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: Sam who wrote (217118)	2/9/2007 9:39:51 AM
From: michael97123	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

Great point about germany and japan. What happens if war breaks out between US and Iran and Iran as the ayotolla said yesterday attacks american interests all over the world. With gas going to $4, american civilians targeted, some terror in the US, american business interests targeted, the march toward iranian nukes continuing etc., when do the american people and the american president say enough is enough and effective wipe iran off the map. This is not a hope of mine but a fear. It doesnt matter that bush has 20% support in the polls. If the iranians play the terror card and the nuke card, he will have 80% support to use any means to retaliate.

To: Sam who wrote (217118)	2/9/2007 11:32:46 AM
From: Don Hurst	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

>>" ...the only way to have truly "pacified" Iraq would have been to turn it to rubble in the same way that Germany and Japan were turned to rubble. "<< So turning Iraq into "rubble" would pacify Iraq just as Germany and Japan without the ethnic issues were pacified? I guess that would mean that all the Iraqis would be under the "rubble", very, very quiet. Oh btw, didn't we turn Fallujah into "rubble" and isn't Anbar still a bit of a problem?

To: Sam who wrote (217118)	2/9/2007 2:32:43 PM
From: geode00	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

There are any number of articles that say that even the Baathists, those pushed to join the party to get a job for example, were looking forward to getting Saddam out of office. There was a lull of about 6 months after Saddam was toppled where the country was basically waiting to see what the Americans were going to do. That 6 months ended up with the million man army being disbanded with their guns but without any money for its future. It ended up with de-Baathification even though they were who ran the country and did things like keep the electrical grid operating. It ended up with Rumsfeld snickering at the looting. I do not think that, even with all of the lies that Bush/Cheney et al told, Iraq was inevitably a chaotic mess. It they had listened to the professional military and sent in 500,000 troops (no contractors, just military) to begin with and IMMEDIATELY had elections, Iraq would not be in this chaotic state of affairs. I do not believe that Saddam did what was impossible for the US to do. That makes no sense. There would have been pockets of insurgency but the electricity would have flowed, the oil would have flowed and now most of the yelling would be political.