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 Policy Discussion Thread -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Hawkmoon who wrote (6124)	12/2/2003 3:23:10 PM
From: kumar	Respond to of 15991

control/ownership of that region has historically been measured in terms of years and decades. A few months activity one way or another is not really indicative. On the flip side, pre 9/11 Pakistan (under Musharraf) did recognize and support the Taliban regime in Afghanistan. It is a fluid situation there, and we need to look at it over the long term, before passing any kind of judgement.

To: Hawkmoon who wrote (6124)	12/2/2003 4:25:14 PM
From: ChinuSFO	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to 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.