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 (87936)	3/30/2003 12:07:48 PM
From: quehubo	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

You used the term occupy which is a bit different IMO than having a military presence. My vote goes towards a heavy NATO presence and I suspect this presence will be there for a very long time. Perhaps 30-50 years. The only way we can achieve the objective of having stable representative Iraqi government that can provide the world with the oil it needs and have these revenues go for the benefit of the nation is if Iraq can attract tens of billions of dollars in investments. This whole gamble of trying to establish a progressive representative government in Iraq appears to hinge on a stable environment for the investment community. This will require the present coalition rolling over the security to NATO plus Russia. The environment has to be such IMO that at least Russia and China as well as NATO nations have a stake in Iraqi's energy infrastructure. The tens of billions required to develop Iraq's oil infrastructure will require much time and much more assurance than just the present coalition of the willing can offer.