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 : Actual left/right wing discussion -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: TimF who wrote (4008)	11/1/2006 6:53:49 PM
From: DuckTapeSunroof	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 10087

"There won't be any conquer," Eh????????? (What does that mean? 'No conquer' is EXACTLY the desired OUTCOME!) "not that we really want conquest, but my point is there won't be a US victory or something that is in America's interest at the end." Debatable point... I believe you missed the entire thrust of my argument though: the VERY FACT that an intramural inter-Islamic dirty civil war will be fought over the carcas of the artificial nation of 'Iraq' (between extremist/expansionist Sunni & Shiite forces, and the nation proxies for the Saudis & Gulf Arabs and the Persians) means that the secular/Western world stands to benefit. ESPECIALLY with the forces so evenly divided between the Islamic forces. The hope is that, ultimately, both sets of fundamentalist extremists will be discredited among their own peoples... and that, ultimately, the centuries-long delay in the 'Islamic Reformation' will have passed, and the same modus that enabled a rejection of intolerant religious rule in the West will finally be operant in the East... leading to a toleration for dissent, and more pluralism. But, while awaiting this favorable (&, I believe, quite possible) outcome --- REAL and SUBSTANTIAL benefits will have ALREADY accrued for US national interests. For one thing: with Islam falling upon itself there will be little focus directed OUTWARD. For another (as the decade-long Iran/Iraq Gulf War illustrated perfectly well!) these things are quite expensive. BOTH sides will have maximum pressure placed on them to pump full-out to pay for their religious war and the establishment of their zones of control. All (largely) good for anyone out-of-area, or anyone who believes in pluralism and freedom from Theocracy. Re: "I agree with Peter Dierks. We would be turning it over to one group of zealots or another." Suggest you bone up on Sun Tsu and Clausewitz again. Remember: extremists already are calling the shots (so: little potential for 'downside' unless one group of them can establish a quick domination over the other.) THAT, is QUITE unlikely. But... standing in the middle of a crossfire is most inadvisable. Better strategies then THAT are NOT hard to find.