Re: Pakistan conflict map

[Guest guest]

Pakistan is a complicated issue.

First I'll say that I agree with you about the nuclear weapons. At one time it was said that American security elements helped secure them because the prime minister of the time, think in the years shortly after 9/11, didn't fully trust his own military and intelligence services. When and why that stopped, if indeed it ever was true, I don't know.

This area of Pakistan is problematic because of its population. It is largely Pashtun and they are also in Southeastern Afghanistan in large numbers. Indeed Afghanistan has many ethic groups that were divided by arbitrarily drawn national boundaries, lines drawn mostly by the British and Russians for their own advantage in the "Great Game" without consulting with the locals. As such, the border is largely ignored as people cross it often to visit family, conduct business or whatever.

Another part of the problem is that during the Soviet invasion and occupation of Afghanistan, Pakistan was the main conduit for outside aid to Afghanistan. The US provided a great deal, as did England and other European nations. However, the Saudis and other rich Arabs also sent money in almost matching amounts. To preserve secrecy, much of this aid, particularly aid from Western nations, was funneled through Pakistan. The Pakistani intelligence agency, the much feared ISI, handle most of the disbursements of money and supplies. It favored the more radical religious elements over Afghani forces that just wanted the Russians and their Communist Afghan toadies out.

These most radical elements also got much funding from the Saudis. We often hear about Wahabbism as being the ultraconservative, West-hating force, but it is just one branch of the Salyfist sect of Islam which is from Saudi Arabia. Much of Saudi aid went to building mosques and madrassa (religious schools) that taught this extreme view of Islam. Bin Laudin was one of these "philanthropists" who went to Afghanistan to fight the Russians and he and some others establish Al Qeada while there.

When the Russians left, and this after years of incredibly brutal repression that including millions of land mines, bombing towns and villages to rubble and poisoning well and waterholes, which altogether probably killed over one million Afghanis, the ethnic groups fell to fighting each other again. The most violent of these groups was the Taliban. This literally means "The Students" since many were recruited from the madrassa set up in Pakistan, but it also included a large number of Muslims from the Middle East, Chechnya, Western China, etc. They soon dominated much of Afghanistan and imposed their own incredibly harsh and narrow view of Islam, often enforcing it which great brutality, such as throwing acid on women who showed too much ankle or wrist in public.

Got a little off topic, but that is some of the background. The rest, why we support Pakistan, goes back to the Russian invasion of Afghanistan. At that time, India was leaning toward the Russians. It wasn't exactly and ally, but it was close. Pakistan was not only an enemy of India, but it considered Afghanistan a buffer state to keep nations like Russia at a safe distance. Suddenly it found itself with Russians right on the border and an allied nation of theirs on the other. In short, they felt they were being squeezed.

In the US, It was decided that Pakistan, though not terribly reliable, was reliable enough because of its fear of being overrun by the Russians and Indians, to be useful. The intention was to give the Russians a "Vietnam of their own." This policy actually began under , but was accelerated under Reagan. I honestly think he went too far with the training and giving them Stinger missiles, because both allowed them to push the Russians out faster and also gave them useful knowledge to later use against us.

After the Russians left Afghanistan, we and the West more or less lost interest in Afghanistan and Pakistan until 9/11. Indeed the US found itself more allied with India that Pakistan.

Anyway, Pakistan has a lot of trouble because it is a small nation with lots of mountains, deserts and not a lot of arable land. It also has a high population that is rapidly increasing. As is common in such situations, the economy is nowhere close to keeping up with the population growth. The result is continued and increasing poverty. Most of the population is in the south, but the northern regions are where the disputed land with India is (mostly desolate glaciers with no real value that I can tell), but is also where the Pashtun dominate. They may be trying to establish an independent homeland taking part of Pakistan and part of Afghanistan or they may be trying to take over Pakistan. its hard to say because there is little unity amongst the many groups. Pakistan doesn't want to let them go because the capital is up there and also they could lose a large chunk of territory which would make them more vulnerable to attack by the Indians. That and they also don't want to let the ultraradicals have their own nation again.

There is more to it, but that's all I'm going to write for now.

In a message dated 5/13/2009 11:59:05 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time, no_reply writes:

The US, UK, Canada, and other countries are wasting too much time, effort, money, and lives trying to root out radical Islamic elements from countries that enthusiastically, cheerfully, and gleefully support radical Muslim extremism. We should just blockade all of these countries and starve them into submission.Administrator Dell Mini Netbooks: Great deals starting at $299 after instant savings!

[Guest guest]

" A map produced by the BBC suggests only 38% of Pakistan's North West Frontier

Province (NWFP) and surrounding areas is under full government control. "

We've known for generations that Pakistan is a backward country that has been

living in poverty, disease, and filth ever since they wrere given independence.

It is clear this country does not care about itself, and so we should not care

about it either.

Our policy from this point on should be to destroy its nuclear weapons and then

create some sort of international barrier around the country. Then, the

inhabitants within can either improve themselves or face the prospect of

starvation.

The US, UK, Canada, and other countries are wasting too much time, effort,

money, and lives trying to root out radical Islamic elements from countries that

enthusiastically, cheerfully, and gleefully support radical Muslim extremism. We

should just blockade all of these countries and starve them into submission.

Administrator

[Guest guest]

Re: Re: Pakistan conflict map

" Pakistan is a complicated issue. "

No one can doubt it. In looking at all the political entanglements going on in

the region, it only proves my point: It is way too complex to figure it out and

we ought to just let everyone have at it. If they want to continue living under

a tribal system with people killing each other left and right as they have for

centuries, then let them.

Our interest ought to be in securing the nukes, and preventing the flow of opium

out of the region.

Yes, taking such a simple stance will not solve the

India-Pakistan-Afghanistan-Russia political issue, but we do not have the money

or time or lives to expend on a region so barbaric that they don't care about

themselves.

Administrator

[Guest guest]

The main thing we should do, and should have been doing since the Gas Crisis of the late 1970's, is develop domestic oil supplies, create more efficient engines, and invent new forms of fuel. The purpose of this is to be able to walk away from the Middle East and cut their source of funds. Indeed terrorism wouldn't be nearly as bad as it is without Saudi oil wealth. Without the oil money, they would at best be a regional nuisance able to cause but little trouble for the world.

I've read that as much as 80% to 90% of the cost of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan has actually been rebuilding those nations and money going to various contractors rather than actual military expense. This makes no sense to me since Iraq has oil wealth they could use to rebuild their own country with. In other words, most of the money was wasted on constructions projects that will simply be destroyed once we leave the area in a year or two.

I would much rather have seen that money go into a short-term plan of rapid oil supply expansion in the US, followed by longer term investments in clean coal, garbage to ethanol, wood pulp to ethanol, gaining licenses to produce the very efficient European engines (including vast numbers to retrofit into older model cars thus saving the expense or swapping out the entire US automotive fleet), and also some for solar projects and new latest generation nuclear plants. The nearly trillion dollars spent on the wars could have accomplished a lot over here. But of course, had we learned our lesson from the 1970's, we'd be energy independent by now rather than importing twice as much oil now as we did back then.

Yes, securing the nukes should be a high priority. Even though they are most likely to used them against India, it is possible that with our still sieve-like border that some could be smuggled into the US.

In a message dated 5/13/2009 3:40:47 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time, no_reply writes:

Our interest ought to be in securing the nukes, and preventing the flow of opium out of the region. Yes, taking such a simple stance will not solve the India-Pakistan-Afghanistan-Russia political issue, but we do not have the money or time or lives to expend on a region so barbaric that they don't care about themselves.Administrator Dell Mini Netbooks: Great deals starting at $299 after instant savings!

[Guest guest]

They say that we have something like 300 years of coal and decades yet of oil. We could do a crash program to get these resources up an running in a couple of years and use them to not only reduce foreign imports but also the revenues from modest taxes to fund development of new sources of energy. But as I've said: this is something we should have been doing since the 1970's. Had we done so, we would be well and away toward these new energy sources and all the rest.

Yes, those other nations could be quite wealthy and developed. Sadly, the societies in these places have allowed a handful of elites to loot most of the wealth while the people remain poor. Some countries have used the wealth wisely as they try to develop their economies for the time when the oil or other resources run dry, but only a few.

Its just silly that in this country we are trying to do a Mao Tse Tung-like Great Leap Forward in regards to energy and such, when a slower, reasoned approach would be far more effective. Our Great Leap will surely end just like Mao's, in disaster.

In a message dated 5/14/2009 1:14:27 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time, no_reply writes:

The expense of having to sort through other countries' political situations is the result of the ineptitude and primitivism of those countries. If those countries had any gumption and civility, they could all be as materially wealthy as the US is and civilized as well.Administrator Dell Mini Netbooks: Great deals starting at $299 after instant savings!

[Guest guest]

" The main thing we should do, and should have been doing since the Gas Crisis of

the late 1970's, is develop domestic oil supplies, create more efficient

engines, and invent new forms of fuel. "

Believe it or not, Illinois has one of the biggest coal reserves in the country,

and the state has a wealth of oil too.

Here is a map of the oil reserves...

http://runoff.isgs.uiuc.edu/website/iloil/viewer.htm

If you drive down 51 to the Carbondale area you'll find lost of farmers have

little oil wells with tanks near them. These tanks are emptied a few times a

week. The farmers use these wells to supplement their income. They are actually

pumping raw crude.

The coal reserves cover about two thirds of the state, but it's mid-grade, and

so is not mined like the coal in the eastern states.

http://www.isgs.uiuc.edu/maps-data-pub/coal-maps/county-index.shtmlis

We have plenty of oil in the US, both on land and offshore, but we have not

developed the oil or coal fields for the simple reason that it is better to

drain the reserves and plunder the resources of other countries first so that we

will have plenty when everyone else runs dry.

The expense of having to sort through other countries' political situations is

the result of the ineptitude and primitivism of those countries. If those

countries had any gumption and civility, they could all be as materially wealthy

as the US is and civilized as well.

Administrator

[Guest guest]

" Its just silly that in this country we are trying to do a Mao Tse Tung-like

Great Leap Forward in regards to energy and such, when a slower, reasoned

approach would be far more effective. Our Great Leap will surely end just like

Mao's, in disaster. "

I agree that we should have been working towards new and sustainable energ

sources all along, but we did not. I think the reason Obama is doing this push

is because he knows he only has eight years maximum to get the ball rolling on

this before the next administration comes along. Whether the next administration

is Democrat or Republican, they can either let the development proceed, slow it

down, speed it up, or kill it.

I think if I were in office, I would make the same speedy attempt to get things

done, but I would not be so scatter-brained about it. I would figure out which

are the best new energy sources and go with those. Personally, I would probably

focus on developing more nuclear plants, see if there was a way to " shingle "

every roof with solar panels (including those on top of tractor trailors) as

well as the hoods, roofs, and trunks of cars, and " pave " every roadway and

parking lot with the same.

Administrator