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: michael97123 who wrote (152953)	11/30/2004 9:39:38 AM
From: Sam	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 281500

Michael, jallen doesn't need any proof that Iran is sponsoring and complicit with Al Qaeda. He just "knows". Same as everyone "knew" Iraq was somehow complicit with Al Qaeda. And had WMDs. The Sunni-Shia distinction, as far as people of his ilk are concerned, is a distinction without a difference. The fact that Iran was no friend of the Taliban or Al Qaeda when they were reigning in Afghanistan is irrelevant. Nevermind facts. My prediction: I assume that Carl is wrong in thinking that Bush will declare "victory" after the Iraq election (whenever that turns out to be) and leave. If there is any kind of moderation of the violence in Iraq over the next 2 years, then the drum beat for war with Iran will begin to build in the summer of 2006, and pick up in intensity after Labor Day (after all, you don't start a marketing campaign before Labor Day). The mid-term elections will then be dominated by the grave and gathering threat emanating from those "irrational Mullahs in Iran," a threat to "our way of life." Bush will rally turnout with a call for the further need for protecting said way of life. It will all be very grave and serious.