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: NOW who wrote (757303)	1/13/2007 5:48:19 PM
From: DuckTapeSunroof	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 769670

I do not disagree with much of what Sanders asserts... (but I do disagree with their claim that American actions have 'created an alignment of Saudi and Iranian interests in the Gulf'. That much seems more then a little speculative....) However, on one of their other points, if the entire Iraq Occupation has been a 'covert destabilization plan', as intimated in that article, then I would say it has been successful insofar as Iraq has now been thoroughly 'destabilized', and the kettle has truly come to a boil now, and the 'cooking' would continue apace (between the Saudi-backed 'Sunni Bloc' and the Iranian-backed 'Shia Bloc')... and there is no further need for intentional (or unintentional...) 'destabilization' now. (Things would progress along the desired path quite adequately without further commitment of American blood or national treasure.) Note: The Sanders piece you posted raised the 'intentional destabilization' suggestion. Not I. (I make no judgment at all whether the 'destabilization' is 'intentional' or inadvertent and possibly even unanticipated.) I believe it makes little difference either way: the mold has been broken and events will proceed under their own momentum (the desire of Shiites for wealth, power, and revenge... the desire of Sunnis for the same... of Kurds for a nation of their own... etc.)