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 : Moderate Forum -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Dale Baker who wrote (542)	4/22/2003 11:57:33 AM
From: rrufff	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 20773

I don't disagree and you basically state the "odds on" choice. I'd like to be a bit more optimistic. The world threat is reduced but as you say never eliminated. I still think the real key is whether the Shiites are allowed by default to impose a government on the OTHER half of IRAQ. As an aside, the US line and I guess the world view is NOT to have a broken up Iraq. If as you have posted, the gulf is too broad to bridge among the disparate groups, Shiite, Sunni, Kurd (and of course smaller groups that need protection like the Christians), then why not have a Kurdistan, a Shiiteland and a Sunniland? Or will that make it worse? Better to have them fighting each other internally or externally?