“Yes, let's all base our hopes on your guesses. Suicide bombers and nuclear weapons put two and two together.”
Well there is a huge difference between a suicide bomber and a nuclear weapon. One must first know how to obtain/make, use and deliver a nuclear weapon before actually using it, not an easy task.”Every Muslim country in the area wants to kill all the Israeli's, one particular one comes to mind. Did you miss the part where the nation striving for nuclear weapons talked about wiping Israel off the map? Since I know you don't believe what I say, go learn what that countries President did during the Iran Iraq War in the Basiji.”
No doubt Ahmeadjhadi, whatever is crazy but Israel has 200 nukes of its own, so that whole MAD and nuclear deterrence thing come into play. Israel will be okay.”So when millions die in a nuclear holocaust that cuts off oil from the middle east for the next couple centuries we have nothing to worry about.... You obviously learned nothing from history, like half our country, which is why I have come to the conclusion that we are doomed to repeat it....”
You are making a slippery slope argument; you are equating US withdrawal from a country in the middle of a civil war with the coming of a nuclear war. The two are not linked even in a historical sense. What evidence do you have that nuclear war would break out if American troops left Iraq?”In other words, let's cut and run from the mission we have set out upon. Redefine mission = cut and run from bringing effective government to the area. Bush has laid out the ONLY strategy yet that has any realistic hope of winning this war. He is President because your Party did nothing but point fingers and make excuses, give us another option, we were, have, and are listening for one, but you guys have nothing.”
Have you read the new issue of National Review? In it is a symposium of writers who supported the war, but all state in the magazine we are losing the war now and a new strategy is needed. We need a redirection in the war, a fresh strategy because the old one isn’t working. Bush doesn’t have enough American troops on the ground and is unwilling or unable to send more and we can’t train the Iraqis fast enough to quell the violence, as you say.
”Didn't I answer this question last time? It has nothing to do with the level of violence; it is about bringing effective government to the area as a way to counter Islam and Tribal warfare spreading out in Terrorism in the nuclear age.”
It has everything to do with violence, if a country is to have an effective government there has to be stability or marked progress towa
things India was blessed with at the time of Independence (and
relevant to your question):
A largely de-militarized society. Before World War II there were just
300,000 men under arms, and even after World War II, just 2 million
had served in the BIA. Apart from the Pathan tribals in NWFP and
tribals in Indian North-East, there weren't many people with access
to violence (on modern scale). Small arms were heavily regulated (and
on the other hand, is a highly militarized society. Saddam's Army was
disproportionately large – thus instilling violence in a large
section of its society. There were very active – and successful –
guerrilla units like the Kurdish peshmerga. The lack of a systematic
disarming (the only proactive step the US forces could take) meant
that Iraq is more like post-War Japan... except everybody retains
their weapons. Proclivity to violence + Access to modern weapons =
Relative isolation, but sufficient exposure. British had, for reasons
of their own, isolated their Indian subjects from the post-WWII
power. I don't think I need to emphasize how touchy they were to
Russian (or Soviet) presence anywhere around India. Longtime snobbish
Anglo-Indian families (who basically ran India) also kept out the
Americans even during World War II (carefully chaperoning GIs while
stationed there for Gen. Stillwell's CBI campaign). But future Indian
leaders nonetheless had sufficient experience in the outside world –
mainly in London.
is wide open to Saudi Arabia, Iran, Syria, Turkey, China, France (in
decreasing order of meddlesomeness) and many others. Sometimes these
smaller powers are more destructive than the super-powers. With
regard to the necessary exposure, I am not privy to how good or bad
current Iraqi leaders who lived abroad are seen as... but if Chalabi
is seen as an example, its not very good.
A very illogical, but popular belief: Iraq is "cursed" with oil while India had been looted into bankruptcy by then, so who would bother meddling India? India certainly was much poorer than it had been a thousand or 300 years back, but seeing how Cold War super-powers were willing to contest the Koreas and Vietnam I see no reason why they might not have done so in India if they had a chance. And business people (who presumably are after Iraqi oil) work in mysterious ways incomprehensible to this engineer... sometimes they fight for a penny, but glady share million other times.
Finally: Calling the violence of the Partition "tribal" is not only technically incorrect, but trivializes the whole issue into something primeval - which it explicitly wasn't! It was a fight over interpretation of what a modern state means: All tribal wars, like say the German drive to unite all Germanic people and enslave others, (aka World War II - I am lovin' this) fall in a completely different category of warfare compared to the wars of religion. There are no Muslim "tribes" Jinnah and Iqbal (founders of Pakistan) argues, but Islam itself is a "tribe" worthy of nationhood (never mind the fact that Indians dont even recognize "tribe" as a sufficient identity for nationhood!!!). The fundamental problem in calling Hindus and Muslims tribes is, Are Jose Padilla (a Muslim) and your average Catholic Hispanic different "tribes"?
The violence of the Parition was a precursor to 9/11 and London bombings, as well as the continuing US-Afghan War in its denial of sovereignty of any state except one founded on Islam... whereas in Partitioning India the iSlum'o fascists won, I certainly hope they dont win this time.
StrategyWorld.com© 1998 -