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: michael97123 who wrote (238320)	7/30/2007 3:46:47 PM
From: Sam	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

Kurds are secured from Turks and maintain autonomy without independence. The Kurds won't trust the Sunnis and for good reason. Why should they take Sunni protection when they can easily cut a deal with the US for any protection they need? Far cheaper and more secure. Turks have their worries assuaged Why would the Turks have their worries assuaged? see next note... Iran still has south iraq as its protectorate of sorts. But they wouldn't want an alliance of Kurds-Arab Sunnis on their border. They lose whether the alliance works out (the Kurds become part of a relatively strong state with lots of money) or it doesn't work out (more likely--yet another unstable state). US ends up with some sort of federal quasi-dem result. sarman unhappy thought with death of al queda in iraq. Fine, but if it works for the US but not the locals, it doesn't work.