want to hear my evil plan?

equip and encourage both isreal and india to blitzkrieg the whole region simultaneously.

israel goes south and east through syria, iraq, and saudi arabia, india north and west through pakistant, iran, and afghanistan.

we will have to do with REALLY high oil prices for a while.

---

---

Kat Hunter reports on the San Dimas Stage Race from inside the GC winning team
Aeroweenie.com -Compendium of Aero Data and Knowledge
Freelance sports & outdoors writer Kathryn Hunter

...now that OBL is gone and Pakistan is once again showing they are indeed sheltering terrorists any further attacks from Pakistan will likely be met with aggressive retaliation from India.

First, isn't "aggressive retaliation" a contradiction in terms?

Second, would it be better to countenance such attacks without response, or to respond to them? Which policy is less likely to create problems in the long run?

The death of OBL may have made south Asia a lot more dangerous.

Or maybe less dangerous, if it makes the world view Pakistan more realistically.

---

-----
Two roads diverged in a wood, and I--
I took the one less traveled by,
Which is probably why I was registering 59.67mi as I rolled into T2.

First, isn't "aggressive retaliation" a contradiction in terms?

To this point India has used "passive retaliation" in terms of non-military retaliation through diplomatic channels so I mean a more aggressive approach.

Second, would it be better to countenance such attacks without response, or to respond to them? Which policy is less likely to create problems in the long run?

When it comes to India vs. Pakistan, the people don't view a "non-response" very well. It would be similar in the U.S if you had sat back after 9/11 and Bush announced he was not going to retaliate but take the higher ground. The people there have been clamoring for retaliation, particularly after the Mumbai attacks and the response has been muted due to pressure from the U.S.

I think that if there is another attack on India, they will just go after Pakistan themselves and use the unilateral U.S attack as a precedent.

Or maybe less dangerous, if it makes the world view Pakistan more realistically.

Possibly but in terms of India, they have been leading the warnings against Pakistan for a long time so for them, not much as changed. I think that by removing OBL, the U.S will have a more difficult time convincing India to show restraint.

I also think the U,S has privately had pretty grave concerns about Pakistan for some time, it's just not admitted publicly.

I don't really think you really addressed my questions. What I'm really inquiring about is what policy is going to be best in the long run, both for the people of India and for the rest of the world.

I think that by removing OBL, the U.S will have a more difficult time convincing India to show restraint.

Is that a good thing or a bad thing? Why?

I also think the U,S has privately had pretty grave concerns about Pakistan for some time, it's just not admitted publicly.

I think you're right about that. Ours seems to be a policy of pretense. But is that the best long-run policy?

---

-----
Two roads diverged in a wood, and I--
I took the one less traveled by,
Which is probably why I was registering 59.67mi as I rolled into T2.

I don't really think you really addressed my questions. What I'm really inquiring about is what policy is going to be best in the long run, both for the people of India and for the rest of the world.

I'll give it a shot but this is way above my pay grade and ability.

Pakistan is a very poor country and a good place to start would be for America and others to stop giving aid. The situations of unrest that are occurring in the Arab world are largely due to economic frustration and that could be the same trigger than makes the people demand changes. I think the changes have to come from within. The majority of people are getting tired of the extremism that is destroying large parts of their country. I don't think it would take much for them to start demanding changes.

Pakistan has been walking a dangerous line by having to be seen to help with the war on terror to qualify for the U.S aid they desperately need on one hand and appeasing the fundamentalists on the other. They have to make a stand on one side or the other and until they do, they have to be isolated.

China will likely try to come to the rescue but America and the West (particularly England) can do a lot to hurt them.

It would take some time but in the long-run, I can't really see an alternative.


I think that by removing OBL, the U.S will have a more difficult time convincing India to show restraint.

Is that a good thing or a bad thing? Why?

Why do I feel like I am in school?

I think it is a good thing for both America and India because it removes the ability for Pakistan to keep playing two sides of the coin. They really have to come to terms with either tolerating extremism within their borders or not. If India decides to go on the offensive, as America has done, then it will re-inforce the view that other countries will not tolerate their appeasement.

I think in the short term it could cause problems but most of the problems are for Pakistan. The government and military are full of extremist sympathizers and things just can't continue the way they have.

I'll give it a shot but this is way above my pay grade and ability.

Above mine too, but at least you've been in that part of the world.

Pakistan is a very poor country and a good place to start would be for America and others to stop giving aid.

Agreed.

Why do I feel like I am in school?

I didn't mean to put you on the spot, but I really wanted to know what you think about the policy implications.

I think it is a good thing for both America and India because it removes the ability for Pakistan to keep playing two sides of the coin. They really have to come to terms with either tolerating extremism within their borders or not. If India decides to go on the offensive, as America has done, then it will re-inforce the view that other countries will not tolerate their appeasement.

I think in the short term it could cause problems but most of the problems are for Pakistan. The government and military are full of extremist sympathizers and things just can't continue the way they have.

That makes good sense. Thanks.

---

-----
Two roads diverged in a wood, and I--
I took the one less traveled by,
Which is probably why I was registering 59.67mi as I rolled into T2.