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: Brian Sullivan who wrote (93497)	4/14/2003 3:33:50 PM
From: Sun Tzu	Respond to of 281500

It only needs to turn ugly later this year to keep him out of office. If he is re-elected, I am pretty sure we will see very massive changes in the middle east and possible regime change in Syria.

To: Brian Sullivan who wrote (93497)	4/14/2003 3:41:47 PM
From: Sun Tzu	Respond to of 281500

I forgot to add to my previous post...Iran is at the top of the "want" list but it is the hardest. So the practicality dictates that Syria and Saudi will bear the brunt of the pressure before Iran. There is plenty of things that Iran can do which neither of the other two can. A quick look at Iran's geopolitics and historical ties should tell what things.

To: Brian Sullivan who wrote (93497)	4/14/2003 3:57:14 PM
From: michael97123	Respond to of 281500

Brian, A successful representative iraq with a thriving economy will set the example for the arab states. Iran will tip. The pictures of free iraqis during the liberation will embolden the pro-democracy movement. Big question will be whether clerics will fire on their own or ratchet their power down voluntarily? If the former, will they win as the communists did in china and then will they reform as did the communist in china(to some degree) or will they topple althogether?? I believe our plan here is to encourage change in regime or regime attitudes prior to attaining nukes. But all of it hinges on success in iraq and this will be hard work indeed. Mike

To: Brian Sullivan who wrote (93497)	4/14/2003 4:57:27 PM
From: teevee	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

My take is that we are just increasing the pressure on Syria, because we have the damning evience that Syria was in bed with Saddam, so we letting them know that we have the goods on them. Ultimately invading Syria doesn't make sense so it won't happen. Are Syrians any less deserving than Iraqi's for freedom and democracy? Will the Syrian regime be any less supportive of the PLO? It makes sense to invade Syria while all the equipment and personel are there now, not to mention the cost of shipping all the un used ordinance back to the US. Iraq is the real deal and we will be very commited to insuring Iraq becomes a succesful prosperous country. It has the natural resources to become a very prosperous country, far richer than Saudia Arabia. Syria does not have the natural resource endowment that Iraq has. Is this why Syria won't be invaded? And after Iraq is succesful the next domino to fall will be Iran. Given the intelligence windfall indicating that Putin provided a list of available assassins in the west to Saddam, Iran must have a regime change before Putin gives them the nuclear capability for WMD's. Also, one less member of OPEC may also help move the oil market to a period of sustained over supply.