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 : THE WHITE HOUSE -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: goldworldnet who wrote (7650)	8/22/2007 11:48:19 AM
From: pompsander	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 25737

That may be difficult...the President is on record several times saying when the Iraqi government tells us to leave, we will leave. We don't have long term basing arrangements, and what arrangemetns we do have may be repudiated openly by a new Iraqi (or fragment of Iraq) government, pointing out the President's promise to leave when asked by the Iraq government. If we then stay in our bases, what is the justification? Because we can? I think without some color of law over the arrangement, it will be a travesty. Frankly, I think we end up long-term in Kurdistan trying to keep the Kurds and Turks from slicing each other up, and the Southern part of Iraq burns itself out as it "partitians" itself in an ugly way. Welcome to Yugoslavia....

To: goldworldnet who wrote (7650)	8/22/2007 12:06:01 PM
From: DuckTapeSunroof	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 25737

"we have influence enough now to replicate the scenario." REALLY? Then, let's see it! I mean: They'd better shake a stick pretty fast and try to negotiate a TREATY, because I'm pretty sure that all the money we are spending in the Shia South and in Sunni West is pure WASTE and BOONDOGGLE... bases built in the South are likely to benefit Iran, while anything in the badlands/battleground of the West will be abandoned. PS --- two other quick points: 1) We pay a LOT of MONEY to Japan for our bases there (and, every time the terms are renegotiated, the price rises higher and higher.) 2) When Iraq splits into three new countries: Shia Iraq, Kurdistan, and 'rump-Arabia' or a new 'trans-Jordan' in the West, ANY treaties that might have been signed with the 'Iraq' of today will be null and void for the new States (excepting the possibility that 'Shia Iraq' in the south may be considered the legal successor of today's Iraq... and the new nation of Kurdistan in the North will likely be the only successor State that is actually willing [indeed: eager] to have American troops based on it's land. But 'Sunni-West' and 'Shia-South'? They will ask/tell us to leave. Any money spent building bases there will simply go to benefit SOME OTHER COUNTRY.