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 Policy Discussion Thread -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: DayTraderKidd who wrote (7799)	12/19/2006 3:38:28 PM
From: TimF	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 15987

Considering that bagdad has a population of about 6 million people and we probably have between 20K and 40K troops in bagdad, it would be more than naive to think our troops are the main factor in holding back more sectarian voilence Its not naive at all. It would be naive to think that those 20 to 40K soldiers and marines could effectively police Baghdad unless the situation where a lot more peaceful. It is not naive to think that they are a very important factor in holding back more sectarian violence. They can't stop the violence, but they can put a lid on open civil war. They have the power to crush any force that tries to engage in full scale battles and our enemies in Iraq know it. Pull out them out (and pull out or other forces in Iraq), and you can get a real full scale civil war, rather then the lower level (but still very deadly) violent religious/sectarian strife you have now.

To: DayTraderKidd who wrote (7799)	12/19/2006 4:28:55 PM
From: Hawkmoon	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 15987

First of all, the violence is in creasing in Iraq while we are there. For one.. notice that the violence has increased signicantly since it became clear that Democrats would win congressional seats and use their newly won power to withdraw coalition forces from Iraq. This was a sign of weakness and insurgents on both sides have taken advantage of it to increase their struggle to become the dominant power in the country. And now we have Democratic leadership trying to tell us that Al Qai'da fighters are Shi'a, and beginning to agree that more forces, not fewer, are necessary to prevent Iraq from collapsing into utter (and not just contained) chaos. It's pretty clear, as I've often stated, that none of you have a plan for ending the violence, nor do you have a plan for preventing Iraq being dominated by Islamic Jihadist (sunni or shi'a). All you can do is criticize current efforts and use your bully pulpit to advance your partisan political agendas, no matter what the repercussions. I'm telling you that when you remove the "hammer" which is necessary to "pound" down these insurgent groups when they mass, you're going to quickly discover what TRUE VIOLENCE is. The Saudis are telling us the same thing. We leave and they will provide open support to the Sunni insurgents and turn this into a Sunni-Shi'a civil war. And you can't help but understand that that this will then involve Iran entering in on the Shi'a side. You haven't even BEGUN to see violence, DTK, until that happens. (god forbid). Neither the Saudis, nor any other Sunnis in the region, will sit still and permit Iran to create and support a Shi'a Islamic state on their borders. Thus, the only solution is one where Sunnis, Kurds, and Shi'a all share power in Iraq. Hawk