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 : Politics for Pros- moderated -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Rambi who wrote (219435)	9/11/2007 11:43:08 PM
From: Nadine Carroll	Read Replies (6) \| Respond to of 793797

I don't believe that dems want us to lose, and I don't believe that the RW wants this to go on interminably. It's been 4 1/2 years. Is it fair to say, yeah, well, hunker down, it's going to take another 5 or 10 in Iraq? And heck, even if necessary, how realistic is it to require that? Then I disagree. If the Dems don't want us to lose, why is Petraeus the first messenger in history getting shot for bringing good news? The Dems want us out now, so they can make the netroots happy, & campaign on health insurance. And the devil take Iraq and consequences to the Mideast. The RW reckons the cost of losing as very high, and is willing to pay high for victory. Nobody knows if it's fair to say hunker down, it's going to take 5 or 10 years in Iraq, certainly not Petraeus. But let's do a little thought exercise. I just looked in my crystal ball, and found the two alternate outcomes for five years from now: 1. The Dems get their way, announce a date certain for leaving. All the various insurgencies bide their time at lower levels of activity waiting for the American departure. When it comes, they respond with a full scale war, none of this lowgrade stuff, that brings in all the neighbors. A million people die in the civil war. At the end of it, Turkey siezes Kurdistan, Syria and Saudi Arabia seize Sunni Iraq, and Iran takes control of the rest - filling the power vacuum, as President Ahmedinijad promised. 2. Bush gets his way, the troops stay, and keep the lid on the civil war, fighting off AQI and Iranian Qods troops. Slowly a federated Iraqi political reality takes form, and Iraq holds together tenously under an American protecterate. Security gradually improves. At the end of five years, American troop levels are still at 50,000 and it's pretty clear that they will need to stay another five years. However, AQ has been discredited and the jihadis grudgingly admit that Americans have some staying power. Those are the only two choices. Which do you prefer?