That first sentence isn't true Dana, we still have minuteman and peacemakers sitting silos, game over.
Also about Pakistan. They are really neither our friend nor our ally. I mean I was shot at by these guys when we accidentally crossed the border one time. The thing in Pakistan is that parts of the government are very progressive and friendly and the rest is very anti-American. This includes parts of the military and almost all of it's intelligence services. They are still training terrorists to send it Afghanistan and Kashmir. Musharref has a very difficult job trying to maintain control over both the tribal sections of his country that are very anti-American, and his more progressive urban base that likes us, so he waffles all the time. Also large parts of that country are not under the control of the central government, rather under local tribal rule, often following sharia law. These same tribal leaders helped put the Taliban in power and continue to support them today. Now we know that both India and Pakistan have short range nukes, well how would you like to see Musharref get toppled and them have more nukes, or ICBMs at that point? -- Tim Heald [EMAIL PROTECTED] 703-300-3911 -----Original Message----- From: Dana Tierney [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Sunday, March 12, 2006 12:44 AM To: CF-Community Subject: Re: Foolhardy US Posturing on Iran by Bolton Thanks to previous indulgence in testosterone on the part of our fearless leader, we cannot begin to hope to overcome Iran militarily, though. I believe their version is that they are working on nuclear power, not weapons, correct? The only solution I see is very heavy UN supervision. If they are telling the truth this should be acceptable. If they are not this becomes more clear as they object. Speaking of which, I was quite taken aback at Bush's recent actions in India and Pakistan. Since nobody commented here, I suppose everyone agree with this, but here we have a foreign leader who has put himself in some jeopardy to support the US, and not only is he told not to develop weapons, his historic enemy is told that they *can.* Now, I grant you that Pakistan is not the most stable place, but in a context of "we must allow Arab governments to run our ports because to do otherwise is discrimination" this does not seem to make much sense. My best guess is that the Bushes had something riding on the Dubai deal. What would I have done otherwise? Well, I am not particularly a student of the region or of foreign policy, but it would seem to me good policy to avoid kicking our supporters in the face... and if the region is really all that unstable, perhaps India shouldn't have nuclear weapons either. >What other choice is there? The rest of the major players in this >affair (Russia, France, Great Britain, and Germany), seem resigned to >let the Iranians build a nuclear weapon. The Iranians themselves have >admitted that they have dragged out the "talks" so they could continue >their clandestine development program. The only thing they don't admit >is that they are building a bomb, but everyone knows that is exactly what they are doing. > >So the two options are: let Iran get the bomb, or be prepared to >prevent that from happening at all costs, because they clearly are not >going to be deterred by anything short of removing the choice from >them. Do I want to engage them? No. I don't want to engage them, now or >in the future. But I think we are better off engaging them now than >dealing with the same lunatic theocracy as a nuclear power three years from now. > >On 3/11/06, Dana Tierney <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| Message: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm/link=i:5:199661 Archives: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/threads.cfm/5 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm/link=s:5 Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=11502.10531.5 Donations & Support: http://www.houseoffusion.com/tiny.cfm/54
