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 : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Elroy who wrote (319625)	1/10/2007 1:09:57 AM
From: tejek	Respond to of 1591320

However, we have lost prestige in the ME as well as influence. Meanwhile, Iran has gained greater influence. In that way, they are a winner. My beef is with the language of victory versus defeat. People win games, sports matches, lotteries, elections and real wars. Gaining influence in Iraq is not a "win" or a "loss" in some competition. Greater influence in Iraq may not seem like a win to you but I suspect to Iran its a huge win. In the 1980s, Saddam and Iraq nearly brought Iran to its knees. In the latter years of their war with Iraq, Iran was sending in 14 year olds to fight because they had lost so many older men. To not only have gotten rid of their nemesis, S. Hussein, but to have significant influence in the new Iraq must seem like a dream come true. And to have an ally in its ideological and religious differences with Sunni Saudi Arabia must seem like nirvana. That's what Bush's invasion of Iraq has done for Iran. If one result of the US's rapid military victory in Iraq is greater influence in the region for Iran, so be it. I tend to agree with you but I don't think Washington is quite as indifferent.