NP Afghanistan

[David Morris]

>From: KXX4493553 at aol.com
>I'm interested in the consequences for the "rest of the world", for the 
>Afgans, the Pakistans, AND the US population. The so called "international 
>politics" is a mixture of opportunism and opportunity. [...]
>In the second Gulf War, the same Saddam Hussein was the "evil" himself 
>(remember the Kuwait baby story? It was the best soap-opera the UN ever 
>had). The same number with Osama bin Laden. Who will be the next?  Well, 
>we'll see and be surprised, all a question of opportunism and
>opportunity...

I can't argue with a word you've posted above.  And I'm glad to hear your 
thoughts, not being clear from your forwards what they were.  "Opportunism" 
is one way of perceiving the clash of interests which are all politics.  Of 
course the players with the most power are the most responsible, aren't 
they?  But in this game there are all kinds of power being thrown about:  
Oil, Military, Money, Religious, Terrorist, Propogandist... I'm sure I'm 
missing some others.

>I heard a radio documentation about the situation in Karachi today. 
>Karachi, the biggest city in Pakistan, 16 million inhabitants, most of them 
>Sunnites, with a minority of 300.000 shiits. There were several short wars 
>between the Sunnites and the Shiits in Karachi in the last years, with 
>thousands of casualties, nobody spoke about it in the West. Hundreds of 
>thousands of drug-abusing people are "living" there on the streets, the 
>crime rate is high, Karachi is one the dangerouest cities in the world. In 
>the eighties, the average GNP of Pakistan raised 6 % per anno, in the 
>nineties, in the era of "privatization", only 2-3 %. In this situation, 
>making predictions about the social and political future of Pakistan is 
>like asking the oracle of Delphi. You ask me about the "right strategy"? 
>Really don't know. All I know is that not everything, but most depends on 
>the future of Pakistan.

I agree also with your last statement above.  And this was true long before 
September 11.  The "everything" you mention should include the future of 
nuclear terrorism, a threat the world has undervalued until they saw NY's 
Twin Towers implode.  If the results of this new attention to terrorism 
include a settling of differences between Pakistan and India the world will 
have been well served.  Of course the Israel/Palestine conflict must also be 
settled.  Irwin Corey suggested that the Jews should have been offered a 
swath of Eastern Europe at the end of WWII.  How would THAT have affected 
the Cold War?

David Morris

_________________________________________________________________
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp