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: paul_philp who wrote (88641)	4/1/2003 4:59:23 AM
From: frankw1900	Respond to of 281500

No. With Syria allowing several thousand across the border to fight for Iraq and supply Iraqi fighters and now Iran is taking in AQ members from Anwar, is this about to become a regional war?

To: paul_philp who wrote (88641)	4/1/2003 5:03:30 AM
From: LindyBill	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

With Syria allowing several thousand across the border to fight for Iraq and supply Iraqi fighters and now Iran is taking in AQ members from Anwar, is this about to become a regional war? The Syrians and Iranians are monumental Morons. They must be believing the nonsense they are seeing on Arab TV about this conflict. Paul, I wish, you, JohnM, et al had listened to retired Generals Ralston and Kernan on "Charlie Rose" last night. They laid out what we have done and how well things are going. The media is an ass on this war. Have a little patience, and watch the results. Any Syrians and Iranians who survive coming to Iraq to fight will run back to their countries with their tail between their legs. And this gives us a very good excuse to lean on their respective Governments.

To: paul_philp who wrote (88641)	4/1/2003 6:38:25 AM
From: NightOwl	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

Interesting question Mr. Philp. The pre-war rhetoric coming from both sides would indicate that it has always been a "regional" war. If we consider US actions since 9/11, it would not be difficult to argue that it's gone well past mere rhetoric. And obviously the terrorist/radical enemy considers the battle field to be the entire globe. The US has taken the initiative by selecting the Kabul and Baghdad battle zones and upping the ante at the same time, i.e, "if my cities are at risk, your nations will be." Considering the number and diversity of cities and nations which the "enemy" regards as his, this is likely going to be a truly "cathartic" experience for humanity. Ultimately, if the enemy is serious about "changing" our policies in the manner indicated, they cannot allow the war to be limited to Iraq. ...Or any other discrete national boundaries. I don't know the future, but you could view this war as being a contest for the hearts and minds of nation states rather than of individuals. That is, radicals attempting to force national governments to act to force the US to change it's policies; and the US attempting to force these same national governments to act to suppress the radicals. For me this explains why the US is determined to eliminate S. Hussein, rather than simply defeat him. And it's why the radicals believe it so important to support him despite his obvious weaknesses as a head of state. The Arab radicals see no future at all in Western Civilization cum Americana. This isn't true, but the belief makes Hussein palatable. The stakes are very high for a very high number of nations and individuals. Ultimately, I would have to guess that this war is going to suck in a lot more people and nations before it runs its course. Before its over I would think that the odds are pretty good that we'll see an exceedingly long period of varying "degrees" of war and peace much like the Peloponnesian Wars in many respects, but quite unique in others. By the time history puts a period on it, the principal antagonists will likely have names quite unlike Hussein/OBL. A "democratic" Iraq could easily become no more than a strategic base of operations rather than an ultimate objective. Diplomacy has already become just another weapon in the arsenal. 0\|0

To: paul_philp who wrote (88641)	4/1/2003 5:46:29 PM
From: Bilow	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

Hi paul_philp; Re: "With Syria allowing several thousand across the border to fight for Iraq and supply Iraqi fighters and now Iran is taking in AQ members from Anwar, is this about to become a regional war?" No. What's happening is that the local minor powers are combining together in order to kick our asses. There's no reason for them to attack us directly, all they have to do is allow movement of weapons and "volunteers" across their borders. And since we've bitten off more than we can possibly chew, there's no way that we can widen the war to include those countries. (If we invaded Iran, for example, all it would do, at best, is vastly increase the number of draftees we'd have to collect up to garrison the badly controlled territory, and further increase the periphery that we would be unable to control the movement of men and weapons over.) The US is a sea power. It is not possible for us to win land wars in Asia without the assistance of a land power. Certainly we're not going to make the Rumsfeld mistake in Syria or Iran. -- Carl