Amerikan ruling class incompetence endangers the whole world: the people should not tolerate the old excuses It took a few days, but finally an imperialist mouthpiece reported that the Amerikan cowboy approach may end up handing nuclear weapons to new users in Pakistan. While Bush literally said he wanted Osama bin Laden "dead or live" and unashamedly noted he got the idea from the Wild West, the Los Angeles Times did publish a piece with some logic on September 18th: "Pakistan's Nuclear Wild Card," by Paul Richter. The article noted that Pakistan appears to have 30 nuclear weapons. Bush's call to "war" to "end states" and fight a broad enemy over a long period of time does nothing to contribute to stability in Pakistan or the rest of the world. Almost all of the mouthpieces have already admitted that pro- Taliban Pakistanis might be able to overthrow the Pakistani government. Thus far only the Los Angeles Times connected that fact with Pakistan's nuclear weapons. This fact is a major act of irresponsibility by those government officials who shape public opinion through their mouthpieces. In other words, the U.S. Government through its actions has already provoked some Muslims into acts of war and has now taken the chance that Pakistan's nuclear weapons will end up in Taliban supporters' hands in the middle of the current war with the United $tates. This is coming from a U.S. government that knows full well that Osama bin Laden tried to buy Russian nuclear weapons in the 1990s as Time Magazine has pointed out. Hence, even by the government's own public definition of "good guys" and "bad guys," the U.S. Government is taking chances with our lives, yet again, and when it comes to nukes and chemical weapons, it's not a question of just Amerikan lives at stake. Former government official and National Security Council aid Ivo Daalder has already admitted this is a "nightmare scenario" that deserves high priority attention. Academic specialists in this area have already said they stay awake at night thanks to this question of Pakistan's nuclear weapons. Reverend Pat Robertson has even shown more sense and said outright that he believes the "terrorists" have nuclear weapons already. The question is if this admittedly Yale-educated preacher can get it, why does the rest of the government still mislead the public about the risks. A responsible leader would get square with the people and admit that in 2001, the destructive military and terrorist power of any individual dwarves that imaginable to humyns in previous history, to such an extent that it could easily be a matter of a few terrorists or a coup that launches nuclear war. Meanwhile, an unidentified U.S. official admitted there is a risk, but all he could say in the U.S. Government's defense was that the risk should not be "exaggerated." MIM asks why any risk in this matter is acceptable to Amerikan rulers. There are two reasons why they take these risks with other people's lives. One is that they risk their own lives because they profit from it. Two is that they are the same kind of emotional yahoos that drove a car 80 mph into an Muslim mosque in Ohio on the 17th. What happened to the World Trade Center could happen anywhere. The ongoing failure to bring world peace gives all citizens of the world the right to demand answers. Washington Post columnist and military intelligence writer William R. Arkin did the right thing when he said on September 16th in his column "The First War of the New Century," " Mr. President, we have to ask: Have the American people really been protected by this intelligence, that is, by the way the old system works? And, I might add: As we prepare to battle this enemy, do we have to conduct ourselves in the same way we have always done?" These "security"-minded rulers with their old, failed theories, the same ones that said the Soviet Union would never change except from the outside because it was "totalitarian" inside, these same rulers are risking the whole world's lives and the people should not tolerate it. Now these rulers say they failed because we the people did not trust them enough, so now they need to make all military movements even more secret than before and they need the right to conduct even more surveillance against all of us and spend more money on all of this. Arkin hit the nail on the head: "when it is suggested that we surrender some of our fundamental rights, we should remind ourselves that the request comes from the very institutions that have proven incapable of fulfilling their basic function, the function of protecting their citizens."