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: Neocon who wrote (118386)	11/3/2003 11:44:10 AM
From: michael97123	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

Bizzarre as it may seem on its face, dealing with turkey and the kurds in the north and the shiaa and iran in the south may be more feasible than doing what you suggest in the Triangle. Razing fallujah and tikrit?? Will not play well when everything appears on TV. I do agree most sunnis would like to see the baathists exit but they are not the ones with clout. And dont forgets the baathists only exist because iraqi nationalists and fundamentalists hate us more than they fear them. Perhaps they foolishly think they can take care of the baathists after the US leaves? In any case, I am not as confident as i was earlier but i do hope that you are generally right because a united, democratic iraq plays better for US interests than the trifurcated states I have suggested. For just a sec, assume trifurcation(love the word). Can Iran, Turkey and US air and naval power control the Triangle from the outside better than we can now do from the inside? But at least this is not cut and run and we control 80% of the population and the land in some fashion. And maybe then we can deal better with the heart of the global terrorist problem which is not located in iran but in Saudi Arabia. Mike