Very interesting, Senator Obama

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Ramo


We're in a stronger position now than the Spring of '03?

I was thinking about the contrast with Rice's position in early January of this year. Sorry if that wasnt clear.

[aneeshm]

Originally posted by Gatekeeper


That'll change the moment Musharraff (sp) is overthrown by Islamic radicals and a nuclear-armed Pakistan goes fundamentalist.

I so hope that *never* happens, although the price of that probably means we'll be bleeding troops and material along the Afghanistan-Pakistan border into the foreseeable future, thanks to that "peace" deal Musharraff (sp) made with the Taliban-esque population in that area (Waziristan, I think? Or is it the North-West Frontier Province?)

Gatekeeper

Not many people are very aware of this, but the Pakistan situation is deteriorating very rapidly.

The NWFP is de facto independent - Islamabad never had much control over that area. And now I think there's trouble brewing there.

There is a civil war going on in Baluchistan - the Baluchi people are trying, once more, to break free of the oppressive shackles of Pakistani rule. When India and Pakistan became independent, the Baluchis wanted to join India, but because of geographical constraints, they had to join Pakistan. They felt betrayed by India for not supporting their wish to join the Indian union, and they hate Pakistan since then. The Pakistani military is actively engaged there.

Waziristan is now the new operating base of the Taliban. They've shifted their operations from Afghanistan to Waziristan, which happens to be on the border.








It won't take much to explode that powder keg, and once it goes up and Pakistani nukes fall into the hands of fundamentalists, God help India and the world!



























It's ironic that had it not been for America's interference, Pakistan wouldn't have had nukes at all. When it became clear that they were developing nukes, India didn't have the political guts to go and bomb the site (it was only one site at that time, Kahuta, IIRC).

Israel, which, AFAIK, has a policy of not allowing any Muslim country opposed to it to develop nukes, offered to bomb the damn place for us. The only thing they asked for was permission to refuel in Indian bases, because at that time, they didn't have bombers which had that much range.

The USA, the great ally of Pakistan, then proceeded to leak these plans, and after that it became diplomatically impossible for India or Israel to do anything.

Now that same short-sighted action is coming back to bite not just the USA, but the entire world, on the arse.

[Flubber]

Originally posted by Elok

WRT Obama: I don't know if Obama's position has changed or anything. I wouldn't blame him if it had, given how much has happened since then. But then, I don't employ the word "flip-flopper" much.

I am always amazed how it seems to be an unforgivable sin in US politics to change your position on ANYTHING, even if the situation has evolved or you have new information.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Flubber



I am always amazed how it seems to be an unforgivable sin in US politics to change your position on ANYTHING, even if the situation has evolved or you have new information.

I think its reasonable to change ones position. I wouldnt object in particular to Obama having done so. But I would then expect Obamas supporters to stop attacking Clinton, and McCain, for "flip-flopping"

[Arrian]

Is that a common charge against Hillary and/or McCain, from the Obama camp? I'm not following things too closely at this stage...

-Arrian

[Flubber]

Originally posted by lord of the mark


I think its reasonable to change ones position. I wouldnt object in particular to Obama having done so. But I would then expect Obamas supporters to stop attacking Clinton, and McCain, for "flip-flopping"

I think that many people can accept changed positions if they ever get to hear the reasons. But far too many of the voters are only mildly engaged and the media and message they get is that someone is indecisive . .. a flip-flopper as it were.

The rality for me is that it takes more smarts and guts to change a position when it is the right thing to do than it does to dogmatically continue to hold a "consistent" viewpoint in the face of contrary evidence

[Elok]

Originally posted by Cort Haus
Whilst there may well be rational elements in Iran, there are some wildly dangerous ones too - as a couple of threads about the suicide cults there have discussed in recent months.

I'm not the sort to advocate attacking anyone in a hurry, but if I lived in Israel I would be worried about what some influential Iranians consider a realistic sacrifice.

Wait, there are suicide cults and such running the government of Iran? When did that happen? I thought it was still being run by the same Shiite conclave that's been in charge since '79 or so and remained relatively stable. They sit there and rule quietly in the background while Ahmadinejad whips up a frenzy of public support with handouts and holocaust denials.

Re: Flip-flop, I agree with Flubber. After our W's dogged love of "staying the course," flip-flopping is a virtue.

[GePap]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker


Even leaving out the possibility that we force their surrender, the conventional force they'd have to maintain as a deterrent to our nukes could have collapsed their economy sooner.

A US nuclear monopoly would have made the US a bigger threat to other states out there than the USSR, making it less liekly that the other rich states in the world, once they had recovered, would have sutck with the US as an ally, unless the US could have shown that it was not going to use its nuclear monopoly to lord it over every other state and force them to accept US positions. For the US to have achieved that, it probably would have had to water down its nuclear threat to the point or irrelevance.

[Sprayber]

Originally posted by Berzerker


The same people who told me about WMD are telling me Iran is evil and should be attacked, they didn't fool me then and they wont fool me now

The administration is saying Iran should be attacked? I'm curious when that has happened.