N.Korea or Pakistan?

Pakistan, IMO. Less stable and already involved in a volatile conflict with a hostile party.

NK's nemisis is advocating sunshine. India puts millions of guns on the border and shoots.

But on the other hand the US isn't trying to provoke Pakistan.

In any case I don't think either pose a significant nuclear threat by themselves.

OK
I admit that I am not real schooled about Pakistan. I have read a few articles and have heard a few so-called experts about the country . Seems that the Military is somewhat split on the Taliban/Al Q. issues.

I read that Musarif (sp) came close to being assasinated. If he dies, there may be real trouble on the way. He is playing ball with the West and holding the radical Islamics at bay. The country is real overcrowded and quite poor. Instead of $150 Billion into Iraq it would have been better forgo that illegal invasion and support Pakistan with a few more billion.

Like pistoff, I think the answer has alot to do with one guy--and that is a bad thing. Mushareff (I spell it worse every time) seems to be the guy with his finger in the dyke.

(Why can't I use that analogy with a straight face )

I don't know why I envision Pakistan as turbulent as Afghanistan. Old news reports.

Pakistan, hands down.
Sofia: (Flashbacks to Capitol Hill in Seattle!)

I'd agree that Pakistan is a situation with one man sitting on a powder keg. What is unknown in this situation is whether or not the military would produce another leader if Mushariff (another entry in the spelling derby) were killed. I believe it is not incorrect to say that the Pakistani military has sponsored their coups because they wish to keep a lid on Muslim extremism, which simmers just below the surface in Pakistan. I think Pistoff is right on the money about aid to the Pakistanis--it would go a long way. Terrororists' most fertile recruiting ground is always in the poor regions of the Muslim world, where it is easy for the demagogue to convince the credulous that the west, and the United States in particular, are responsible for the misery.

Taliban
I will do some more research but I did read that some factions of the military are sponsoring the Taliban. As is known the Taliban and Al Q are cozy. Keeping Al Q from getting any nuke material may be tricky. One hopes that it is impossible for that to happen but is it? Also, the situation in Kasmir could heat up again at any time. If India and Pakistan get into a hot war, I feel that they may just resort to nukes. This wouldn't be to good would it?

Whoever has nuclear weapons is a potential threat. NK has no nuclear weapons. The certainty of massive retaliation, apart from other considerations, ensures that Pakistan is not a threat to the US.

I think regular reality checks are necessary when contemplating these matters.

The President of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan is General Pervez Musharraf (spelling from the Pakistan Government website.)

I don't agree that Musharraf is pivotal to the general course of Pakistan's future. He is only another leader of the secular group which governs in the nominal Islamic Republic. Peace in Pakistan is a delicate affair complicated by contending forces inside the country and problems with India.

The establishment of a true Islamic State in Pakistan would not surprise and ought be considered when framing policy. Western society moved from fundamentally Christian to secular government. It may be necessary for the Islamic world to establish Islamic Government as an a priori state from which accepted secular governments can evolve.The Religious State is a logical development of belief in revealed law. We can expect it will become normal where Islam is dominant. It is futile to oppose the inevitable.

A Pakistani Islamic State may provide an opportunity for the West to repair its relationship with Islam. It is important we not meddle too much and destroy that potential advantage.

I have some excellent links that I'd like to share :

http://www.pakistan-facts.com/index.php

http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/pk.html

http://www.webs.com.pk/home.php?k=0.60000300%201071979389

http://www.pakistandaily.com/

http://www.dsp.org.au/links/back/issue18/Sulehria.htm

http://www.khilafah.com.pk/leaflets/030103constitution.html

Pakistan for Sure.Pakistan is a country where military and religious fanatics cohabit.The Government whether democratic or dictatorial doesn't make a difference.Muslim fanatics believe and propagate that Islam is tormented by other religions and it's the duty every Jighadi(Sacred Fighter) to wage war on non muslims whatever the country be in question.That's why you hear pakistan trained terrorists operate in Russia,Indonesia apart form Gulf and India.Recently there is a report that they're operating in China also.It's a fact that Pakistan has become the virtual stronghold of terrorists of the World.

Apart from being rather difficult to decipher, i find this to be a dubious position. Revealed law? I find i cannot construct a concept of what revealed law would be. Although the Osmanli Turks paid lip service to Islam, and sought their legitimacy in the Muslim world by guaranteeing the safety of hadjis to Mecca and Medina, it would not be appropriate to describe the Osmanlis as having run an Islamic state. Mustafa Kemal was able to create a secular state on the ruins of the Osmanli empire without having any transitional stage of an Islamic state. I doubt that your thesis is correct--but would request that you clarify your statement.

K,VEE,

India and Pakistan are threats to each other but how is that relevant here and what role does terrorism play in your inane disputes.

Is there not currently some progress in detente between India and Pakistan over Kashmir?

I know the situation will continue to bubble, but it seems to have gone down a few degrees for now.

Setanta,

The idea of earthly authority as an extension of heavenly authority is not at all knew. In ancient Mesopotamia kings were also the highest priests and the state was viewed as the domain of the God. Expansion of the state was viewed as an expansion of the power of its god. The laws of the state were identified as the will of the god.

Revealed law is such as was given to Moses and Mohammed. It is argued by some that this is the whole law and the law by which Islamic States should be governed. An Islamic State is one which closely adheres to that view. The Saud Kingdom is an example.

I was not taking a position. I suggested a possibility that establishment of Islamic States may be a necessary pre-condition for the evolution of secular governments which muslims will accept. I think you will agree that many muslim secular governments are under pressure from those who aspire to Islamic govrernment. There are many examples, Pakistan, Egypt, Iraq and Algeria are some. I believe that the reformers will prevail and States such as Iran will be common. As in Iran the nature of government will change. I hope for an eventual separation of religion and state that is generated by the wishes of the people. In the meantime I think we must adjust our thinking and learn to treat with Islamic States.

I take onboard your references to Turkey and will consider. My first thought is that Saddamism was a perverse variation of Kemalism. I also wonder how history would have judged Kemal had he not become Atatürk.

There is an article discussing revealed law at the link below.

http://www.sunnah.org/tasawwuf/shariah_tariqah.htm

I apologise for my poor writing skills and hope the above is more easily deciphered.

There are conciliatory articles in Pakistani and Indian newspapers at present. Musharraf has made a statement saying he is prepared to set aside insistence that the Kashmir dispute be settled in accordance with existing UN resolutions. Meanwhile his prime minister says not.

Gozmo, i don't accuse you of poor writing skills, or ought not to have done. I had never heard the term "revealed law," although i am familiar with the bogus concept of revealed truth, and in fact assumed that you meant what you have now explained. I see your take--although not inevitable, i think you are on to something here, that it may require Islamic states in various populations before those populations become comfortable with a more secularly based polity. The militarily imposed governments in Egypt, Pakistan and Algeria, to my mind, reflect the desire of military authorities to enjoy the comforts of modern secular states, rather than any deep political convictions. Hussein is certainly not to be compared to Mustafa Kemal. Kemal had the best interests of the Turks at heart, genuinely, as is evinced in the programs he instituted, and the relative success of secularism in Turkey. Hussein is simply a common expression of greedy, venal and selfish tribalism.

What you have expressed here (now clear to me, as i have resolved my own misunderstanding) is to me suggestive of the imperative of the west, and in particular the United States, to reach out materially and politically to the Muslim world. More economic justice and security for the populations of such nations will go a long way to mitigating the extreme and very "un-Islamic" violent militancy of the extremists.

India isn't the problem. It's a democracy and a very peaceful one at that. It's been invaded on many occasions by pakistani militia as recently as 1997 when pakistan sent it's troops dressed up as terrorists to invade India, all it recieved from Clinton for this is reprimand and a few sanctions that were quickly removed. The indian army always pushed them back and yet consistently stopped short of crossing pakistani borders.

I see little risk of the situation escalating between the two nations. Maybe, once Pakistan becomes a democracy too, they can even reach a compromise on the Kashmir issue.

Externally peaceful yes, internally peaceful, good grief no! There is a significant amount of "terrorist" and simple mob style violence among Hindus, Muslims, Sikhs and Chrisians.

you are talking about pakistan, right?

Nope, India.EPPC report

Hindu.com

PUCL.org

Doubtful
Pakistan is heavily centered around the Military. It is highly doubtful that it will ever be a Democracy. I had to laught that they had an election. That one candidate got most of the votes.