Senators warned of terrorist attack on US by July

[dreadgeek]

Originally Posted by Bit

By whose definition? Why is it insanity to REFRAIN from destroying the earth?

There are OTHER options. If the Taliban were to take over Pakistan, there would still be other options--including UN peacekeepers.

By whose definition would it be insanity? Put yourself in India---not as a common citizen but as the national security adviser to the political leadership. Islamabad is now in the hands of the Taliban who have made it *abundantly* clear that they consider Kashmir to be part of Pakistan and expressed a willingness to use violence to keep your nation out of it. You know that Pakistan and your nation have gone to war three times in the last 50 years. The Pakistani Army has recognized the new Taliban government as the *legitimate* government of the nation and, as such, they have discretionary use of all of the nation's arsenal including nuclear weapons. Now from THAT seat do peacekeepers sound like a good idea? It sounds like national suicide because the flight times for missiles between India and Pakistan is too short for there to be any margin of error.

India would be in a 'forced move' of attack first or wait until they are attacked. That is why I think we have a vested interest in the region. UN peacekeepers can't help Pakistan prevent the Taliban from taking over the country because UN peacekeepers are typically hamstrung such that their rules of engagement do NOT allow offensive operations. The only time they can fire is if they are *directly* fired upon. They can't even fire to prevent the slaughter of innocents! (See Somalia, Bosnia, Kosovo and Rawanda)

WHOA. Stop right there, pardner. I am talking about Iran, Iraq, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Jordan, Egypt--Arab countries.

My concern is more with non-state actors. State actors are not suicidal which is why I don't care about Iran developing a nuclear weapon.

Now, given your list:

Iran: Let 'em develop all the nukes they want. Make it clear to them that providing nukes to non-state actors will be treated as the use of a nuclear weapon with all that it entails.

Iraq: Do a *sane* phased withdrawal out of the country.

Saudi Arabia: Cut them loose. Let the house of Saud deal with their own problems and do NOT allow them to seek asylum in the United States.

Pakistan: Either we deal with that situation or I guarantee you that the Indians will.

Jordan: Leave them be.

Syria: Leave them be.

Egypt: Cut Mubarak loose. Let him win a democratic election or lose and deal with the consequences.

But, again, the threat I am talking about is not from states but from non-state actors. Iran isn't going to send suicide bombers to attack the United States. They *know* what the consequences would be and Iranian politicians are politicians first: what do all incumbent politicians want more than anything else? To *continue* to be incumbents.

Then stop. Change the filter through which you view the world, and allow for other options. They ARE out there. You mentioned that the terrorist organizations stated they would never negotiate.

You're missing my point, Bit. There is how we, as private citizens, who are NOT going to be shot at and who are NOT responsible for making these decisions, can afford to think about these things and then there's how folks in national capitals, military administrations or sitting out standing watch can afford to think about these things. I'm suggesting that it is more useful to look at this with cold-eyed realpolitik based upon how the world works from those latter perspectives.

Cheers
Aj