[mike777]

The new President really has a full plate of issues to deal with. 12-24 months ago all anyone talked about was Iraq.


I am getting more worried about Pakistan and if their government will be overthrown by radical elements in the next ten years or less. I wonder if militants will control the countryside and the current govenment will only control the urban centers. Pakistan has an army larger than the USA's and about 100 nukes.

[luke warm]

as for the nukes, thank God for india eh?

[Winstonm]

Quote

I am getting more worried about Pakistan and if their government will be overthrown by radical elements in the next ten years or less.

And exactly how would the U.S. go about preventing this from happening???

Hell, I don't know what the worry is - according to my retired U.S. Col. brother the U.S government was overthrown by Marxist-Leninists this past election and only Patraeus and the Rebuplican party extremists can save us.

[hrothgar]

luke warm, on Apr 18 2009, 01:28 AM, said:

as for the nukes, thank God for india eh?

I suppose India might make a more attractive target, but other than that, I don't see them doing much good...

In all seriousness, I (regretfully) think that the US might need to launch military actions against Pakistan. I am usually very opposed to military action. Launching an attack to try to secure the Pakistani nuclear arsenal is one area where I think an attack might prove necessary.

I'd very much prefer a situation where we tried to purchase said weapons. I'd love to see some kind of trade arrange where we provided open access to our markets in exchange for Pakistan standing down their weapons program.

(And before anyone asks, the reason that I am much more worried about a nuclear armed Pakistan than I am about Iran is that I think that the Iranian government is much more stable)

[mike777]

Winstonm, on Apr 17 2009, 08:12 PM, said:

Quote

I am getting more worried about Pakistan and if their government will be overthrown by radical elements in the next ten years or less.

And exactly how would the U.S. go about preventing this from happening???

I was kind of hoping with the new spirit of cooperation that Europe, Russia and China would step in. They are lot closer to the problem than the USA is. No doubt they have better expertise in this area than the USA has in the past.

[luke warm]

mike777, on Apr 18 2009, 12:45 PM, said:

Winstonm, on Apr 17 2009, 08:12 PM, said:

Quote

I am getting more worried about Pakistan and if their government will be overthrown by radical elements in the next ten years or less.

And exactly how would the U.S. go about preventing this from happening???

I was kind of hoping with the new spirit of cooperation that Europe, Russia and China would step in. They are lot closer to the problem than the USA is. No doubt they have better expertise in this area than the USA has in the past.

probably such radical elements would be captured and tried at the hague as war criminals, possibly on the same docket with bush, cheney, et al

[se12sam]

luke warm, on Apr 17 2009, 11:28 PM, said:

as for the nukes, thank God for india eh?

I usually do not post in this area! But here is something I found a while ago.
           http://hsgac.senate....12809Tellis.pdf

The person speaking to the Senate committee may have interests / influences that affect some of his statements.

However, many of his points are legitimate. The radical elements in the region have "...long engaged in a variety of subversive activities aimed at attacking American interests"

I don't think India is the only country that has to worry about Pakistan's nukes.

[hrothgar]

luke warm, on Apr 19 2009, 03:35 AM, said:

mike777, on Apr 18 2009, 12:45 PM, said:

Winstonm, on Apr 17 2009, 08:12 PM, said:

Quote

I am getting more worried about Pakistan and if their government will be overthrown by radical elements in the next ten years or less.

And exactly how would the U.S. go about preventing this from happening???

I was kind of hoping with the new spirit of cooperation that Europe, Russia and China would step in. They are lot closer to the problem than the USA is. No doubt they have better expertise in this area than the USA has in the past.

probably such radical elements would be captured and tried at the hague as war criminals, possibly on the same docket with bush, cheney, et al

Just to be clear:

I haven't seen any one on this list argue that any/all types of military action is a war crime. I haven't seen anyone argue that preemptive/preventative attacks is a war crime.

The the most common place where terms like "war crimes" gets introduced is when you deliberately implement policies to torture prisoners.

Admittedly, I tend to go a bit further: I believe that if you launch a preemptive attack you better make sure that your Casus belli was justified... You shouldn't be able to kill hundreds of thousands of people and write it all off as an "oopsie".

[mike777]

Today we/allies are killing tens and tens of Pakistans.

We are not killing 100,000 Pakistans.


Over the next ten years, that will be a very important question. Hopefully, Pakistan, Europe, Russia and China will be the important players regarding this subject...not the USA.

[Winstonm]

Non-interventionism is not the same thing as isolationism. .

[blackshoe]

Why does everything have to be an "ism"?

[Winstonm]

blackshoe, on Apr 19 2009, 10:47 AM, said:

Why does everything have to be an "ism"?

For those with an ism schism...

Non-intervention does not mean isolation, and neocons still suck.

[brianshark]

Never in a million years will the US or anyone attack Pakistan because Pakistan have nukes and nobody will endorse a war that could become nuclear. Well, maybe India.

[mike777]

brianshark, on Apr 20 2009, 07:24 AM, said:

Never in a million years will the US or anyone attack Pakistan because Pakistan have nukes and nobody will endorse a war that could become nuclear. Well, maybe India.

Too late.

The USA has been attacking in Pakistan. The President has pledged to continue the attacks in Pakistan.

India has been attacking Pakistan for decades.

Of course this does not even mention attacks by outside groups such as the Taliban and its ilk. Not only are they attacking but they are winning important battles and are in control in large areas of the countryside.

[Aberlour10]

Pakistans presidents, prime ministers, goverments are not the deciding player in this geo-strategical game, deciding is...what Pakistans generals are thinking and doing, I suppose the US influence in this circle is still so strong as ever. If the situation will get worse, I am sure they will introduce a strong military dictatorship with internal war law, etc, etc...and all this with full financial und military support of the USA, according to the motto : democracy is fine, but stability and control is better.

Robert