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: Sun Tzu who wrote (87272)	3/28/2003 11:34:20 AM
From: JohnM	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 281500

Iran is betting that it is not going to happen before Bush is out and the next admin will not fallow on Bush's footsteps. An odd bet. I certainly wouldn't make it. Most of the ways this invasion can go only increase Bush's support. If it goes quickly from here, that certainly does; but if it takes a rather long time, I suspect the demons of war will take over and Joshua Marshall's argument that chaos plays into the hands of the "change the ME through force" argument. If this invasion of Iraq is as pivotal a moment as a lot of supporters claim it to be, it will take a Dem ex-military type to slow down the imperial passion now growing. John Kerry or Wes Clark come to mind. But it's a very long leap from here to there. At least as long as from the end of the the first Gulf War and Clinton's election. And no one, not even Clinton, thought he had a chance at this point in that war.

To: Sun Tzu who wrote (87272)	3/28/2003 11:47:53 AM
From: michael97123	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 281500

> Bush rhetoric would tend to undermine the divisions of reformer against mullah> I just dont understand the logic here. A democratically oriented populace should be putting pressure on the mullahs to get out for the wmd/terror business. Bush is like Radio Free Europe, giving them help. Perhaps i am wrong, but either way it appears a debatable point to me. And if in extremis a win in iraq led to military action in iran, it would be against the mullahs and for the people. Are you telling us that the iranian people would automatically rise up to join the mullahs? I have exchanged emails with another iranian who says exactly the opposite of what you say. He gave me the Radio Free Europe line i used above. mike

To: Sun Tzu who wrote (87272)	3/28/2003 2:55:25 PM
From: Jacob Snyder	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 281500

<before Bush can go after anyone else, he has to succeed in Iraq (and I don't mean just military success). Iran is betting that it is not going to happen before Bush is out> That sounds reasonable. Other implications are: 1. The Iranians (and the N. Koreans) will try to develop nuclear weapons as fast as possible, because those weapons are the only effective deterrent against the U.S. 2. the Iranians have an interest in funding/organizing anti-U.S. guerrilla groups in Iraq, and cause splits between the U.S. and the anti-Saddam Iraqis. The harder they make it, for us to hold Iraq, the lower the odds of a U.S. attack on Iran. They are in an ideal position to do this, given the long frontier and religious affinities. The risk here, is that the U.S. may decide to play "double-or-nothing".