"We have to realize that all three islamic sponsors of terror, Pakistan, iran, and saudi arabia need to be addressed."
--The Paki Gov't no longer sponsors terrorism. Rogue elements of the ISID (Intelligence service) do, however.
"If iran can split into several small states, it wouldn't turn into the problem we are encountering in iraq.
Infact we wouldn't have had a problem in iraq, if we had instead carved it up into small separate states. that way they wouldnt have joined hands against us and their hostility would have been directed at each other, much like the kurds against other iraqis."
-- I've got a lot of problems with this. First off, there's no need to split up Iran. It is a hogoneous state of persian Shias and over three-quarters of the population are in favor of regime change. Iran can be changed through a people's revolution there very easily.
Second, Iraqis aren't holding hands in attacking us. Former Regime Elements (FREs) are atacking us and foreign terrorists are attacking us. al-Sadr's 13 year-old goons are occasionally attacking us, but is a very small problem. The overwhelming majority of Shias are peaceful towards us, but Iranian agents are rustling them up politically from time to time.
"Since pakistan could easily be broken into 6-7 small states, states that would thank us for their independence, it would never degenerate into another iraq."
--Why would you split up Pakistan? If for some reason we committed regime change in Pakistan, Pashtunistan should be carved out of the far west of Pakistan and given autonomy or given over to the Afghanis; they are essentially afghanis anyway. The rest of pakistan should rejoin mother India and correct one of the biggest mistakes of the 20th century: the partition of India.
A secular iran and pakistan with WMD's could still threaten us just like secular iraq and syria threatened us.
Saddam was a secular guy with a christian deputy, i hope you remember that. Assad and kaddafi again are secularists? do they not threaten the west?
iran and pakistan carved into small states could never threaten us just like lithuania, latvia, croatia and uzbekistan can't threaten us.
its the only way to address the islamic threat. We need to carve them into small states that don't have the might to apsire for power and small states that wouldnt have the might to resist our power.
Pashtunistan should never happen, because the pashtuns are your taliban. You don't want to give them autonomy
Why don't we incorporate all of it into india?. Well who can tell what our relationship with india bein the future. why work through india as an intermediary, when we can have direct control of these small states. why not just carve them into small independent states, that could be easily manipulated by us.
pakistan waged terror against us all through the 80's and 90's. We never found out, remember, because they were our allies and made a significant portion of our intelligence cadres who blinded us to them.
Musharraf himself continued to support indian terror, till the paki nuclear scandal hit the fan. they also supported the taliban till then.
right now they are in a desperate damage control mode. But they still haven't dismantled their nuclear potential. on the contrary they are adding to their nukes and missiles.
they don't need such a big stockpile against india, they are stockpiling against america itself.
they haven't also shut down religious schools or outlawed parties like jamiati islami. they are co-operating at a minimal level, till they can build their nuclear stockpiles and then tell us to go to hell.
Once they build those stockpiles, they are going to revert back to terror and tell us to go to hell or risk a nuclear war.
we want to prevent that scenario from taking place by taking their nukes out, before they put them on a fleet of missiles.
you don't know how treacherous and dangerous this nation is, just look at its past.
they might still be behind events in iraq to prevent similar action against pakistan.
Do you know eventhough pakistan had contributed 10,000 troops to the first gulf war, its army chief was busy visiting iran and other islamic countries to garner a co-alition against the war and coming up with strategic defiance against us.
At the time of the iraq war, the paki president went running to both chirac and putin, but they spit on him, so he came running back. Ask chirac and putin, what musharraf told them.
small states are easier to control. Just like tajikistan, croatia and lithuania are easier to control.
small states don't have the might to aspire for global power. they don't have the might to resist US power and they have strong ethnic sentiment to ensure their survival, a sentiment that takes precedence over their islamic sentiment.
We wouldnt have a problem with these small states, the same way we don't have a problem with the kurds in iraq.
In such cases their ethnic sentiment takes precedence over the islamic sentiment and pits their interests against their islamic neighbors. the same say yugoslavs turned hostile to each other and the kurds are hostile to iraq.
You tell me 2/3 of the iranians are opposed to the regime, and yet the student protests fizzled in just 2 days.
do you believe a ruler could hold onto power with 2/3 of the people opposed to him? Is it the same people telling you
that pakistan was moderate state, eventhough it was supporting taliban and alqaeda.
never trust islamic western intelligence cadres. Iraq wouldnt have been a mess if they were on our side. we won the military
victory in days remember. Pakistan wouldnt have had the nukes if they were on our sides. WE wouldnt have had 911, because Pakistan would have been sanctioned back in 1993. There would be no paki nukes today. No iranian and libyan WMD program either. NO Wahhabi movement in saudi arabia, if these cadres were on our side. These cadres seem to have been responsible for
all this trouble. Because they were panislamists from either the days of the afghan war or shiite minorities banded together
by khomeini's agents before they joined us.
You can expect them to liquidate islamic defectors, but don't expect them to come down hard on terror, because these people are from the same camp.
They are such good liars that they would always put up sucn an elborate smoke screen to blind us to their islamic compatriots, while they use the war on terror to crack down on separatists like the kurds. This explains why we have never had even one, just one intelligence success story against the islamic world.
do you believe we would have been some impotent against the islamic world , if islamic intelligence cadres working for the west were on our side. How would the terrorists in iraq know where wolfowitz was staying?.
Since these people have ties with both the terrorists and islamic govts and since we have to rely on them as our eyes into the islamic and since we don't have translators to listen to them, they can frame anyone who opposes islam as a terrorists get rid of him, while they hide the terrorists and use them to shape our policy. Look at the way they are defending iran and pakistan.