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 : GOPwinger Lies/Distortions/Omissions/Perversions of Truth -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Kevin Rose who wrote (36758)	2/3/2005 2:01:32 PM
From: geode00	Respond to of 173976

The thing is, it takes only a chance, an incident, etc. to push events one direction or another. Think 911 or the 4 mercenaries in Fallujah or the bombing of the UN offices in Iraq. I can't imagine anyone anywhere in the world knowing what is going to happen in the ME. Will the Shrub invade Iran? Will the Shrub continue to go making pretty eyes to Chirac and Schroeder for help in Iraq? Will the Shrub suddenly find 'a slam dunk' nuclear weapon in Iran pointed at NYC? The Shrub is such a sociopath that he doesn't care about the truth, about reality or about doing the right thing. On alternate days he thinks he's: 1. A Prophet tasked by God to bring about a right-wing red state Christian hegemony over the entire world with himself as King. 2. Churchill ======= He's nuts. There's no telling what he'll do. After all, he blatantly lied to the entire world about SS in order to kill it. He's trying desperately in this legislative year to shove millions of seniors into poverty. He's a horrible little creature and he is quite capable of doing the unexpected including bombing Iran or encouraging Israel to bomb Iran.

To: Kevin Rose who wrote (36758)	2/3/2005 2:29:29 PM
From: PartyTime	Respond to of 173976

I'm in favor of a two state solution, a theocratic nation and the other a nation of democracy: First, a separate Shiite nation situated south of Baghdad (including the Shiite holy cities along the Euphrates); all areas east of the Euphrates and north of where the rivers converge into the Gulf; the far eastern border would be Iran. Second, a mixed nation of Kurds, Sunnis and Shiites comprising all northern and western areas of greater Iraq, including Baghdad, and also including the southern portion of where the rivers converge into the Gulf. Control of the Euphrates and Tigris riverways would be jointly administered; and Kirkuk oil revenues from the north would be shared with the southern Shiite nation. With Shiites presently comprising about 60 percent of the population, not all of them would opt to belong to the new and separate Shiite nation (especially those who reside in the Baghdad area). Consequently, the percentage of the Shiite population remaining in Greater Iraq would be closer in percentage to that of the Kurds and Sunnis. Under this setting, each of the three factions would then compete for the best ideas in a democracy setting. The Shiite nation would become a theocratic nation and one closely aligned with Iran. The US could help improve its relations with Iran by working with Iran to help create the new nation. The Kurds, with a closer percentage of ethnic representation to rival that of the Sunnis and Shiites, would likely give up its longheld quest for independence thus diffusing the conflict with Turkey. And to really change the status quo of the region, I'd also recommend that the United Nations move its headquarters from New York to Jerusulem, and that a United Nations University for Diplomacy be situated at the West Bank borders. And why not also create a United Nations Peacekeeping training faciulity in the Golan Heights in order to help diffuse Israeli tensions with Syria. I think were all of the above to happen, folks within the region would begin thinking of rebuilding and living in a notion of starting anew. Key to changing anything is to first change attitudes, each in a recognition of self-determination.