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: Neocon who wrote (43728)	9/13/2002 5:04:11 PM
From: Bilow	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

Hi Neocon; Interesting thesis: "I may be mistaken about this, but my guess is that the Administration does not intend a major war or occupation of the country, but instead hopes to have a swift incursion that neutralizes retaliatory capacity, encircles loyalist elements (ie, the Revolutionary Guard), and terminates or incarcerates Saddam and his entourage. Then, we will install a transitional regime from among Iraqi dissidents resident in the West, and stay long enough for them to become entrenched, and for us to seek and destroy the WMD infrastructure. ... The biggest test would be whether the Kurds and Shi'ites took advantage of the situation to partition the country, how brutally the new regime reacted, and whether Turkey and Iran were sucked into the hostilities." Ah, another betrayal of the Kurds. It would be kind of odd to see the US quit defending the Kurds (again), and start supporting the (new) Baghdad regime in its policy of national unification. The alternative would be real democracy, but with Iraq (as in Afghanistan now), that would likely lead to fragmentation, which would be against US interests in keeping Iran balanced, and against Turkish interests in keeping the Kurds divided. -- Carl