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 : Foreign Affairs Discussion Group -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Hawkmoon who wrote (179313)	1/6/2006 12:26:23 PM
From: michael97123	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 281500

"But the minute we leave, we'll guarantee that all sides will launch into a bloody civil war that will result in far more Iraqis deaths than have resulted in the past 3 years." Thats neolibs point as well. How long do we delay departure and thus cost american lives and treasure before the above doesnt happen---1 year, 5 years, 10 years?? That is a cost/benefit analysis question between who those who think we need another year or so and folks like neolibs who expect this condition to go one for a long while and get worse over time at great cost both in men and money. Then there is a third group who may think neolib is right but thatit is still worthwhile to stay. I am giving it another 6 months to a year myself. Then we have to accept timetables, three states and the less elegant solutions than a dem, fed, state that protects not exterminates minoritys.

To: Hawkmoon who wrote (179313)	1/6/2006 8:20:36 PM
From: neolib	Respond to of 281500

Very much agree with your post. The problem that I see is our staying just drags it out. The Shia are going to increase their control of the new military & security forces, and with that they will tighten the grip on Sunnis. We will end up policing the elected government to constrain their actions against Sunnis (who still won't like us either). That is not a desirable position to be in. The net effect of that is the Shia will come to view us as occupiers as well as the Sunnis. If a year from now, the main news coming out of Iraq is US forces investigating Shia military atrocities against Sunnis, things will be very bad. Can you shed any light or thoughts that Iraqis have expressed to you, as to why either the Shia or Kurds would be committed to accommodating Sunnis long term. Whats really in it for them? I don't see anything that would encourage either group to put up with a significant pain in the ass, especially given the history. Democratically the Shia want to end up with a theocracy. The Kurds would be totally happy setting up their own country. The only thing standing in the way of both of these objectives are the Sunnis pushing for a united Iraq where the combined Sunni, Kurd & secular Shia vote can block the Shia theocracy. Does not strike me as a stable coalition given the Kurd position.