Pakistan is a nuclear power and has a competent army. The US and UK aren't going to pick a fight they know they can't win. India would be very reluctant to go to war with its neighbour... again. I think the two nations have had enough wars and their approach to Kashmir seems to be working 'reasonably' well.
2007-01-16 00:32:50
·
answer #1
·
answered by mini metro 6
·
2⤊
0⤋
The reason for going into Afghanistan was in my opinion understandable, given that Osama Bin Laden and the training camps were believed to be there. In my opinion Iraq was a dreadful mistake which has set back world peace and stability by decades. Other than that I can't see the UK attacking Iran or Pakistan or anyone else in the foreseeable future
Getting involved in a war between India and Pakistan would be another recipe for world meltdown.
2007-01-16 00:34:49
·
answer #2
·
answered by The Mad cyclist 4
·
0⤊
0⤋
Bcz the leader of Pakistan is in their pocket.there is still a bit of cold war politics going on in the west over Asia so they need all the allies they can get.sort of like send the pawns out b4 venturing out on your own thing.considering also that Pakistan is a nuclear power and so is India any clash between both of them will spark a N-war and we don't want that.but Basically Pakistan is still paying lip service to the USA and is no threat to her in any way unlike India who is 1 of the Asian tigers a fast growing economy power cutting in on USA hegemony since they have the same allies.the truth behind politics is u cant separate it from economics and the USA has more to gain from Pakistan as a friend than not.
by the way even if USA attacked for terrorism You Still wont get Kashmir.
2007-01-16 00:36:08
·
answer #3
·
answered by Jessy A 2
·
0⤊
0⤋
I keep in mind, 9/eleven being a entire failure human beings intelligence (CIA, FBI), none contemporary Airport protection and apartment Rice being asleep on the ruder. I keep in mind 19 not extremely clever men, very almost all from Saudi Arabia, hijacking airplanes, which has been executed because of the fact 1970. What i don't keep in mind is, that the single guy, who gave the impression to be at the back of the preparation of the nineteen men replace into each and every caught. Why are we destroying Afghanistan and Iraq lower back?
2016-10-07 05:55:28
·
answer #4
·
answered by ? 4
·
0⤊
0⤋
I take it you are Indian, right? Hindu. Hence the 'attack Pakistan' rant!
Pakistan is not responsible for the Taliban in Afghanistan, or the Shi'ite or Sunni radicals and Saddam supporters in Iraq.
There are probably more radical and terrorists living right here in the UK, and in the US, than there are in Pakistan.
Put aside your petty anti-Pakistan prejudice, and you will be able to see things a little more clearly.
2007-01-16 00:39:19
·
answer #5
·
answered by Anonymous
·
1⤊
1⤋
Your analogy is flawed. Fighting wars is not similar to fighting diseases.
The government of Pakistan is trying to be an ally of the coalition. Certain groups of people in Pakistan are defying their own government. Even the Pakistani government is not willing to send in their own troops to the tribal territories that border Afghanistan. Would you want to go in and fight a bunch of defiant crazies for all of the bad press it would generate? That's all you would get; bad press coverage.
2007-01-16 00:35:29
·
answer #6
·
answered by regerugged 7
·
1⤊
0⤋
You have raised a very good point which unfortunately the US government is not ready to do that for political interest that Brits and Americans have in Pakistan.
It is that same as Israel which has cause headache to entire middle-east region but as it is ally of US government every body should be silent about it.
2007-01-16 21:59:08
·
answer #7
·
answered by Judge 2
·
0⤊
0⤋
The Middle East will never be peaceful without ending the Israeli occupation. This is the conclusion of the UN, EU, Backer-Hamilton report, and President Carter new book.
2007-01-16 04:37:54
·
answer #8
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋
Politics, that's all. Politics is the art of making possible what is necessary. Remember this : the US has no permanent friends and no permanent enemies, just interests. Same as any empire. Iraq was invaded not because it became necessary to get rid of that awful dictator there...that was all a ruse. Iraq was invaded because Saddam, in order to get around UN sanctions changed the denomination of his oil from dollars to euro in 1999. Initially everyone in the oil business thought he was bonkers because the euro hit as low as 83 eurocent to the dollar some 18 months after it was introduced, prompting all the money people to call it the toilet currency. Then the euro recovered and went up and up and up and it is now a steady Eur 1.30 to the dollar. The Americans went mad because of the huge increase in oil prices from Iraq. There is only one currency to denominate oil in and that is US dollars. Hugo Chavez threatened to do the same in Venezuela. He was forced out of office for 3 days as a result. Only his personal popularity brought the masses onto the streets and he got his job back. But he learnt his lesson and left his oil in dollars. Saddam was hated and everyone was glad to get rid of him. Now things are back to normal there and their oil is paying for the war effort and is back to dollars again, the Americans having got rid of the French and Chinese interests in oil. The Iranians are now threatening to change to the euro to for the purposes of oil exports. That's the only reason the US is threatening fire and brimstone. They won't invade; they'll allow the Israelis to use their new toys : URANIUM bombs, which they used very effectively in Lebanon. These are nuclear bombs but don't have so much of fallout as fission bombs have.
This whole thing as about money and oil and gas. They invaded Afghanistan to run that gas line down the west from Kazahkstan and out through Pakistan and to the Indian ocean, where it would be shipped to the west coast of the US, which is desperate for more natural gas . In 1994 the oil boys brought almost the entire Taliban cabinet to Houston to talk about Unocal paying a fortune to build that pipe. It fell through only because the Taliban couldn't guarantee safety for the US personnel who would build it. The Taliban government warned bin Laden that it didn't want any trouble from the Americans. The Americans just wanted an excuse to go in there. There is no official count of the innocents massacred and blown up by B52s and B2s flying at 15 thousand metres. After all, a terrorist has a bomb, he doesn't have an airforce. The Sudanese had bin Laden and wanted to hand him over to the Americans long before Sept 11th. Madeline Albright, Clinton's Secretary of State told them that the US didn't negotiate with terrorist states. See what happened as a result?
Don't believe me when I tell this, it is verifiable in any amount of books and articles in good newspapers and on the internet.
I feel sorry for Americans who have been told they are fighting for freedom and so the free world will beat terrorism. They believe anything. For a president to say publicly that God told him to go to war is really pushing the limits of sanity. If there is a God, then He is disgusted at what we all do in his name.
There won't be an end to this war until the west realises that the Washington Consensus way of economics and globalisation is wrong. We in the west have had our day and we'd better watch out. It's still not too late. For example, it is probable that Sept 11th would not have happened had the west not abandoned Afghanistan after the Soviet occupation ended. But history only began for most of us on Sept 11th, which of course was a dreadful crime, but given what the west has done to the non west, I'm surprised it didn't happen sooner. I don't advocate it, I condemn it, but you can't go around beating the crap out of the rest of the world economically, and expect no fallout. It'll happen again. And they have to be lucky only once. As ordinary folk, we have to be lucky all the time. The omens are not good.
2007-01-16 00:55:23
·
answer #9
·
answered by Richard M 2
·
1⤊
0⤋
You go where you can.
The world doesn't have the stomach to fight this war the way it should be faught.
They want to be so PC about thinking if we play nice they will play nice too. Sadly the PC warfare gets our people killed.
2007-01-16 01:34:36
·
answer #10
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋