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 : World Affairs Discussion -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: lorne who wrote (2893)12/4/2003 8:19:53 PM
From: ChinuSFO  Respond to of 3959
 
Well, at that rate Bush will have to take on three countries at once; Syria, Iran and North Korea. And then in Nov. 2004, he will have fourth front he will have to face: the American electorate.



To: lorne who wrote (2893)12/5/2003 2:02:54 PM
From: tsigprofit  Read Replies (2) | Respond to of 3959
 
interesting post. If this is all correct, we might
see it in 2004. It would be a lot easier than Iran, but
then Syria may have chemical weapons, who knows? Wouldn't
likely be a cakewalk - but after we did Iraq - who knows
what Bush will do next?

Problem is - I don't think it would be easy to do at current US troops levels...



To: lorne who wrote (2893)12/6/2003 9:38:51 AM
From: ChinuSFO  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 3959
 
I think it is Pakistan. The US is following the same course in dealing with Pakistan as it did in Afghanistan in the 80's. I have always maintained that it was US' mistake to have stopped at the border of Afghanistan and Pakistan. They should have marched into Pakistan instead of diverting their attention towards Iraqi oil. Here is the link on the Pakistani situation.

nytimes.com