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 : Politics for Pros- moderated -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Nadine Carroll who wrote (46714)	5/25/2004 8:14:26 AM
From: michael97123	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 793928

A ramble below that loses its way but is designed to have you and steven come up with a joint iraq policy based on facts on the ground today. Nadine, We are all dancing around trying to figure out what went wrong or who is to blame (me included). Steven and you are two of this thread's most intelligent posters and you both come at Middle East issues from opposite polls. Regarding Iraq, both of you might do well to formulate a policy based solely on facts on the ground. You neednt wait for historians to judge current policy and Steven needs to swallow hard and realize that between now and January 2005 Bush will be president and that between now and January the decisions that are made will determine the outcome of iraqi effort which is essential to american lt interests. I am sure both of you want a positive outcome. I am sure that you in your heart of hearts you have some differnces with this admins policies. I am equally sure about steven wanting a positive outcome as well. Yesterday Joe Biden freaked out after the Bush speech as if he hadnt known the content. Maybe steven did too, but this morning it is incumbant on all of us to support the most progressive policies out there vis a vis iraq. Bush team has not been progressive but neither has the opposition as all they can yelp about is to meet Chirac or Annan or Schroeder, not accepting the fact that those bastards would rather let iraq go down the toilet than help George Bush in an election year. I will pm this to steven. I think it would be instructive if you two could work on something privately and present it to the thread. Mike

To: Nadine Carroll who wrote (46714)	5/26/2004 10:29:23 PM
From: Dayuhan	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 793928

I said the argument had wide currency in the anti-war camp. Possibly on the silly fringe. I have no interest in trying to justify arguments from that source, though it seems that discourse is increasingly dominated by the silly fringes at both ends of the spectrum. If in the outcome, Iraq goes the way of Lebanon, it will be a benefit to AQ. If a stable Iraq emerges, and reform continues to be on the table in Arabia (which it is now, and never was before), it is not a gain for AQ. AQ has placed its bets on chaos. That’s actually a fairly astute bet, and it’s one they are likely to win. It would be the House of Saud, no question. I’m not so sure. The house of Saud is the enemy they love to hate. A perfect target for propaganda, but too ineffectual to do them any damage. I think the house of Saud suits them just fine. Besides, to suit AQ's purposes, an Arab leader had to be removed by Americans, and that is not going to happen to the house of Saud.