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: Mary Cluney who wrote (209583)	12/1/2006 1:07:36 PM
From: michael97123	Respond to of 281500

cnn.com Maybe we are playing shiaa card and not the sunni card as previouslly speculated. Sunnis get no oil revenue until they put down their arms and take care of al quada.

To: Mary Cluney who wrote (209583)	12/1/2006 1:53:21 PM
From: michael97123	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

I think you are way too optimistic Mary. Isnt me saying this a case of the pot calling the kettle black. I have spent alot of time away from SI contemplating these things. America has had one clear win since WW2--Granada. Just kidding, the other one was serbia. Most everything else we have done has failed, backfired etc. I suspect most nations screw up when they are screwing around in foreign policy. Having said all of that, i think the US is faced with a monumental historical choice and thats who to side with in the Iran/Shiaa---vs--Sunni/Wahabi/Baath/failed arabs state conflict. We have been trying to ignore the fact that iraq is 80% shiaa and kurd. We have given the sunnis every chance to kill al quaeda and come to the table. Sunnis incited this. Saudis directly and indirectly incite our true enemy al quaeda. We dont have to like amhadijad (sp??) but we have to deal with him as we dealt with russians in cold war. The mullocracy is corrupt but I think A is a shrewd politician who understands that the israel/pal thing is key and is positioning himself as the leader of the pals. As the leader he can one day sign a peace treaty with israel that hamas and hizbolla can accept. He has creds being established in the area. Sunnis offer nothing but al quaeda, saudi wahabi middle ages regime, so-called moderate states like jordan and egypt that are largely corrupt and resistant to change. I think i have been brainwashed by Sun but i am ready as an American and Jew to go to Tehran and negotiate with that dude. IF he can bring the pals, hizbo and hamas along, I will bring the israelis. PS re nukes. I think they are developing them for deterrent reasons. I think ultimately as part of any deal with israel, the mideast must become a nuke free zone. I think israel in such a deal would be given a timetable based on benchmarks in arab/israeli relations to get rid of what they say they dont have. And thus iran wont have to go live as a nuke power. Pakisitan needs to be de-nuked too because those sunnis are folks that iran is going to have to deter also. If i were an iranian and had enemies like US, Israel and Sunnis represented by Pakistan, i would be trying to go nuclear too.

To: Mary Cluney who wrote (209583)	12/1/2006 3:16:52 PM
From: michael97123	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

addendum One thing that we must prevent is a pact between radical shiaa islamic militias and al quaeda. US must not position itself as enemy to both, so they unite against us as islamics putting aside sunni/shiaa thing for a time. In WW2 we allied ourselves with the super-evil empire under stalin to fight the worse Hitler/Nazis. I think uniting with iran/shiaa radicals against al quaeda/wababis/salafists/corrupt saudis etc. is a similar type of situation.