SI
SI
discoversearch

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 Affairs Discussion Group -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Original Mad Dog who wrote (4035)10/10/2001 11:17:24 AM
From: HG  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 281500
 
Well, in case of Kashmir, India would expect US NOT to interfere and intervene. For years it has been trying to keep US out of it. And if it simply HAS to intervene, then to treat it the way it would treat an act of violence on US soil. Whats with the "Negotiate for Peace" rant ?

BTW, did you know you were one of the very few who agrees US went to war with Saddam because of the oil ?

<<<I still believe that our arrangement with Pakistan is one of expediency. >>>

All I can say is that you must read up on the US Pakistan relationship history.



To: Original Mad Dog who wrote (4035)10/10/2001 1:11:13 PM
From: Selectric II  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 281500
 
Seems to me that we already are pressuring Pakistan to stop supporting terrorists, as quickly and peacefully as we can. But if in our zeal we only wind up fomenting an extremist revolution there, everyone except the extremists will be worse off.


HomeMailHotSubjectMarksPeopleMarksKeepersSettings
Terms Of UseContact UsCopyright/IP PolicyPrivacy PolicyAbout UsFAQAdvertise on SI
© 2026 Knight Sac Media.  Data provided by Twelve Data, Alpha Vantage, and CityFALCON News