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: epicure who wrote (224686)	3/19/2007 10:20:56 AM
From: Elroy	Respond to of 281500

Your scenario of providing a continuous civil war in the ME This is not my scenario - it's their decision of what to do with their lives. At least with Shiastan and Sunnistan separated, there would be less chance of a "civil war". The respective populations would have to decide to actively invade and wage war on another country, rather than raise their kids and try to improve their economy. Separating India and Pakistan 98% worked, had they been kept together in the late '40's they may have still been fighting a massive war today. Keeping Iraqis in one country seems the alternative which is more likely to promote a civil war, since the 95% of them that want peace have no escape option from the 5% that want to kill their so-called enemies.

To: epicure who wrote (224686)	3/19/2007 3:16:26 PM
From: bentway	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

"Civil wars are lovely training grounds, and as the article says; it would probably create an explosion (pun intended) of terrorist technology, as such conflicts often do." Not only that, but what better way to evolve and select a "New Saladin" to unite the Muslims and actually recreate a New Caliphate as Nadine is always fretting about? A civil war might work for us short term, but like all bad ideas, would have unintended consequences much worse than the problems solved.