Because Musharaff has been playing nice. As long as he is in power, we don't need to worry about any direct attacks on us. If he is booted out by fundamentalists, THEN we will have to worry about conflict. But then, the chances are it would be a conflict with India that would occur first. Then of course, China would step in on Pakistan's side. We would have to go with the democracy of India. World War now occurs.
I guess Iraq seems a much safer enemy... K'aya K'ama, Gerald/gary Smith gszion1 @juno.com http://www .geocities.com/rameumptom/index.html "No one is as hopelessly enslaved as the person who thinks he's free." - Johann Wolfgang von Goethe Marc: But as I keep asking, if there's all this evidence against Saddam, there's even more evidence that Pakistan represents an even worse threat. So why aren't we talking about a "pre-emptive defensive war" against Pakistan? ________________________________________________________________ GET INTERNET ACCESS FROM JUNO! Juno offers FREE or PREMIUM Internet access for less! Join Juno today! For your FREE software, visit: http://dl.www.juno.com/get/web/. ///////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////// /// ZION LIST CHARTER: Please read it at /// /// http://www.zionsbest.com/charter.html /// ///////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////// ==^================================================================ This email was sent to: archive@jab.org EASY UNSUBSCRIBE click here: http://topica.com/u/?aaP9AU.bWix1n Or send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] T O P I C A -- Register now to manage your mail! http://www.topica.com/partner/tag02/register ==^================================================================
