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 : PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: DavesM who wrote (698019)	8/25/2005 12:51:55 AM
From: bentway	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 769667

Here's my take on that. While we're there, we're preventing the Shia, the Sunnis and the Kurds from settling their hash in a natural way, through civil war. By being there as an occupying power, we lend creedence to the foreign jihaddi's argument that we're just there to fuck the Iraqis out of their oil. The Sunnis are natural allies of the foreign jihaddis, but some of the Shia see us a occupiers as well. Only the Kurds are completely happy with us being there. I think if we left, much of Iraq would become a Shia Islamic state, probably aligned with Iran. The Kurdish area would become a new Kurdistan. The Sunni would either have to join with the Shia, or become refugees in another Sunni country. Neither Shia Iraq or New Kurdistan would allow Al Quiada to operate from their territories. Things would be LESS threatening for us than they are now. The "war tax" on oil would decline. Americans wouldn't be getting killed. We wouldn't be pouring a billion dollars a day down a rathole. All the arguments you put forward were put forward in somewhat different versions for Vietnam too. We left, the world didn't end, all that ended was a wrong headed war that was much harder on the Vietnamese than us. I hope by 2008 only an anti-war candidate has a hope of winning. I'll even vote for a "secret plan" from a Republican!