Washington's Silly Season

Orbat ^ | 5/31/02

[swarthyguy]

Well, responses welcome. OK, not welcome but will be interesting to read, i'm sure.

[Ingtar]

Perhaps they are calculating in the probability that it will go nuclear? Some schools of thought hold that we would never have devestated the world over Cuba.

[swarthyguy]

But we'll never know that for sure because Khrushchev backed down, albeit with a backroom deal that made the US take its missiles out of Turkey.

[Ingtar]

And not as a racial statement - the invective and saber rattling makes this sound more likely. And they are fighting over what they both believe is part of their country... this makes a large difference.

[gcruse]

 Some schools of thought hold that we would never have
devestated the world over Cuba.

The Joint Chiefs of Staff ordered the ships maintaining
the picket line to sink the Russian ship that was approaching
them ostensibly to breach the line.  Had the ship not stopped,
we would have sunk her.  Does that answer your question?

[gcruse]

See post #5.

[Billthedrill]

Well, our friend is doing a bit of condescending himself here, IMHO. But here's the bottom line - for all the noise the U.S. and the U.S.S.R. did NOT end up lobbing nukes at each other. I'm hoping a similar restraint occurs between India and Pakistan. It better, because anyone who speaks so blandly of "only" 12 million dead, few of whom are "bystanders" sends chills up my spine. (Curious usage, BTW - surely he can't mean that there will be 12 million principals and no civilians killed...)

[Cicero]

I'm sure the scholarly expert would be horrified at the suggestion that he is a racist. No, more likely the problem is short memory and an inclination to exaggerate his own field of specialization, like most scholars.

On the other hand, the Soviet Union was a tightly controlled government. Pakistan swarms with Afghan immigrants and Muslim extremists. Its intelligence service and army are susceptible to extremist influence too. The problem isn't racial, it's religious. I'd rather trust Stalin with nuclear weapons than Bin Ladin. No, Stalin was not a nice guy. He murdered up to a hundred million people, but at least he kept his nuclear weapons and his military under tight control.

[Cicero]

You're right about that. After the Bay of Pigs, the Soviet leaders considered JFK to be an inexperienced weakling who would back down under pressure. It took him several years, the Cuban Missile Crisis, and the Berlin Airlift, to remove that impression. Foreign policy under Kennedy was very badly handled by his crew of the Best & Brightest from Harvard.

[rudypoot]

"They have shown greater restraint and greater humanity to civilians than your country has in times of peril."

Yep, that is why you guys keep fighting each other and continue to suffer. You claim moral superiority and yet people are still dying because of it. Isreal is using the same tactic with the "palastinians", and look where they are at. The US was also restrained from toppling Saddam, and look where that got us. We nuked Japan, and look what happened there. We helped to administer a "regime change" in Nazi Germany and won only after we went at there manufacturing sites in populated areas.

Crap or get off the pot. I don't not see a war, but after decades of this going on, the question has to be asked: Is strategy really worth all this death and destruction?

[swarthyguy]

Can i have some your stash? It seems like some powerful s*** u have in your pipe.

[gcruse]

rudypoot

member since May 31st, 2002

[joebuck]

This author is obvoiusly unfamiler wtih the "Doomsday" machine. ;-)

[Dan(9698)]

"and the Berlin Airlift, "

Not to be picky, but that took place in Truman's time.

[rudypoot]

All I am saying is things are so complicated over there, given the history between the two countries and the terrors present, that no one is willing to lead to a solution. Until that happens, well, heaven help us.

[swarthyguy]

you said He(Stalin) murdered up to a hundred million people, but so how are nukes worse than this? Plus what's forgotten is that Pakistan has promised it WILL resort to a FIRST STRIKE policy and is blackmailing the entire world with its nuclear sabre rattling. India is virtually inviting a first strike by its no first use policy.

[swarthyguy]

More equivalency logic. Pakistan has threatened FIRST USE.

[swarthyguy]

It is NOT complicated. Musharraf supports, sponsors and sends jihadis across the border to kill women and kids.

Complication comes when the US is so committed to a ineffectual, prevaricating dictator that the entire waronterror becomes a strategy to keep musharraf in power.

[rudypoot]

If it is not complicated, then what do you suggest India to do? How do you remove Musharraf under these circumstances? I back India because India is one of the good guys and Pakistan threatened them first, as you pointed out. However, I am at a loss on what steps to take next. If Musharraf is toppled, how secure are the nuclear devices going to be? heck, are they secured now? I don't see my moral equivalence here. Something must be done about Pakistan, but the presence of nuclear arms presents a whole new ball of wax. Hopefully the US arm twisting will do the trick.

[swarthyguy]

Go into Kashmir and take out the jihadi fortresses for starters. Break up Pakistan, let india administer the parts the US does not to be involved in. US goes whole hog in it war strategy killing alqaeda etc on the western border. Squeeze them all into Kashmir and eliminate at our(UK/US) leisure with India's help if needed.