Analysis: Al-Qaida's second breath (Al Qaeda, Pakistan, Saudi) -- IMPORTANT INFO)

UPI ^ | Dec. 26, 2003 | Claude Salhani

[FairOpinion]

I think we know exactly where the nukes are in Pakistan.

I think the point others were making, is that if we don't, then even nuking the entire country is preferable, than letting the jihadists use the nukes on the rest of the world.

[God luvs America]

Arab countries are a bunch of puss!es...they would jump in to save Pakistans skin?

[Pubbie]

"I think the point others were making, is that if we don't, then even nuking the entire country is preferable, than letting the jihadists use the nukes on the rest of the world."

Agreed.

[Mad_Tom_Rackham]

Just how would the Arab countries jump in?

Iran has a large military, including missles. But I concede to your point. Iraq's military is obvously not what it once was (/extreme undestatement). Syria is on double-secret probabtion. Egypt and Saudi Arabia might decide to take action, but this is not very likely, especially following their observation of Afghanistan and Iraq in 2002/3. Even Khadafy has Found Jesus recently (sorry, couldn't resist). And of course Iran has been experiencing internal conflict lately.

And so, given the Bush Doctrine, I agree that Arab intervention in a war against Pakistan could be less likely now than a year ago. But who knows how they might react. Granted, they sat back while we kicked butt on Saddam, but they despised him anyway and IMO they all (including Saddam) fell for the French assurances that the USA would never attack. A full bore assault on Pakistan, with a population of 150 million faithful, could be a different thing altogether. And undoubtedly hundreds of thousands of Jihadis' would show up for the big game.

Surely, were India and the USA to attack Pakistan, and China and Russia to jump in, that would be bad enough. The Arab countries that joined, along with Israel, would be fighting on the fringes while the "big dogs" had it out.

[oceanview]

we must know where the primary facilities are, but whether they have stored some completed weapons at other depots, who knows.

At this point, I am not sure that it would be a bad thing for a coup there. As others have pointed out, it would force the war on terror into high gear. We can never finish off AQ because they are now being protected by 2 countries we are not at war with, Pakistan and Iran. All this talk of "cooperation", its been a long time since Pakistan turned over any new people to us, why is that? A coup would force it all to be laid on the table, it would give us the green light to go after the nukes and blow the western provinces on the Afghan border into oblivion. Let's be honest, those are two things we are going to likely have to do anyway some day, does anyone expect that some new Pak leader will just cede control of the nukes to us and police the AQ people given sanctuary there? no way, it will never happen. So what are we waiting for, are we waiting for the US to be hit with one of these nukes? Let's hit them now while we have the muscle, the coup would give us the green light.

[oceanview]

at some point, the US itself might do well staging his assasination while in reality getting him out of the country, to put the game in motion. we have to give Mushie something, he trades the secrets on the nuke program locations for his life. he can drive a cab in NYC under another name, he would fit right in.

[txhurl]

Nightmarish.

[FairOpinion]

Musharraf made a hard decision to support the US and has lived up to his agreement at great personal risk to himself.

We can't abandon him -- among other things, that would send a signal to everyone, that being our friend is more dangerous, than being our enemy. Very poor idea.

[oceanview]

i didn't say we should abandon him. stage his assasination (its going to happen FOR REAL anyway), get him and his family and inner circle out of the country. if there is no more he can do for us as president, if the situation is that essentially is is hiding in fear of being hit while the lunatics begin to gain control of the country, then let's do something affirmative now rather then waiting for the other shoe to drop.

[oceanview]

all we want are the nukes, the scientists, and AQ, the other 149.9 million people can do whatever the hell they want.

[mikegi]

Should he accomplish his objectives, with a finger on a nuclear trigger and control over the world's vastest supply of oil, bin Laden would greatly change the present world order.

UBL is a dead man the instant we find him. No man, no country, no military can stop us from killing him. All this talk about the tribal idiots on the Afghan-Pakistan frontier means nothing. If we think we have UBL in our sights, we'll mow down as many tribesmen/muslims/islamofacists as needed to get to him. If there's a coup in Pakistan and the new government officially protects UBL, we'll mow them down, too.

[FairOpinion]

"UBL is a dead man the instant we find him. No man, no country, no military can stop us from killing him. "

==

Unless Dean becomes president... then UBL will get some good defense lawyers.

[Mad_Tom_Rackham]

All we wanted in Iraq was Saddam. Getting him involved a great effort, wouldn't you agree?

[CGASMIA68]

Oh Well

[riri]

stage his assasination (its going to happen FOR REAL anyway), get him and his family and inner circle out of the country. if there is no more he can do for us as president

I agree with this whole heartedly. He needs to be taken out of there and not only for the reason that he has cooperated with us on some levels. He is in a position where is is making less than beneficial (to us) decisions.

I have said it since 9.11--Pakistan needs to be dealt with.

[God luvs America]

While I respect your opinion and agree with you in principle the fact is Musharraf made the best decision to save his hide; otherwise bombs would've been dropped all over Pakistan starting October, 2001.

[Sender]

If they don't have mobile missiles, I'm sure we know where they are.

[Imal]

"UBL is a dead man the instant we find him."

If he really is alive, which is still an open question, then we'll want him alive if we can possibly do that.

As with Saddam, a surrender by UBL without a shot being fired, followed by a long, long trial in which all of his atrocities are aired publicly for world consumption, along with repeated coverage of him trying everything he can to avoid a death sentence, would go much farther toward destroying Al Qaeda than anything else we could do.

After his conviction, he can be held medicated, incommunicado and on suicide watch for the rest of his life in an undisclosed and very well-guarded place, his continued existence a daily slap in the face to a failed jihad.

Every so often we could trot him out for an "appeal", just to remind the world we still have him.

I find that far preferable to granting him martyrdom and the everlasting adoration of his followers.

[FairOpinion]

But Musharraf was smart enough to figure out the consequences.

[tkathy]

It's awful to contemplate what Howard Dean would do if faced with a problem like this.