NEARING DOOM

New York Post ^ | Saturday, May 25, 2002 | By JIM HOAGLAND

[monocle]

There is no other major philosophy that teaches a quick way to heaven/nirvana is to kill "non-believers".

What about socialism as practised by the former Soviet Union, China, North Korea and Cuba?

[Faraday]

And don't kid yourself - all financial markets would be devastated just by the use of nukes.

Don't be so sure. During the Cuban missile crisis, the market tanked for a few days. Savvy investors bought that dip. Their rationale was: "If I'm going to be incinerated, it makes no difference if I'm holding greenbacks or IBM stock certificates. But if the world doesn't end, I've just bought at a bargain basement price." War (for the winners) is bullish for stocks.

[Tuor]

If they think themselves safe, they won't care about using them - but if they know they'll die, they may refrain.

There comes a point, in every real situation, in fact in every civilization, where there no longer are any right choices to make. Things move under their own terrible weight. We are very near that point and are *possibly* already past it.

The reason I say this is that if we actually do as you suggest, it will have its own consequences. It may succeed in stopping India and Pakistan, but neither country will ever forget what we did, and will invariably feel very wronged by it, regardless of our own intent.

On the one hand, India will change its policies regarding us and whomever else is allied with us, which could have severe reprecussions: militarily, economically, and politically.

On the other hand, Pakistan will almost certainly sever its relations with the US. Our action *could* act to unify the Moslems like never before, which, like with India, would have some severe consequences. But also, unlike India, will serve as a rallying cry for lots and lots of Moslems who maybe didn't hate the US enough to attack it -- now they become potential terrorists.

But both countries will take a few steps: they will very intensely attempt to build up their arsonals and will intensely seek means of getting US cities into their target range.

What I am saying is that if we use force (or the threat thereof) to rectify the situation, we may make it worse, or like a domestic disturbance case, they may *both* turn on us in different ways. At the least, we can forget about the idea of friendly relations with either of them in the foreseeable future.

It may be worth these risk to avoid a nuclear exchange. I guess the Bush Administration will decide on that.

Tuor

[johnny7]

I like your kind of thinking dude.

Lets face it, were gonna take some hits but it

won't be the end of the world unless “we” decide to do it.

Being bullish during a crisis is savvy investing.

[Dog Gone]

I doubt that we'll have to threaten force to prevent these two countries from going to war.

The main thing is to convince India that starting a war is illogical. The purported reason for war is because of the terrorism, but the results of the war would play right into the terrorists' goals. It makes no sense to reward the terrorists by giving them the war they are seeking to cause.

We must also use this opportunity to insist that Musharraf do more to prevent Pakistanis from crossing the border to conduct terrorist operations. Logistically, I don't know how difficult that is to accomplish. We know how porous borders can be because of our experience right here at home. But, obviously, more must be done.

The disturbing thing is that the Indians are refusing to talk to the Pakistanis about averting a war or anything else. The only way to resolve this crisis is through cooperation, and with diplomacy completely rejected by the Indians, there are few options left. It's almost as if the Indians would lose face if they don't attack.

I was glad to see Russian President Putin weigh in on this today. Russia still has great influence in India, and his call for a joint peace conference with Musharraf is a very positive development. I hope the Indians bend to that pressure and agree to meet.

[Faraday]

Let's try a little realism. A war, even one with an exchange of nuclear weapons between India and Pakistan, represents far less of a threat to the global economy than WW I, WW II, or even a potential dust-up in the middle east involving interruption of petroleum supplies. The fact is the all "nuclear" powers will work to contain the conflict. "Economic models" don't rise and fall on such events.

The capitalist system is very resilient. It has grown and developed, with both ups and downs, through depressions, wars, and natural disasters for centuries. This conflict between two regional powers on the perifery of the world economy will not cause a collapse, and could even be an opportunity for political and economic progress.

[stands2reason]

How come when one country or group of people fights another, no matter where in the world, it's always our fault?

[Tuor]

It's almost as if the Indians would lose face if they don't attack.

I think that if they don't do something this time, internal pressure within India will topple their government. I've read it is already becoming increasingly fragile.

I don't see how we can tell them not to do what we ourselves are doing. The Indians know where the terrorism is coming from and they have the power to stop it (1,000,000 troops on Pakistan's border). Nukes are the only real question: is India prepared to endure them? We shall soon see.

Tuor

[flamefront]

Musharraf tells troops to stop cross-border terrorism into J&K: US media

Is successful may jsut be the first constructive move we have seen.

[Tuor]

Even now, despite the attempts at rosy news, it is really shaky at many of the points which affect the broadest consumer portions of the economy.

I've read that gold is becoming increasingly popular among investors. That indicates to me that they are becoming less confident in the strength of the dollar and the economy in general, not more.

I'm not an economist, so I could be mis-reading this.

Tuor

[Sabertooth]

The only thing I see that's tricky about this call is the timing of the inevitable nuclear exchange between Pakistan and India.

Pakistans's been ramping up it's nuke program since 1971 specifically for this purpose. There are many allies of bin Laden and Terror in their ISI. Like Moslems elsewhere, they are spoiling for war, and because of the madrassas, that sentiment won't go away in our lifetimes.

I've come to the conclusion that the Moslems need to get the wars they lust for. Basically, the sooner the better, before they acquire even more WMDs.

AJust as with the Nazis, Pakistan won't stop in the Kashimir unless they have the spirit of war blasted out of them. Same with Arafat. Same with the Saudis.

Same with Iraq.

And there's the hitch. Saddam.

He's got a lot of WMDs, and some of them are already here, as I believe the anthrax letters were designed to communicate. We know he has smallpox, and more than 100 million Americans have never been vaccinated. I think that's one of the biggest reasons for our delay in taking the fight to Baghdad.

So what does this have to do with India and Pakistan?

Just as in Israel with Arafat (who's running a diversion for Hussein), everything must be viewed through the lense of the imminent war with Iraq: Does it help us or help Saddam?

Right now, I'd say it leans to Saddam's favor for the furr to fly before we're ready, so we'll need to table this little nukefest between India and Pakistan if we can. But I'm not optimistic about their future, especially Pakistan's.

[Faraday]

Interesting point about 911. It was amazing it did such little damage to the economy. Many people and documents important to the functioning of the ecomomy perished in the WTC. The very heart of our military organization was breached and attacked. And then what? There were a few weeks of uncertainty followed by a steady recovery from the the collapse of the technology bubble (which was/is a much larger problem for the economy than any potential regional war). If you bought the S&P 500 index at the low point after 911, you would have made 14.7% on your money as of the close Friday. This regional conflict and the war on terrorism is not a long-term threat to the economy, unless we fail to take the steps necessary to deal with them.

[Teacher317]

Arrogant white pig-devil! Anglo-Euro-American imperialism is the scourge of the earth, and is the cause of all evil... didn't you get the pamphlet last week telling us all that? ;^)

[MissAmericanPie]

It falls in line with what people are hoarding in bible prophecy during the last battle.

James 5:1 "Go to now; ye rich men, weep and howl for your miseries that have come upon you. Your riches are corrupted and your garments motheaten. Your gold and silver is cankered; and the rust of them shall be a witness againt you, and shall eat your flesh like fire. Ye have heaped treasures for the last days.

Ezek. 7:19 "They shall cast their silver in the street, their gold shall be removed: their silver and gold will not be able to deliver them in the day of the wrath of the Lord. It is the stumbling block of their iniquity."

Zep 1:18 "Neither their silver nor their gold shall be able to deliver them in the day of the Lord's wrath.

Sounds to me like a better investment than silver or gold, would be to invest in one's own soul.