that it is funny, but I can not talk about it without exposing all the powerful players.

So, let us stick to what is published and move on. There is no such thing as publics right to know...because they are not the ones that call the shots.

I am sure you can read between the lines...


Chronology of Pakistani Nuclear Development (http://cns.miis.edu/research/india/paknucch.htm)

A related item -

Why is Afghanistan the 'Right War'? (http://www.counterpunch.org/blackburn03072008.html)

Without reading it (obvious stupidity) I tell you the occupation of Afghanistan is also oil resource releated.It has to do with pipelines....

You mean the ones that weren't built and still haven't been built? Yeah, sure. Whatever. I suppose it means nothing to you that the US was attacked by a group harbored by the Taliban...