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: Peter Dierks who wrote (698463)	8/29/2005 4:14:57 AM
From: DuckTapeSunroof	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 769667

I think the answer of a more decentralized model has been obvious for some time now. Trying to force a square peg into a round hole is apt to only prove frustrating... and a colossal waste of resources. The question remains though: exactly how 'decentralized'? A loose federal structure, or three (or two) completely independent nations? It is possible, I believe, that if the nation fractures along ethnic lines, some could become affiliated with neighboring states. The Shi'a half of 'Iraq' is likely large enough to stand on it's own, but perhaps with 'afflilations' with Iran... and while the Kurds have long dreamed of an independent Kurdish homeland, (they remain the largest irredentist movement in the world), and strongly desire one yet, the tensions that would raise in Turkey (which has promised to invade if the Kurds declare independence) are likely to cause them to approach that ultimate goal gingerly, and only in increments. The resource poor Sunni lands are the most likely to seek to be melded with a strong Arab neighbor, as pan-Arabism is still a political force to be reckoned with.