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    http://www
"No one is as hopelessly enslaved as the person who thinks he's free."  -
Johann Wolfgang von Goethe

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?

Juno offers FREE or PREMIUM Internet access for less!
Join Juno today!  For your FREE software, visit:

///  ZION LIST CHARTER: Please read it at  ///
///      ///

This email was sent to:

Or send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

T O P I C A -- Register now to manage your mail!

Reply via email to