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: michael97123 who wrote (79918)	3/6/2003 1:45:02 PM
From: Jacob Snyder	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 281500

No, actually, I'm quite serious. This is one of those "outside the box" ideas that would make big changes in the region, permanent changes that would enhance our power, and enhance the chance of comprehensive peace in the region. It's time to try something bold, all the cautious incremental approaches have failed. The U.S. has annexed a lot of territory in its history, including some territory at a great distance from the "Lower 48". When we annexed California, the quickest way to get there from Washington DC, was a month-long sea journey around S. America. In the Global Village, Community has nothing to do with geography, and there is no "a priori" reason to automatically dismiss the idea of distant annexations. A colonial conquest of Iraq, that is what the Administration is seriously talking about. Now that's a crazy idea, as the Iraquis are very much NOT "secular educated wealthy Enlightenment folk". Iraquis are totally un-assimilable.