Personal tools
 
Views

Argument: Success in Afghanistan is key to stability in nuclear Pakistan

From Debatepedia

(Difference between revisions)
Jump to: navigation, search
Revision as of 10:56, 16 October 2009 (edit)
Brooks Lindsay (Talk | contribs)

← Previous diff
Revision as of 10:58, 16 October 2009 (edit)
Brooks Lindsay (Talk | contribs)
(Supporting quotations)
Next diff →
Line 4: Line 4:
==Supporting quotations== ==Supporting quotations==
[http://www.registan.net/index.php/2009/08/27/the-case-for-afghanistan-strategic-considerations/ Joshua Foust. "The Case for Afghanistan: Strategic Considerations". Registan. August 27th, 2009]: "lest anyone think it is appropriate to write off the India-Pakistan conflict as somebody else’s problem, it is never somebody else’s problem when nuclear weapons are involved. As Jari Lindholm reminded, India and Pakistan have come a hair’s breadth from nuclear conflict twice over Kashmir. And like it or not, it is a compelling and vital American interest to prevent nuclear conflict in South Asia—which makes “fixing” Afghanistan in some way also a vital American interest." [http://www.registan.net/index.php/2009/08/27/the-case-for-afghanistan-strategic-considerations/ Joshua Foust. "The Case for Afghanistan: Strategic Considerations". Registan. August 27th, 2009]: "lest anyone think it is appropriate to write off the India-Pakistan conflict as somebody else’s problem, it is never somebody else’s problem when nuclear weapons are involved. As Jari Lindholm reminded, India and Pakistan have come a hair’s breadth from nuclear conflict twice over Kashmir. And like it or not, it is a compelling and vital American interest to prevent nuclear conflict in South Asia—which makes “fixing” Afghanistan in some way also a vital American interest."
 +
 +
 +[http://www.economist.com/opinion/displaystory.cfm?story_id=14644385 "Obama's war. Why the Afghanistan war deserves more resources, commitment and political will." The Economist. October 15, 2009]: "The West has a security interest in preventing the region from slipping into a maelstrom of conflict. Pakistan, with 170m people and nuclear weapons, is vulnerable to the Taliban’s potent mixture of ethnic-Pushtun nationalism and extremist Islam (see article). Anarchy in Afghanistan, or a Taliban restoration, would leave it prey to permanent cross-border instability."

Revision as of 10:58, 16 October 2009

Parent debate

Supporting quotations

Joshua Foust. "The Case for Afghanistan: Strategic Considerations". Registan. August 27th, 2009: "lest anyone think it is appropriate to write off the India-Pakistan conflict as somebody else’s problem, it is never somebody else’s problem when nuclear weapons are involved. As Jari Lindholm reminded, India and Pakistan have come a hair’s breadth from nuclear conflict twice over Kashmir. And like it or not, it is a compelling and vital American interest to prevent nuclear conflict in South Asia—which makes “fixing” Afghanistan in some way also a vital American interest."


"Obama's war. Why the Afghanistan war deserves more resources, commitment and political will." The Economist. October 15, 2009: "The West has a security interest in preventing the region from slipping into a maelstrom of conflict. Pakistan, with 170m people and nuclear weapons, is vulnerable to the Taliban’s potent mixture of ethnic-Pushtun nationalism and extremist Islam (see article). Anarchy in Afghanistan, or a Taliban restoration, would leave it prey to permanent cross-border instability."

Problem with the site? 

Tweet a bug on bugtwits
.