First Libya, now Syria...who says it is not workin?

[island911]

Originally posted by 350HP930
I think pakistan is a greater threat because they are an unstable dictatorship with nukes and a lot of radical muslims in high places who have already proven that they are willing to support terrorists . . .
If terrorists ever get nukes I imagine they will come from pakistan or russia and have been purchased with saudi money.
. . .

Strangely, I find myself in agreement with you. (sheesh, that hasn't happened since the eraam days)

Anyway, one of my biggest concerns has been that Pakistan has taken the possition of saying 'nice doggy. . .nnniiiiiiiccce doggy' while they reach for a VERY large stick. (which they hand over to the known bad-guys on the block.)

BOOM BOOM BOOM
. . . the Pakistanies pull an Eddie Haskle and say 'golly-geee. . .sorry to see what happened to your dog there. . .'

Someone please tell me this senario is baseless.

[350HP930]

I also wish it was unlikely but it seems like the most likely way that the US opposition can successfully fight back against our empire. It also allows for a lot of culpable denyability.

See, its easy for us to agree when we boil things down to their basic realities.

[fintstone]

Not worried about Pakistan as long as they have India's weapons pointed at them.

[Overpaid Slacker]

350 - you may be right, but I'd divorce the Pak nukes from the Pak government. I doubt that Pakistan (as in the country) is the danger, but certain Paks might be. As long as we can keep what there is of a Pak government on "our" side, we have half a chance at corralling the nukes.

I will disagree on the "empire" characterization, though. Too facile a characterization for you; Purry maybe, but I expect better from you.

JP