Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

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

To: Mark Adams who wrote (9479)	11/8/2001 11:54:06 PM
From: k.ramesh	Respond to of 281500

Unfortunately that part of Kashmir is in Pakistan's hands. The northern 1/3 of Kashmir is under Pakistan's control, called Northern Areas. Gee we have been fighting this war for a month and a half. Surely a little detail like that would n't have slipped thru the mighty US fighting machine. Even if it were under India's control, it would be off limits for 2 reasons. 1. India is being kept out of direct involvement mainly because it would then appear to be a Christian-Jewish-Hindu plot against Islamic countries which is the wrong message to be sending. 2. That area is practically uninhabited ( around one million out of 140 million pakistanis/Kashmiris stay there) because it is more vertical than horizontal. With that kind of population pressures you would think people would live anywhere, but nature is powerful here and in the deserts of Baluchistan. If you still wish to pursue the build approach, you should pick the desert part of Afghanistan south west of Kandhar towards Iran. Atleast we would be able to see anyone attempting to ambush. UZ and Tajikistan are the best bets, and even then there was an article which talked about poor state of the base in TJ and how a military man said ' we are not going to spend 100 million on upgrades' NYT I think.