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 : Just the Facts, Ma'am: A Compendium of Liberal Fiction -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Orcastraiter who wrote (24363)	1/1/2005 9:10:01 PM
From: Oeconomicus	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 90947

"Looking at the competing factions leads me to think that partitioning is likely. If the elections are to be successful there must be some sort of power sharing and veto...like a parlimentary system. Otherwise any political solution will likely breakdown into a civil war." Like I said, I don't think partitioning is likely to be a more stable solution than a unified democratic nation. Partitioning will leave the Sunni's out in the cold economically, which gives them an incentive to attack either or both of their new Kurdish or Shia neighbors. I guess we'll have a better idea later this month of how it's all likely to work out. Happy New Year.

To: Orcastraiter who wrote (24363)	1/1/2005 10:30:00 PM
From: Lazarus_Long	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 90947

Ultimately, I think that what will work best is what works now, which is separation in a formal way into three states. THat will work until their big neighbor, Iran, swallows them up... one by one. As you point out the distribution of oil resources is not equal in the three regions, which could be the impetus for a power grab. Heck it was surely part of the impetus for the US to invade Iraq. That is evident from the writings of the administration members as members of the PNAC. Those hawkish positions, such as the oil will pay for the war, have morphed into a more politically palatable call to "bring democracy to Iraq", still underlay the fundamental reason for US presence in the Middle East...OIL. If THAT'S the real reason, why didn't we pick a fight with Mexico? 1. It's a heqq of a lot closer. 2. It would have been a heqq of a lot easier to beat. 3. Insurgency? What insurgency? Judging from immigration patterns, all Mexicans want to be Americans anyway. Just make the Mexicans states US territories with the prospect of becoming full-fledged states. Next.