Oh Ian, always such a gloomy gus! It’s just the prospect of a war between two nuclear-armed powers! What could possibly go wrong?

This a Great Idea, since there aren’t any jobs at home for all of those coming from HS/C hey do we have a job for You. Sad day in bedrock.
jo6pac

Thanks Ian.

digg

That was funny.

I’d be a lot more surprised at this if it hadn’t first been Bush’s opinion that it was okay for us to attack other countries ‘pre-emptively’. (I don’t believe he thought of it himself, but he was the one who used it.) Not to mention that he made it okay for other countries to get nukes so we won’t attack them.

My contempt for him is … not quite as large as Punaise’s contempt.

Ian, it’s a sad day at CR. I learn something from all of you everyday about the $ world.
Thanks so much
jo6pac

When I was seventeen, I tried to convince my dad that if the world leaders all just sat down together and smoked a few joints, the problems would be resolved.

I think I’m back to that place.

Duh!

This foreign policy that we can bomb whomever and whatever, wherever we want is a ticking time bomb.

Seeing as how we are already bogged down in Iraq and Afghanistan how are we going to prevent anyone, anywhere from bombing whomever they want to bomb.?

It is teh stupid to think anything else was going to happen.

Two Nukyular countries with huge populations of disenfranchised serfs and significant numbers of dissident groups bent on overthrowing the football holders.

Where in the World are Matt Lauer and Pervez Musharrif and his pallets of American currency?

That was another great Bush idea. Paying off that thug Pervez. For What?

Would this mean UNOCAL (or it’s corporate brethren) would finally get a pipeline?

If the US can bomb Pakistan whenever it feels like by using the justification of terrorism, why can’t India?

I think there is a non-specious answer to this question: because there is no plausible escalation path to a total war between the US and Pakistan.

I’m not saying that fact makes it OK to do whatever the US wants; but it is a big practical difference between what the US does and what India might do.

Agreed ! A few Kabobs and a coupla Hookah between the Indo/Pak leaders would prolly make them unite like they did when they tossed the Brits out …

Chomsky wrote in Hegemony or Survival, that this has been the policy for decades. The US only attacks defenseless nations. Those with nukes have been safe thusfar from US attack. American Foreign Policy assures Nuclear Proliferation.

lol.

Well, true enough. The risk of US bombing is mostly in terms of destabilizing Pakistan. I actually agree that India bombing Pakistan is far worse.

Point, of course, is that elements in India are using the argument that if it’s ok for the US, then why shouldn’t it be ok for them. On pragmatic grounds the argument is easy. On moral grounds… hard.

For not finding Osama bin Ladin, maybe?

The moderates in India will let the hardliners rattle their sabres long enough to get World support to quash terrorist training camps in Pakistan. This has to be a concerted effort or we’ll be seeing more of this very soon.

it reminds me of that old saying your mother used to say….. if your friends are jumping off bridge does that mean you have to do it too?

Ya because we are the leader of the free world…… even if some idiot has been running the ship…..

Good Point. That would be the next logical sequence.

On security in the homeland, fox reported that US gov just upped the number of Pentagon US Mil troops in HomelandCOM to 20k. Seems like many from state national guard etc – but of course would be sent into another state. They did say based in Georgia but that devision was slated to go into Iraq so not sure how they rotate people in and out.

So that was a test 5k troops on US shore and now they bump up to 20k.

Did not see anything about this on CNN or MSNBC.

So he wasn’t convinced? *g*

You can bet the Israelis are incensed and will actively contribute.

I actually think it’s even more effective than meditation … *g*

Chomsky isn’t the only one who’s noticed. Did you know the U.S. policy was preventative nuke attack against USSR after WWII, but before we knew they had the bomb. Luckily that policy was never acted on, but it was policy nonetheless and many argued vigorously for it. See House of War by James Carroll.

My drug of choice is liquor. MJ puts me to sleep before I can enjoy it.

Yes, both sets. The Israelis over there and the ones entrenched in the Obama Cabinet.

More general point: blowback!!! Who could have anticipated …

As always, when we won’t do it ourselves, it’s not total war.

It’s a war of proxy.

With USA stirring it all up. *G*

Again. :sad:

watertiger is upstairs, so put on your parkas!
Like Gallagher Showing Giacometti How to Use a Mallet.

Do you mean that the US planned a preemptive nuclear attack on the USSR?

Kabobs smabobs.

Why can’t we just call them brochette’s like any civilized kitchen does?

Oh, and ya missplled Hookers, too . . *G*

Not preemptive, preventative-to prevent them from ever getting the bomb.

i’m with petro

There’s an election goin on soon. Factions are vying to capture the hearts and minds of the people. That’s how Bombay came under siege . . . who knows what sides USA is supporting. Probably all sides, one way or another . . . it’s been our Modus Operandi for a long, long time.

And I still hate the Dulles Brothers.

Harumph. ;-)

*gasp* … how can you bear to sleep with hunger pangs ?

On a second read, that’s some seriously top shelf snark.
Good one, hoss! *G*

eCAHN, he lectured me on the properties of smoking carpet scraps. (respond isn’t working.)

I’m still not sure. I’d try anything, including a giant party, to get the place in shape!

ROFLMAO

Down the slippery slope we go.
Bush is an idiot, that’s a given but I don’t believe for one second that he is smart enough to come up with the theory of preemptive attacks on sovereign countries.
If Obama seems to think this is a legitimate concept then we are all in imminent peril. India and Pakistan have been sparring for years, firing cannons at each other over the Kashmir Pass.
I really don’t think that saying it is OK to just saunter across the border anytime you feel like it is healthy. Bush pushed that button really hard when we went into Syria lately. There is a HUGE difference between Syria, Pakistan and India.
And as far as I recall doing so is an act of war.

The brochettes or the hookers? *G*

And yes, there were plans to do so. Very extensive plans. The cons argued the pros out of it. I don’t remember the details. I listened to the book this past summer, but I retain less when I listen than when I actually read, underline, make marginalia. It’s a fabulous book on oh so many scores, so pick up a copy. You’ll get drawn in. The author’s father was a 3-star who was recruited by DOD from FBI to do some sort of investigations and they had to give him stars so he’d have the necessary heft. He worked in the Pentagon (the literal House of War in the title) and James visited the building on the weekend when his father was working, slid down the ramps in his stocking feet, got lost, generally had a ball. The full book is an incredible history of military policy from WWII to the present.

I’ve only toked after eating. Only about 3-4 times and the last time was about 20 years ago.

I bow to yer wow . . . I am but a minion of the snark, you, ARE the snark. *G* But thanks for the chuckles. . ;-)

The problem is that Pakistan has done this kind of thing before when it infiltrated forces into India’s Kargil region in 1999. IIRC Musharraf was one of the hardliners behind that. So while I do not favor unilateral action by India, Pakistan has engaged in some fairly insane brinksmanship with its much more powerful neighbor.

There have also been insane attacks by Hindu fundamentalists against Muslim citizens in India. I think the death tolls of the mutal attacks is something like 100:1 or 1000:1 in favor of the Hindus.

Hoss, isn’t preemptive why we hit Afghanistan, then Iraq?

Without evidence?

I believe The Bush/Cheney Cabal has readily established preemptive strikes, as well as renditions, and torture. I believe their whole admin has completely usurped the Constitution, Habeus, Magna Carta and Geneva Protocols.

And I concur, hoss, that what Obama does with those issues is first and foremost what will define our future, or if we will HAVE one.

I would question those figures … at the time of partition, there were 10 Million Muslims in India. Today, there are 120 to 150 million Muslims living in India, in spite of how many have immigrated to other countries.

The thing is, the Hindu fundamentalists have lost power over the past 8 years and acts like this embolden them and their ideology.

Preventative wrt Iraq, not preemtive. The latter word implies some near term threat, like warships steaming toward your shores. You can launch an attack on them before the fire on you. A long history of this being acceptable, with some obviously marginal, arguable cases. Preventative means you start a war against them long before they’re an imminant threat. W et al tried all the right propoganda vocabulary to make Iraq into a preemtive war, but we all knew that was garbage.

In the case of India, if they have evidence that the govt of Pak was behind the attacks, that is a casus belli in anybody’s book. Not even preemtive.

I was talking a longer time horizon than 8 years. There have been some very large slaugters of Muslims by Hindus in India, but the other way around the death tolls have been relatively small. I’ll try to find the largest Hindu one in recent years as an illustration.

The ISI has to work in accord with the Pak Gov’t, no ?

I mean, that would be like the CIA working without the knowledge of the POTUS …

India has to consider that the next war with Pakistan could well be nuclear. Indeed some on the Pakistani side wanted to turn the Kargil conflict into one. India would win such a conflict as it has won all the others but it would be at terrible cost to itself and would leave a completely failed state on its doorstep.

In 1993, the riots caused almost equal number of casualties amongst both peoples. The Silver lining was that millions more of both faiths were saved by friends from the opposite religion and that goodwill brought about a sea change in Hindu/Muslim relations.

This latest attack will, in my opinion, only strengthen the resolve of both to fight violence, esp against each other.

Moon Over Alabama, aka Brendan Calling, has had some GREAT history posts post Bombay carnage that spells out players and such.

Other sites have even more insight’s into the ‘47 split of Pakistan from India, and the ongoing since then, horror, carnage and ethnic, religious and tribal warfare that’s ensued. Aside from all that, there’s now been an underworld element of Hindu sourcing for a few decades that’s further stirred up all the hate in all the pots being boiled. Dawood. Google him.

For what little I know, since ‘47, Pakistan and India are both responsible for great carnage.

Like the ME, this is a complicated mess of crap going back hundreds of generations or more, and is religious, ethnic, and tribal motivated and includes the divide between the have and have not.

1999 and Musharraf are but a drop in the barrel of what’s going on.

Each side has indeed, as you posit, done wrong upon the other, if yer measuring by country lines.

Unfortunately, as Ecahn @ 46 falls prey to, the country lines are almost meaningless against the back drop of all the other issues in place in history’s story of the region.

Just MNSHO . . . ;-)

The ISI has to work in accord with the Pak Gov’t, no ?

This is snark, right?

Gujarat massacre was one of the kind of events I was thinking of. The death & injury tolls were not a skewed as I typed before, but heavily against Muslims.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2002_Gujarat_violence

Yer sayin, and forgive me if I misconstrue, yer sayin Iraq was NOT preemptive?

WMD’S? Ginned up story of Saddam’s threat to USA, or the planet?
That’s not preemptive?

Our policy doctrine by which we WENT into Iraq under Georgie Bot was NOT preemptive?

I guess, I’m wrong . . . and missed all that.

Some argue that the Pak Govt does not have complete control over ISI. Here’s a link I listened to today, though in full disclosure when I looked on amazon reviews of Margolis’s books, he gets criticized for bias favoring Paks. So you might regard what he sez with a grain of salt.
http://antiwar.com/radio/2008/…..rgolis-12/

I think we still don’t know enough about what actually happened on the outside layer of the onion to form strong opinions. Let alone what the deal is when you start peeling back layers.

It’s always been Pak’s policy to let the ISI do the dirty work and officially deride “rogue elements of the ISI” … Kargil took the wraps off of that and Sharif struggled to find asylum thereafter …

The ginned up story was to make the U.S. invasion APPEAR preemtive. The reality was that it was preventative, and not even that, since Iraq in no stretch of any imagination would have ever been a threat to the U.S. In fact it was a plain & simple overthrow, in the good old tradition of Guatamala, Iran, Chile. Only this time we did it with a full military invasion instead of a CIA coup. What’s the diff?

That was shameful and indicative of mob violence and the kind of fundy politics that still finds safe haven in Gujarat. That Chief Minister was spewing poison at Pakistan on the second day of this last episode … even before any evidence had come in.

That was probably more true under Musharraf & predecessors than under current govt. There is some reason to believe that all sorts of stuff is going on in Pak today under Zardari who has little control over anything.

I think you misunderstand that in international relations the words “preemptive” and “preventive” have specific meanings. Preemption is to an imminent threat and is lawful. Prevention is where there is no imminent threat and is a war crime. The example I give of preemption is the attack of Israel on the Egyptian army massed on its borders and with Nasser threatening war. An example of preventive war is the German invasion of Poland supposedly because Poland laughably represented a threat to Germany.

About 4500 U.S. casualties and an estimated one million Iraqi dead.

Mush had lots of enemies … I think (and hope) Zardari will use the Bhutto family connections to keep everyone in control.

Why do I insist on adding an extra syllable to preventive? Off to see if both are words.

So I see you’ve been smoking tonight. From what I pick up Zardari have much less control. (Theory is that Mush was military man who knew where everyone was.) But then I really don’t know.

Good point and I’m sorry I overlooked it. I was, of course, referring only to the outcome of getting rid of the old govt. But, as you point out, methods matter, and a lot.

And that’s what I’ve read from India’s media, in more than a few media sources.

People resolving to go back to the hotels, go back to the cafe’s, to the train station.

Spend money. Not give in to the terror.

Both foreigner’s and Indian’s stating that theme . . . bless them, one and all.

I’ve read you have kin and friends in Bombay, in India . . . I’ll defer to your sources any time.

But the reason for this atrocity, and who did it, how many they were, where they came from, and HOW they did it are still seemingly, greatly unanswered questions.

Answers I’ve read include trying to influence upcoming elections in India, trying to fracture India from China and Russian influence (on to USA’s side), trying to draw Paki troops to the southern border with India so the Pashtun and Taliban and Al Queda regions in the west have less pressure on them from Pakistani’s military. On and on, the speculation goes.

How many in the attack group?
Where did they come from?
How many boats were found ashore?
Who on the ground helped support this effort?
Were Hindu’s part of the attack?
Was this a plot to kill the Indian Intelligence leaders who had evidence of Hindi participation in the ‘93/’96 bombings? Four of the main guys are dead, set up like bowling pins in the early hours of the attack.

Was Dawood the mastermind, and if so, who were his handlers? Cuz there’s ALWAYS handlers.

And in the final run to my questions, as Mr. Spook always posits, cui bono?

And to what ends?

My condolances to your friends, family and more lost in the sitch.
It’s a horrible, horrible thing, no matter WHAT the answers.

As a species, we need to much better or we are thru all too soon by our own hands.

Jai.

Dictionary of English – preventive or preventative

However, preventative is often applied to an actual object, especially in noun form, while preventive is mostly reserved for an abstract concept, and remains an adjective: Preventive medicine regards vitamin C as an effective preventative against colds.

So Hugh’s use of preventive wrt war is probably better than preventative.

LOL … have never touched the stuff, I found meditation before MJ found me … the Bhutto family is very powerful and know where all the bodies are buried, more so than the General …

Juan Cole presented a tight overview of what befell Pakistan during the Reagan regime in WashingtonDC with his comments for 12/1/08 at http://www.juancole.com. They dovetail nicely with Ian’s take here at FDL.

The short story– Americans wanted to phuck things up for Soviets in Afghanistan–proceeded to stir up zealots in Afghanistan and Pakistan–put in motion drug dealing/trade/addiction and lots of weapons and money were floated into Pakistan and Afghanistan.

The history of this Reagan era WashingtonDC meddling in South Asia leading to Taliban,al Quaeda and so on and so forth to the present day.

India and Pakistan are both now atomic armed–with that in mind stir in the political,religous,sectarian and real estate considerations–why is what just happened in Mumbai a surprise?

This current state of affairs in Southern Asia can be and should be directly stitched to what the Americans did or worse did not do back in the 1980’s.

Pakistan is becoming unbound. India has a hot,burning issue after what just took place in Mumbai. The stage is surely set for furious uptakes.

So Americans have a legacy here that so far WashingtonDC does not seem to be owing up to. Of course with everything going so well in Iraq for the Americans and with a new American refocus on Afghanistan the thing has come full circle.

The Americans are so clever at being a superpower. Really phucking clever.

“I think we still don’t know enough about what actually happened on the outside layer of the onion to form strong opinions. Let alone what the deal is when you start peeling back layers.”

I’m in complete accord with that.

I fear the worst, though.

As it always is, when or IF, we discover the truth . . . we’ll find people of power inevitably stir up stuff so far beneath the surface it never comes to light . . . and much evil is done.

… tee hee … they’re one and the same in meaning …

it is bad enough that the US does whatever the “F” it wants without regard to law or norms, but at least the US is THE supper power and, right or wrong the rest of the world respects (fears) its status as military superpower. For Obama to make idealized equivalence in affect “greenlighting” other nations to act as irresponsibly as the US is wrong, dangerous, and yet another major mistake of his not yet started presidency.

The last time the US “winked and nodded” aggression by another nation we ended up in Gulf War I. Turning India loose, free of international retribution is a critically disastrous faux paux that he and we will regret. Its more effing bush/neocon cowboy mentality that can not end good.

I’m a simple meditation teacher, so I look for simple answers.

It was done to spread fear and cause further violence. If there are any further acts of violence, they’ve won.

It may be “both,” Mush having more knowledge & influence in some spheres & Bhuttos in others. The latter were obviously not all powerful or her father wouldn’t have been executed & the family exiled.

I called it preemptive, you label it preventative . . . .

We’re arguing Monsanto and Heirloom.

One seeks to eliminate diversity, the other seeks to preserve diversity.

I don’t find Iraq to be as you say it was. It was a sham, a scam and it was sold and bought as preventative measure and as such has reshaped decades and generations of deterrence based policy.

Now any country can point to it, and say, screw Geneva, screw deterrence, and screw magna carta and more . . . and use USA as a raison duh eter . . . . if ya catch my drift . . *G*

Good point … Zulfikar was hanged, then Zia died in a mysterious crash … the country has never been a true democracy.

Dude, stop with the IR speak.

We did Iraq cuz it was a goal to further hegomony, capture and rule oil resources, and put a foodhold of ours into the ME game to deny Chinese, Russian, Indian and any OTHER influences to those resources.

So we invaded, with false ginned up info, sold to a dumbed down Congress and populous.

And it was sold as a preemptive strike based on Nigerian Yellow Cake and WMD’s that don’t exist.

It was NOT sold as a preventative strike, as the media and any official policy sold it, that I know of.

I’m not a foreign policy analyst, but please, correct me on that if I’m wrong?

Thanks . . . always value you and others thoughts in here . . . .

Love your thoughts . . . it all goes back MUCH longer than the 80’s.

And did I mention, how much I still hate Leo Strauss and the Dulles Brothers (not related hates)?

I’ll wish there are not more acts of violence and I’ll wish they have not won.
Thanks for your insights. Bless ya.

As a young boy, I saw the same patterns growing up in Vietnam, Thailand, Laos.

That was ‘53-’63 . . . I was ten when I landed states side for the final time.
It was in my early teens as my father and I spoke of past times and I gathered my fermenting need to know more about politics and state rule. He was, to say the least, a liberal at heart.

I remain colored by all that, with respect to world affairs.

Skeptical of all I’m told by king and country . . . ;-)

It’s ominous that Obama didn’t mention a role for the UN.

This is not a good trend. The poisoning of Alexander Litvinenko in the UK was very possibly arranged by Russia. Presumably, if India believed that some of the perps were on US soil, and the US refused to extradite them, India would be justified in taking appropriate extra-territorial action, including extra-judicial assassination.

You’re a funny man. ;)

About 4500 U.S. casualties and an estimated one million Iraqi dead.

I saw Dubya on a show this evening and he said we’re making progress and that he’s a results oriented kind of guy. The problem with that if your means to those results aren’t legal, then you’re a criminal and you disgrace the country. If we didn’t have sufficient information to show the world we were acting in self-defense, then what else can one say about Iraq except that we invaded and occupied them and then overthrew their government and killed a lot of innocent people — it’s clearly illegal.

Bush said he’s in favor of the universal principle of Liberty, then then takes enemy combatants and holds them without habeas rights. A president has to realize that in the process there are limits. It goes beyond whether the results are good.

On HIV/AIDS prevention he’s done good for people. I also like that he says we weren’t paternalistic, we partnered with them and improved overall health care, education and Liberty. But, despite his personal goal of spreading Liberty (beyond Africa too), I have to ask where he sees that in the Constitution. Sure, it’s a great and important goal, but upholding the law (which the Constitution surely is) has to come first for a president. Outside of that official duty he would be within his rights to promote Liberty, abstinence and anything else peaceful. In office there are the limits of our kind of government which Republicans have been harping on for decades (limited government).

Sure, ‘preventive’ and ‘preemptive’ warring are important concepts to understand, and I sure hope President-elect Obama understands them, but it’s clear that the great trend of Western Civilization (as begun even before the Treaty of Westphalia) is toward the power of the people and the rights of a people to self-determination and to be free from enemies. That’s embodied in our Constitution and we need to get back to upholding that. As a Constitutional scholar it would seem obvious Obama will do that.

The Americans are so clever at being a superpower. Really phucking clever.

I think there ARE times for individual initiative and forcefulness, but it’s certainly not called for as a regular practice. The phrase “unintended consequences” comes to mind. Also, and less obvious, it’s one thing to enable a person to experience ‘enlightenment’ and another to make it stick. The human mind, and presumably an entire Society, doesn’t change quickly and irreversibly just because of one short-term event. We change more surely over time with incremental changes as a result of experiences and given time for us to form ideas and concepts which also reflect our experiential knowledge.

I think we have to restrain our use of force to emergencies and expend most of our energies on slower incremental changes which all involved agree to. That’s the way the world trade revolution is going to move forward and that’s the way Democracy is creeping forward around the globe and that’s the way long-time warring enemies come to finding ways for peace (see N. Ireland or Israel-Palestinians). It takes time for people to really get it.

Geez, the thread has gone on this long and no one has brought up the answer Sarkozy gave to Putin?

”Do you want to end up like Bush?”