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: PartyTime who wrote (182638)	2/28/2006 8:09:40 PM
From: bentway	Respond to of 281500

You heard Hawkie - he wants the entire sad mess to continue so he can go back and make some more dinero off the grief. The chimp Caesar won't leave until congress just won't pay for the idiocy anymore, just as with Vietnam, and for the same reason, dumb macho pride that won't admit to failure. It will take decades to undo the chimp's damage to our country, to say nothing of Iraq, even if we left tomorrow.

To: PartyTime who wrote (182638)	2/28/2006 11:57:44 PM
From: Hawkmoon	Respond to of 281500

And at least it's goal-oriented and, if you think about it, more practical for all parties. Which parties? The Former Ba'thists who would wind up dominating the Sunni minority because they have money squirreled away from Saddam's reign of power? The Badr Brigade and SCIRI, with their Iranian backing? Listen.. the whole scheme of partitioning has been considered since BEFORE the war. I remember it being discussed openly and publicly back then. So it's nothing new. But what it IS, is a desperate last resort scenario, when all other attempts at assisting Iraqis to realize a democracy have failed. And it's going to wind up making puppet states out of all of the partitioned sides. The Sunnis will naturally gravitate toward Syria, and possibly Jordan, while the Shi'a Arabs will likely try and use their oil wealth to maintain a level of independence from Iran's overbearing influence. Partitioning is not something to be proposed, but a contingency plan to be planned for when everything else fails. Because that's what partitioning Iraq is.. an admission of failure. And while you may think it's all a failure, the Iraqis apparently think differently or we'd already be seeing thousands of casualties and raging firefights in every Iraqi street. Hawk

To: PartyTime who wrote (182638)	3/1/2006 8:07:56 AM
From: michael97123	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

"What makes you think civil war hasn't already broken out? Just 'cause the American media doesn't report it that way doesn't mean it hasn't already happened. It has!" Its really funny PT. On the right wing Lindy Bill thread they say the MSM is reporting civil war where none exists. Personally i think the media has been fair. What we have now is short of civil war but unless checked and checked soon, we will get there. You have taken reasonable positions and i agree with you that you were right on predicting the post war period more accurately than i did. Question for you: Were you also predicting a long and costly war phase or did you expect the US to roll over the Iraqi army as easily as we did? Want to see if you were 2 for 2. (g)