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: Michael Watkins who wrote (149411)	10/27/2004 4:23:23 PM
From: Sun Tzu	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 281500

I hear a lot of hypothesis on what if country X unites with country Y. In real life these "theories" don't stand a snow ball's chance in hell. Iran and Iraq have hated each other for more than 3000 years. There is no way they can unite, but they may learn to stop looking at each other and mostly go their own way. The same goes for any grand unification of Muslim countries. If there seems to be any form of "unification" force between them, it is because US is giving them a focal point. Once US becomes less of a threat, they will happily be at each other's throat again.

To: Michael Watkins who wrote (149411)	10/27/2004 4:27:25 PM
From: michael97123	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

The US is a target for terrorism, not a bulwark against. NOT MUTUALLY EXCLUSIVE ARE THEY? And i hope iraq does elect a govt friendly to iran Would you prefer a Shia-dominated theocracy (a government just like Iran's)? What if the two countries, with Iraq's new democratically formed government, decided to unite as one? Would we "allow" that? PERSIANS AND ARABS UNITING?--THATS A JOKE ISNT IT? ALSO SHIAA DOMINATED IRAQ HAS 40% NON SHIAA KURDS AND SUNNIS TO CONTEND WITH--DID YOU FORGET? I cant believe you prefer saddams rogue state to that. I don't prefer Saddam at all. I am merely saying that Iraq wasn't a breeding ground for new terrorism; now under Bush, it is. IT WAS AND STILL IS IN QUITE A DIFFERENT WAY, MAKING THE OUTCOME QUITE CRITICAL TO BOTH SIDES, DONT YOU AGREE??