Washington's Silly Season

Orbat ^ | 5/31/02

[rudypoot]

And Musharraf is going to rollover and play dead or not use nukes. Heck of a gamble. Musharraf will let the US hunt terrorists in Pakistan territory, but India!? Never. Either Musharraf shows some results, or he should let the US do it for him.

But if it has come to what you say should happen, then waiting around will only give terrorists more time to do more attacks. Like I said, crap or get off the pot. Stand up and make the decision.

We should get a better picture of things after Rumsfeld is done with his trip.

[virgil]

India will never give up Kashmir. That is simple enough.

[swarthyguy]

So what are you saying? I've crapped and i'm on pot and taken a shower. My cheese sandwich is wrapped in tinfoil.

On the one hand, you buy the nuclear blackmail and then you say waiting gives the terrorists more time.

Musharraf will let us hunt terrorists in his territory but India won't. How many pakistanis have been killed by indian terrorists?

Make a decision; india has. Respect for the US has caused it to not retaliate since DEC12 2001. Mush has to show results; what's he been doing since 9/11.

[rudypoot]

" On the one hand, you buy the nuclear blackmail and then you say waiting gives the terrorists more time."

More like protocol. You have a set of options on the table and you try the best option first. One: Force Musharraf to fight the terrorist. Second: Ignore Musharraf and do it ourselves. And these options do take time, allowing terrorists to careout their plans. I won't blame India for taking action if the terrorist incursions continue while we are doing these things.

But regardless of Musharraf, the Pakistanis will never allow India to perform military operations in their territory. That's just the reality of it. You act as if the fact that Pakistan has nuclear weapons is irrelevent. Indeed, it is the reason why there is such a huge mess over there now.

[swarthyguy]

Option 1 has been tried, ineffectually for 9 months.

Option 2 is is what the US should be doing to wipe out the vermin. OPtion 3 is for India to conduct its own campaign; its called WAR, incursions to another country's territory without their consent.

Well, nuclear blackmail is a recipe for inertia. We'll see what happens. Of course, India, historically is all bark and no bite. Take out the terrorist camps in Kashmir; if the nuclear jihadis escalate, its a risk India has to take. Do you think there's any difference between the taliban, alqaeda, LeT, JeM - they've all been spawned by the ISI and financed by the Saudis.

[rudypoot]

Pakistan did give us permission to use their airspace for the war in Ashcanistan, and that went a long way in the US government's relationship with Musharraf. And that is probably why we have not leaned on him harder. But that can only go so far. With the US delegations going over there, he know he is going to have to produce results in combatting these terrorists. But remember, Pakistan is a sovereign nation with a legitimate head of state (at least he is being treated that way). I think he should be given a chance to change his tune. Then let India decide if his efforts are adequate. But if there is a major terrorist attack in India, then all bets are off.

If war is what you want, then be prepared for the consequences. Conducting a "limited war" in this region in this situation now is going to be darn near impossible. I just dont like the idea for parts of SE asia becoming quiet neighborhoods for the next 2500 years.

[rudypoot]

You are right about there being no difference between terrorist groups. I figure we need regime changes in Iraq, Iran and Saudi Arabia. Drain those swamps and see what happens.