Iran is "on the verge of gettign nuclear weapons" ??? In what fantasy world? Why don't you scoot over to the IAEA and inform them of this factoid that you've somehow uncovered. I'm sure they would like to know how 3 years of their investigations could have missed this.

Sheesh.

Incidentally, here's a suggestion for Israel: FREE THE WOMEN AND CHILDREN IN YOUR PRISONS as Hamas asks. How's that for a solution? Why are you imprisoning women and children anyway?

Why do you feel compelled to meddle in another country's internal politics just because it is not how you want it to be?  Aren't we already experiencing enough blowback from past interferences?

Musharraf may not be ideal but he's better than some other authortarian rulers we deal with.  Why make it harder for him to stay in power?  Do you think if he's overthrown his successor will be more friendly to us?

I say give him his carrots and forget any sticks for now.

It's so good to know that you support wholeheartedly Bush's defense of democracy worldwide, so evident in his steadfast alliance with the abrogator of Pakistani Democracy, Pervez Musharraf, his multi-year alliance with the kleptocratic butcher of Andijon, Islam Kerimov, and the ease with which he kisses Saudi princes.

Get off of you high pretentious horse. Bush, in keeping with contemporary conservatism's basic practises, dances the dirty bump and grind of the moral relativist, and you mindlessly prance along in right-sided cadence, spinning ditto-head situationalist pirouettes with sweeping ad hominem arguments from a conservatism buried long ago.

To what extent is Samuel Huntington correct?

--
Howard

*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*

Yes.

Thank you for bringing up Pakistan at this time; appreciate it.

I have been thinking along the same lines, simply because of that suicide tape of the London 7/7 bomber that was just released on the anniversay. I remember carefully following a lot of the speculation about Pakistani connections in the weeks after the 7/7 bombing, and then following the investigation that dismissed Pakistani connnections as irrelevant. Well, suprise surprise message from al Qaeda sympathizers, we just learned that the Pakistani connections were relevant afterall.

I have always felt, since like 9/12/01, that if after the invasion of Afghanistan, had we taken something like a half of the money spent on Iraq invasion the first year, and pumped it into the Pakistani econmony, we would have a much better world right now, a lot less popularity of Islamic radicalism worldwide, and probably a happily retired Musharraf by now to boot, making guest appearances as a talking head on CNN. Just my crazy dreams, whadda I know...all I know is that Congress doesn't "do" foreign aid (even cloaked as trade preferences) they never have money for that, but give 'em a war and they'll print the dollars somehow.

Kleinfeld brings up Pakistan for two reasons:

1) It's in the news due to the Indian incident.

2) It allows her to SEEM to be on the side of those who question Pakistan's connections with 9/11 and our support of the ruler there, while at the same time allowing her to push her neocon agenda of intervening in other countries - which of course the US always does correctly (if the US would only listen to her, of course.)

Here's the bottom line: we don't need to do ANYTHING about Pakistan except get out of there and out of Afghanistan, and let the chips fall where they may over there between Pakistan and India, and in Afghanistan.

NONE of those countries (with the possible exception of India as a trading partner) has ANY significance for the US going forward. They were irrelevant to the US before 9/11 and they are STILL irrelevant to the US.

Changing our foreign policies to reduce the threat of terrorism in the US does NOT include meddling in the education of some other country's children.

Because the women - along with the children and most of the men - have been held without any legitimate charge. At worst, they exercised their right to resist occupation by a racist apartheid terrorist regime that claims God gave them the right to murder and ethnically cleanse non-Jews from their Promised Land.

Now, here's a question for you: why does ISRAEL get a free pass? How many more events like shelling picnicers, running over peace activists with bulldozers, shooting children as they cower behind their father, or shelling UN compounds full of refugees will people like YOU accept before you raise a mild whimper against Israel?

I humbly suggest that you add the rise and fall and the rise and fall of Benazir Bhutto to your list, PseudoCyAnts. Back in the days while trying to unravel the reasoning behind the Afghan invasion I read quite a bit about her - and as I recall most of what I read came from the Department of Energy web site. What we have in Pakistan today she played a pivotal role, I think.

I't the pipeline, stupid! Just a catchy phrase, certainly not addressed to you. The biggest contender to Unocal/Saudi bid for the Afghan pipeline was Argentina's Bridas Oil (which has subsequently merged with BP). In fact, they really had it sewed-up. They signed contracts with Turkmenistan and made a deal with both the Taliban and Northern Alliance, promising each party substantial transit fees, so the liklihood of the pipeline being sabotaged was very small. Here's a link to a decent backgrounder, and how Bridas failed.

At any rate, in a surprise move Bhutto opted for the Bridas proposal, and right afterwards a coup in Pakistan sent her fleeing for her life.

Neoboho

One does not throw oneself in front of a dangerous machine, or in front of troops, unless one is prepared to accept the consequences, or is a fool.

Ah I see -- so it was Rachel's fault for being intentionally run over by a by the Israeli bulldozer, and not the fault of the Israelis who ran her over.

Gotcha.

So America sucks right? Especially Republican America, Bush's America.

As you and CyberAnt and several others on this thread alone so brilliantly prove, it's sins are far, far worse than anything bin Ladin and Al Qaeda have committed. It's the fountainhead of evil in the world, the Great Satan.

Are you listening Tom Wright? What did I tell you?

Tom Wright, you are so blinded by your ideology that you probably still refuse to see the obvious.

A very large part of the "progressive, liberal" left believes bin Ladin killed 3000 or so "little Eichmanns" and destroyed their property...while Bush and the Republicans raped many Arab women, murdered 300,000 children, destroyed Iraq, imposed a racist, apartheid regime on Palestine, propped up dictators everywhere in order to increase their wealth at the expense of "the people", and God knows what other dastardly deeds.

Bin Ladin can hardly be called a terrorist by such people. He's a freedom-fighter.

You are welcome. My pleasure.

On the thread "Question of the Day" I made the point

I think...you - and far too many of your readers - think the principle enemy is here at home.

Ohiomeister responded

The idea that TPM readers think the principal enemy is at home is simply laughable.

while Tom Wright said

The principal enemy we face is Osama, most of us thought...and...your insulting comment that we felt the main enemy was at home.

In support of my position I cited an editorial "Jonathan Chait:Purely foolish Democrats" which appeared in yesterday's Los Angeles Times opinion section...and here , on this thread, three posters make my day.

Your contention that I'm "baiting" Wright is just uniformed. We have a long running argument, which has become progressively more personal and acrimonious. None the less I consider him to be honest and capable of looking at the facts. Otherwise I wouldn't bother.

As for hellish I think you'll find my posts considerably more hellish now that you understand the context and implications.

If I'm right where does that leave you?

On the thread "Question of the Day" I made the point

I think...you - and far too many of your readers - think the principle enemy is here at home.

Ohiomeister responded

The idea that TPM readers think the principal enemy is at home is simply laughable.

while Tom Wright said

The principal enemy we face is Osama, most of us thought...and...your insulting comment that we felt the main enemy was at home.

In support of my position I cited an editorial "Jonathan Chait:Purely foolish Democrats" which appeared in yesterday's Los Angeles Times opinion section...and here , on this thread, three posters make my day.

Your contention that I'm "baiting" Wright is just uniformed. We have a long running argument, which has become progressively more personal and acrimonious. None the less I consider him to be honest and capable of looking at the facts. Otherwise I wouldn't bother.

As for hellish I think you'll find my posts considerably more hellish now that you understand the context and implications.

If I'm right where does that leave you?

On the thread "Question of the Day" I made the point

I think...you - and far too many of your readers - think the principle enemy is here at home.

Ohiomeister responded

The idea that TPM readers think the principal enemy is at home is simply laughable.

while Tom Wright said

The principal enemy we face is Osama, most of us thought...and...your insulting comment that we felt the main enemy was at home.

In support of my position I cited an editorial "Jonathan Chait:Purely foolish Democrats" which appeared in yesterday's Los Angeles Times opinion section...and here , on this thread, three posters make my day.

Your contention that I'm "baiting" Wright is just uninformed. We have a long running argument, which has become progressively more personal and acrimonious. None the less I consider him to be honest and capable of looking at the facts. Otherwise I wouldn't bother.

As for hellish I think you'll find my posts considerably more hellish now that you understand the context and implications.

If I'm right where does that leave you?

Troll = Zero (0) Rating

Do not answer this here --

Vent Your Spleen on Off-Topic Subjects to OGD Here...

~OGD~

Troll = Zero (0) Rating

Do not answer this here --

Vent Your Spleen on Off-Topic Subjects to OGD Here...

~OGD~

Troll = Zero (0) Rating

Do not answer this here --

Vent Your Spleen on Off-Topic Subjects to OGD Here...

~OGD~

Interesting oil link to Bhutto, but you are not exactly correct about her being ousted by a coup. Both of her Pak PM tenures were terminated by the Pak president under a cloud of corruption charges swirling around her husband's dealings. It was the next elected government that was ousted by a military coup, that of Nawaz Sharif's.

I only quickly checked to verify my memory though, so this cite isn't an expansive write up, but does mention her two dismissals as Pak PM by presidents: "Benazir Bhutto's extraordinary career", BBC News January 26, 2006 (last update).

There may well have been a push to oust Bhutto because of her choice of oil corporations though.

Bhutto likely did not have much say in Pakistan's nuclear research. A nice timeline provided by the NSA archives, dates the motivation's conception for the Pak nuke program, May 18, 1974, when India detonated their first nuke. Carter throughout almost his whole presidency kept his distance from the Pakistan government run by General Zia ul-Haq (who executed Bhutto's father), but after the Soviet had installed their Afghanistan client, and probably at the urging of of his NSA, Zbigniew Brzezinski, he reinitiated Pakistan/US ties. I credit Brzezinski with conceiving the nightmare of the Arab Mujahadin, although his implementation was to hand them a few Czech made weapons/ordinance, and send them packing down through the Khyber Pass. It took the Reagancomics to train them in the black arts of insurgency, put stingers at their shoulders, and aid in their deification, by publicly proclaiming them as 'holy warriors'. Bhutto had to have been aware of Pakistan's Nuclear research and was probably supportive of it in her first stint as PM, '88-'90 but by the time her second term rolled around '93-'96, it was almost a done deal.

• Joyce Battle, "India and Pakistan -- On the Nuclear Threshold", National Security Archive Electronic Briefing Book No. 6
• Zbigniew Brzezinski, Sourcewatch

"These Islamic fighters in a faraway land have given new meaning to the words "courage," "determination," and "strength." They have set the standard for those who value freedom and independence everywhere in the world.

Afghanistan's freedom fighters -- the resistance or mujahidin -- represent an indigenous movement that swept through their mountainous land to challenge a foreign military power threatening their religion and their very way of life. With little in the way of arms or organization, the vast majority of the Afghan people have demonstrated that they will not be dominated and that they are prepared to give their lives for independence and freedom."

Ronald Reagan, December 27, 1983, Fourth Anniversary of the Soviet Invasion of Afghanistan

Thank-You, Ronald Reagan

[..]

"You supported Afghan freedom fighters, making the Soviets pay dearly for their invasion."

William J. Bennett., "Thank You Ronald Reagan"

Check the article by Matt Kelley, and the timeline it offers. Pakistan did the majority of their nuke research under the asleep at the wheel Reagan Administration, giving it wink and a nod, adjudging the training of the mujahadin to have precedence.

and thanks for reminding me regarding my haughty ways of posting. i need the reminder, because i usually don't see it as anything other than intensity, unless you're in a direct LOS (you'll know if that ever happens) and forget that for several years now, i have honed rhetoric foreffectiveness when opposing the Son of Bush...cheers

I think that maybe we owe Afghanistan a decent stab at having an estimable future. We were a primary cause for their long ride into hell

The problem, as is often the case, is the devil, politicisation, in the details.

"Let him who is without sin cast the first stone..."

B*O*N*K

Mother, stop that!

--
Howard

*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*

You're right; Huntington's argument is imprecise. But so is all political "science". As a first approximation I think his thesis is correct, and that racial, religious, and tribal affinities are, and have been, the norm throughout human history. Since this is an imprecise formulation you can find many counter-examples, often big ones such as the United States. Despite that racism, sexism, etc. far better describe human nature and behavior than political correctness - which is just madness.

In my travels I encounted many Latin Americans and Japanese who told me that learning each other's language was far easier than learning English. Strange...but there it is.

[Huntington's thesis says] and that racial, religious, and tribal affinities are, and have been, the norm throughout human history. Since this is an imprecise formulation you can find many counter-examples, often big ones such as the United States. Despite that racism, sexism, etc. far better describe human nature and behavior than political correctness - which is just madness.

In my travels I encounted many Latin Americans and Japanese who told me that learning each other's language was far easier than learning English. Strange...but there it is.

*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*

and thanks for reminding me regarding my haughty ways of posting. i need the reminder, because i usually don't see it as anything other than intensity, unless you're in a direct LOS (you'll know if that ever happens) and forget that for several years now, i have honed rhetoric foreffectiveness when opposing the Son of Bush...cheers

I don't understand that graf. Your "haughty ways of posting" escaped me entirely. I always think you're spot-on. That's why I "humbly" suggested, heh heh.

And what is LOS? (long ostentatious suppositions?)

Neoboho

And what is LOS? (long ostentatious suppositions?)

that would be a definite possibility. I used a pseudo, "Austin T----, for a while in the past. It turned out to be a less than original pun though, and a comedian was using it for a stage name, so I dropped it.

In this usage, LOS, was intended as {line of sight}. I pondered whether to spell it out, but didn't, and just now checked an acronym-server. It offered 35 different common possibilities including, {Large offspring syndrome} and {Limits of Stability}. I must have a use for those somewhere...

Might i inquire as to the origins of you pseudo though. I had a difficult time with it in my first reply to a post of yours. I used neobobo and then neohobo before slowing down and concentrating on it. This process is termed closure, generally considered a positive trait, but this was a counterproductive instance. Not entirely though, since neobonobo floated up into the stream, and i like that one.

In fact, I think that it is exactly what America is in dire need of; fervent neobonobos directing policy at the federal level.

You've given me an incentive to do something that I've had on a back burner: have a way to look for the often insightful articles and research papers principally by Indian and Pakistani military officer on exchange study at the various US military staff (midcareer) colleges, research institutes, and senior-level military colleges.

I've just subscribed to a different way of looking at this, the Institute of Peace and Conflict Studies, self-described as an independent think tank, established in 1996 and cooperating with the Indian government, generally dealing with conflict resolution in South Asia.

There's one paper, sadly saved on a crashed disk, from, IIRC, an Indian Army medical officer at the US Air War College, who wrote extensively about the issues of combat at high altitudes. It would have been extremely relevant both to Afghanistan operations, and also why it is a really bad idea to consider the US launching an attack east from Iraq into Iran's Zagros Mountains.

--
Howard

*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*