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: Elsewhere who wrote (22444)	3/28/2002 9:08:19 PM
From: BigBull	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 281500

JJ that would explain the large quantities of jet fuel in the recent tenders. Personally, I don't think they have time to wait until fall, but JMVVHO. Meanwhile, looks like the the Israelis are getting ready to hammer the PA etc. hard. washingtonpost.com

To: Elsewhere who wrote (22444)	3/28/2002 10:00:14 PM
From: tekboy	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

note the contradiction in that Jane's piece--the Pentagon supposedly hasn't decided on what type of operation it will be, and yet the author then goes on to describe the operation, supposedly a modified "Afghan approach." I think the former part is correct, and the latter part isn't. The piece by Ken Pollack in the March/April Foreign Affairs remains the best discussion to date of just why an Afghan-style campaign is inappropriate for Iraq--and I believe that in the end this will be understood and therefore it won't be tried. If I had to guess, I suppose I'd say that if they do it, it will be via an invasion. tb@we'llsee.com

To: Elsewhere who wrote (22444)	3/29/2002 7:07:15 AM
From: Dayuhan	Respond to of 281500

The United States did not wish to occupy Afghanistan, and has no interest in occupying Iraq. Interesting. If the US does not occupy Iraq, the US will have no effective influence over the selection a post-Saddam government. We should not make the mistake of assuming that anyone would be better than Saddam. Saddam is a world class scumbag, but he is not an Islamic fundamentalist. He may cooperate with the fundamentalists, but they will never really trust each other, and ultimately they would be enemies: their visions for the Arab world are very different and in no way compatible. What do we do if we knock down Saddam, do not occupy, and a fundamentalist government takes power? For that matter, what do we do if we do occupy, and a fundamentalist government seems likely to take power?