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 : Moderate Forum -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: stockman_scott who wrote (17809)	6/22/2005 9:38:36 PM
From: 49thMIMOMander	Respond to of 20773

EU, especially Scotland and Wales, plus Ireland, has promised to handle London, one way or another. The promise of handing out free chain saws (to Scotland, Wales and Ireland) is still a valid plan, as is the promise of free paddles for London. However, it is mainly a question of that transatlantic poodle bridge and waiting for a new generation.

To: stockman_scott who wrote (17809)	6/22/2005 9:39:14 PM
From: 49thMIMOMander	Respond to of 20773

They are funny, in UK, what else do they have left nor right..

To: stockman_scott who wrote (17809)	6/23/2005 8:35:57 AM
From: thames_sider	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 20773

If the US were to 'leave' Iraq, what of their bases there? If I understand the PNAC agenda, one reason for invading Iraq was to set up US military bases there. This would serve three objectives: - control of Iraq's oil reserves - safer and more stable environment than Saudi, more likely to be tolerated by Muslims - better geo-strategic base for dominance of central Asia and ME, especially Caspian and former USSR satellites Iraq certainly can't stop the US setting up these bases or running them for as long as it chooses, however unpleasant it becomes for civilians and whatever the consequences for the US elsewhere. The US can obviously apply sufficient pressure on the Iraqi leaders to get (arguable) legal title... >> Are these bases still desired by the PNAC faction? I would guess so. In which case, it is possible either that the US will stay in Iraq altogether, or maybe more likely enforce some Guantanamo-style colonisation whereby Iraq permanently and 'voluntarily' cedes the land and access for the bases to the US. >> Are these realistic and wise aims? Well, neither is a word much apparent in neocon thinking, so I wouldn't rely on these considerations to stop them. Thoughts?