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 (184354)	3/31/2006 7:37:33 AM
From: michael97123	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

Tom Friedman in todays NYTimes calls the current iraq situation 5 minutes to midnite. He reports on an iraqi blogger who writes on andrew sullivans website. This blogger had been an optimist. Bagdad is falling apart. The islamo-nihilists (friedmans term) started a process of brutality toward shiaa that is now being paid back by shiaa in spades. The streets of bagdad are full of folks in uniform and no one knows until its too late whether they are shiaa militia, sunni thugs, soldiers, police or just criminals. No one is safe. Dont believe the stuff from the admin about the south and north being relatively safe means too much. Iraq is like humpty dumpty and bagdad is its center and where both shiaa and sunni live. If the city continues into chaos, the country of iraq is over. Three states--my addition. The only thing Friedman sees that can stop the bleeding is the formation of a govt of national unity that has the support of all groups. But i sense he has little hope as do I. So you can still call what will happen next a victory if it makes you feel good, and i guess two benign states of the three at least gives us something but in my mind this is terrible setback for US FP. Now we will have two palestines to deal with if we are lucky enough to avoid the taliban solution. Thousands will die in a civil war or a war between the three states. Shiaa and Kurds will land grab and who can blame them. Historians will conclude I am coming to believe that the loss of a united iraq will not be a good thing and any hope of success was squandered by Rummy & Co. Neocons will look worse and what follows in the US could be another post vietnam syndrome which will handcuff us in dealing with next gens threats.

To: Hawkmoon who wrote (184354)	3/31/2006 11:33:41 AM
From: Noel de Leon	Read Replies (4) \| Respond to of 281500

I said al-Qaeda primarily aimed at SA. I don't disagree with you as to their goals. As to the huge supply of oil, I disagree with that as a power factor. 1) Brazil, China and India need more oil. Certainly China will not allow a take over by al-Qaeda. So short term oil is a problem for Europe, not the US since the US import is around 17% of total consumption. A simple adjustment of transport patterns would solve US dependence on ME oil. 2) The amount of oil available is diminishing and rapidly. Even if ME oil reserves last 20 years, and I don't think they will, the international economic power you claim is a fast diminishing one. Look at the reality of ME oil. It's influence is on the wane. 3) The projected reserves in SA may well be over estimated by as much as 50%. Similarly in other ME countries. Why do you think Iran wants nuclear power? They can see that the end is in sight for oil as an income source. Getting back to the caliphate concept. 1) The number of caliphate supporters are small but loud. 2) The number of moderate Muslims is large but suppressed by their own governments. This is a part of the Mossedeq syndrome that US FP suffers under. We support dictators who suppress their citizens. 3) Any positive indication from the US(Bush's nonsense not with standing) will generate optimism among these moderates. "Dude.. don't you think we want Bin Laden? Don't you think we're trying to find him and Zawahiri, as evidenced by the controversial Predator strike that killed a number of Zawahiri's closest aids?? But we can only do so much given teh constraints of the tumultuous status of Pakistan's social and political situation." We are tied down in Iraq and resources could be better used in Afghanistan. Cut the head off and the body dies. If it's a Medusa then use resources to cut all the heads off. Where ever they are. Iraq differs from Afghanistan in that the Iraqi population has always been oriented towards the west while Afghanistan has a history of tribal rifts going back for thousands of years and a non western attitude as is the case in northern Pakistan. That is why I disagree with you as to where the major front against al-Qaeda is. Let the Iraqis deal with the problem, they have a vested interest in getting rid of al-Qaeda and the terrorists. As to your harping on liberals and their plan, I'm trying to show why the present "plan" is wrong and what to do about it. Hasn't anything to do with liberal or conservative politics since it can not be realized given the present US attitude to oil consumption. Try and get out of the liberal-conservative box. One has to recognize that Iraq is about ME oil. That can be changed by reducing US dependence on ME oil. That can be done by reducing consumption. But that means that big oil loses. It means that Hummer(GM) loses. It means that the American "right" to use 25% of present production has to change. All of these things will happen, it is a question of when and how. So within that context, I'm perfectly willing to listen to more SPECIFICS about how bad a job the US is doing there, and how you would do things differently.