4 ms·

I can't speak about everything because I don't keep up with most of this. But frankly, the situation is shaky. Pakistan is fairly developed considering the reg

by gareim 14y ago

I can't speak about everything because I don't keep up with most of this. But frankly, the situation is shaky. Pakistan is fairly developed considering the region it's in. It's also unstable because of the military from what I can understand. So it's reasonable not to label them as a terrorist nation and possibly pushing them into a more unstable state. That's the analysis that I've heard, but I don't know much about Pakistan. We have problems with North Korea having nuclear weapons because they are extremely volatile. Their interactions with the South prove it. Those tunnels into SK that they used to send commandos in an assassination attempt? Or maybe the sinking of the South Korean warship? The shelling of an island? The list is LONG and a cursory glance of their Wikipedia page will prove that. Can you honestly tell me that you'd feel safe if North Korea had nukes?

saryant 14y ago
The issue with Pakistan is that there are a number of competing elements within the government and military. Some are sympathetic to American interests, some are hostile. Sme sympathetic to al-Queda, some afraid of radicalized Islam. Parts of the ISI, their counterpart to the CIA, helped foster terrorist training camps in Afghanistan with the aid of American weaponry and money during our covert push against the Soviets. This was partly done so that fighters trained in those camps could then be shipped to Kashmir to do battle against the Indian army in that region. Pakistan is a very difficult topic. I recommend two books by Steve Coll to understand it better, "On the Grand Trunk Road" and "Ghost Wars," two fascinating books on the recent history of this region. I recently read both and they're worth your time.