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 : Sioux Nation -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Patricia Trinchero who wrote (99674)	2/16/2007 4:44:21 PM
From: cirrus	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 362605

Yes... we do have some amazing technology and capabilities, but as events in Iraqi have demonstrated, technology and capability have limits. There is no lack of will. bin Laden has gone to great lengths to remain hidden and there is no assurance that any military operation would be able to locate him. Bush would like nothing better than to display bin Laden's head on a pike from the oval office, the politics of the matter be damned. He didn't care about the political nuances of overthrowing Saddam, so ticking off some tribes in Pakistan is not one of his worries. I'm not too concerned about Pakistan. I suspect Bush forced Musharraf to cooperate to the extent he has in the war against the Taliban by threatening to destroy Pakistan's nuclear arsenal. Furthermore, I suspect the United States keeps Musharrif in power by letting potential enemies in the Pakistani army and intelligence services understand that any overthrow of Musharraf would result in immediate destruction of Pakistan's nuclear arsenal - and the key targets have probably been provided by Musharraf himself. An attack to deny nuclear weapons to a rogue group that overthrew a key US ally would cause far less of a domestic and international outcry than an attack on Iran. Indeed, India would be delighted.