Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Foreign Affairs Discussion Group -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Dayuhan who wrote (21487)	3/15/2002 10:48:07 PM
From: KyrosL	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

Without Turkey's help, a proxy war via the Kurds is not feasible -- I am assuming the other states bordering Iraqi Kurdistan, Syria and Iran, will not help. So that leaves the Shiites in the South, which means we will depend on Saudi Arabia and Kuwait. But without a serious move toward resolving the Israeli-Palestinian problem, those two will not help. Maybe that explains Bush's sudden eagerness to solve the problem. Without a solution of the Israeli-Palestinian problem, he won't be able to get rid of Saddam.

To: Dayuhan who wrote (21487)	3/17/2002 2:49:01 PM
From: E	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 281500

My hubby's proposal for why we might be planning to go bigtime into Iraq is that, if we were successful, it would allow us to create a de facto protectorate in Iraq run by handpicked political compradors (a new word to me), like Hamid Karzai and his friends in Afghanistan (who are mostly ex-employees or consultants to Unocal.) In this scenario, the US would supply all the major ground forces (the US supplying 250,000 is already being floated by the pentagon), which would allow us to accord only the most minimal role to the Shiia and the Kurds with all the difficulties they present. The happy result would be 1) command of Iraqi oil resources and 2) (and possibly even more important), it would allow our infidel military to be withdrawn from the Islamic holy land of Saudi Arabia, which presence is possibly the bitterest obstacle to any improvement in US/Muslim relations. (This scenario also would explain the manifest lack of interest on the part of the US in acquiring significant allied support in Europe for a war and occupation effort. If we do it alone, we get it all.) Admittedly, this would be Thinking Big on the part of somebody, but the peculiar impetus that this outwardly puzzling initiative seems to have gathered requires some kind of explanation beyond what has been offered. I think this is an interesting enough theory on this subject that i'm posting it. I haven't been following the thread, so if this idea has been bruited about here already, please forgive and nevermind. Edit P.S.: Iraq would of course provide, then, a permanent military base in an excellent location. That's why we could get out of Saudi Arabia, which has been increasingly shirty and uncooperative, especially over Afghanistan.