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 : PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: GROUND ZERO™ who wrote (757278)	1/12/2007 7:04:03 PM
From: DuckTapeSunroof	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 769670

Kurdistan needs/wants our troops (so long as we don't get too much in the way when they run Sunnis that Saddam settled in their area out of the homes they are sitting in...) They need the US to keep our other ally, Turkey, off of their backs. And Kuwait needs/wants our forces (they have a lot of oil and money, and big neighbors....) Turkey is part of NATO... so we are based there. As for the rest of 'Iraq'? What's wrong with letting the Sunni world (Saudi Arabia, Iraqi Sunnis, Jordan, Egypt, Pakistan, etc, etc., etc.) fight with Iran and the Iraqi Shiite government to establish new borders and local lines of control? Oil would get real cheap, and the locals would arrive at an 'Islamic' political decision about where each nation's 'zone' ends --- unlike the artificial lines that Churchill and Lawrence of Arabia drew one drunken afternoon on a map. And, the US could save maybe a Trillion dollars and God only knows how many more of our guys lives (not to mention extremist attacks here at home) by no longer carrying the Saudi's water....

To: GROUND ZERO™ who wrote (757278)	1/12/2007 7:41:48 PM
From: pompsander	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 769670

Redeployment to the border is not new....it has been discussed for a while. The problem with our forces sitting in the middle of Baghdad, Anwar province, Tikrit, Fallujah, et al. is that we cannot accomplish anything defined as our national interest. Do we really care which clique is controlling which ten square block area? And dowe even care (as Buddy points out) if the competing forces spend THEIR lives and capital settling disputes that are NOT related to terrorism and its extermination. Shouldn't that focus (which is going to happen anyway) be one we step back from? We can't referee it. The kurds like us. They fear the turks. The turks want the kurds throttled down. Put 50,000 U.S. troops in the north of Iraq and both objectives could be accomplished. Kuwait, Qutar, even Saudi Arabia itself....our troops can both defend borders and be available for new deployment. Not every redeployment concept is "cut and run", although some would have you think so. Iraq is going to split itself up. It's already happening. It is not a terrorist event.

To: GROUND ZERO™ who wrote (757278)	1/13/2007 9:17:22 AM
From: JDN	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 769670

I could be talked into supporting withdrawal of our troops to the Kurdish area and along the border and with air strikes and special forces continue to root out any El Quiada type insurgents (also offer bounties) and let the Iraqi Sunni's and Shia fight it out telling them we will come back in when they have exhausted themselves. This SHOULD substantially reduce American casualties as 70% or more come for ied'S which we would avoid by not travelling the countryside in convoy and having no supply lines within the country outside of the Kurdish area to support. I realize this would probably spell the end of any possible real GOVERNMENT of Iraq in the foreseeable future. But it would probably keep the El Queida from grouping. jdn