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: E. T. who wrote (4502)	11/14/2003 1:46:21 PM
From: epicure	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 20773

We acted impulsively enough, and we look like idiots for attacking Iraq when we claimed to be concerned about terror- and terror was everywhere but Iraq (in terms of terror aimed at the US. Saddam had his fingers in some terror pies- but they were mostly anti-Israeli and anti-Iranina). "When Osama and gang overthrow the Saudi kingdom, the U.S. will be there to help maintain stability in the region. Maybe, Iraq will emerge as a decent society. " If you think we have enough troops to maintain stability in the region, without a draft, I'd have to say you are dreaming. We can't maintain stability in Iraq, nor is their stability in Afghanistan. We will be targets, that's about all. We might be able to hold enclaves, but eventually we'd be driven out. As for Iraq emerging as a "decent" society- I don't see how it can. Either they will get another strong man for a leader, and he will rule as other leaders in the region do, or they will go the fundamentalist route- and then there is the very real possibility that the country breaks apart, and we have civil war. These are the most likely possibilities- and I think everyone familiar with the region knew that before George W made the very odd decision of going into Iraq, and "saving" it.