if it is all right for the United States to attack another country preemptively for supporting terrorism, he asked, then what is to prevent India from dropping a nuclear bomb on Islamabad, the capital of Pakistan, in retaliation for Pakistani support for separatists in Kashmir?
Let me count the ways - 1) Pakistan has nukes, too; 2) the winds will blow fallout back into India; 3) Kashmir isn't worth a nuclear war, otherwise they'd have had one already. But if the question is, why haven't Pakistan and India fought over Kashmir, the answer is -- they have.
European officials now concede that they were slow to recognize the depth of the wound and shock to Americans — and the degree to which Americans would take literally the concept of a war on terrorism. “For you, it’s not symbolic, it’s a real term,” one official said. “From that moment, you decided it’s your problem and you have to solve it and the rest of the world can either help, or, if not, to hell with them.”
Sounds like finally somebody is catching on. |
