Foreign Policy Discussion Thread Message Board

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Foreign Policy Discussion Thread

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next

To: Hawkmoon who wrote (6124)	12/2/2003 4:25:14 PM
From: ChinuSFO	Read Replies (1) of 15991

...that Musharraf's predecessor, Sharif, was far too cozy with the Islamists and that Musharraf was left with a formidable task in reversing this situation. Very likely true. But Musharraf initially was hesitant to deal with them. And hawk, you also made my point. If the terrorists were all in Pakistan, then why was the US concentrating on Saddam? We all knew that the US was capturing the top Al-Qaeda leaders from Pakistan but at the same time the US was flexing its muscle on Iraq. Maybe Iraq should have been postponed not abandoned. We had Osama in Pakistan. If we invaded Pakistan, it would not have retaliated. But now if we invade Iran, those folks can surely put up a stiffer fight that Pakistan would. But again, if OBL is hiding in Iran (according to Mansoor Ijaz) then I think the US should go and get him. That is if we have any brigades to spare.

Report TOU Violation

Share This Post

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next