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: Nadine Carroll who wrote (219439)	9/12/2007 5:52:54 AM
From: unclewest	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 793800

Nadine, Very well stated. May I borrow those two points? uw

To: Nadine Carroll who wrote (219439)	9/12/2007 8:25:15 AM
From: skinowski	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 793800

Interesting analysis. However, before long Iranian mullahs will once again start making aggressive nuclear noises. The entire dynamic in the region is likely to change in the course of the next few years, and a strategy based on controlling today's problems may not suffice. As for your 1-st - "Dem" - option... that would be a disaster. Talkative baby boomers who think that all this would be half-forgotten in a few years - like Vietnam - are wrong. The eventual outcome could be more similar to allowing Hitler to conquer the rest of the world.

To: Nadine Carroll who wrote (219439)	9/12/2007 10:32:36 AM
From: MrLucky	Respond to of 793800

I just looked in my crystal ball, and found the two alternate outcomes for five years from now: I seriously doubt that the democratic party is looking that far (five years) ahead. Most politicians, when "running" for office, are stuck in a "NY Minute". Their actions over the last couple years suggest that the focus is now strictly on 2008 elections. If they don't fill in House and Senate positions in 2008, in my view it will be many years before they get another chance. 1. They, and the MSM, have vested themselves in destroying the credibility of the current administration in regard to their management of Iraq war. It did help them to gain seats in 2006. They are staying with what they perceive as a winner. 2. If joint USA/Iraq military progress continues and Maliki is "willing and able" to eliminate items from the tick list, the democrats will lose in their quest for seats in 2008. Not a good thing for the Reid's and Pelosi's. 3. The move-on.org and kos liberals made a decision which the democratic party is attempting to execute. Argue against the war and those who support it and get the troops out of Iraq now. That is where they have placed their eggs. If they lose in 2008, the party will look totally different before the five year period is over. We can only hope.

To: Nadine Carroll who wrote (219439)	9/12/2007 11:06:42 AM
From: ahhaha	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 793800

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. I suggest that none of the regional powers would do anything, rather, Al Qaeda would turn Iraq into another Afghanistan. Saudi Arabia wouldn't make any move since they're small and unstable. Syria is frozen since any move by them invites Turkish confrontation independently of an Al Qaeda take over. Whether Turkey seizes areas in north Iraq is somewhat inconsequential since it doesn't disturb Al Qaeda's plans. Initially, Iran would make no move, but would aid and abet Al Qaeda's preparation for launching new strikes against the West and the Great Sataaaan. The bigger question is what happens to Iraq's oil when all the oil production skill flees. The bordering nations have to worry about their own internal security when AL Qaeda takes over. Eventually, Israel, who isn't constrained by defeatists, would have to nuclear bomb most of Iraq and Iran. Turn the place into glass.

To: Nadine Carroll who wrote (219439)	9/12/2007 11:53:07 AM
From: Rambi	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 793800

Thanks for the response, Nadine. I always appreciate your thoughts. Obviously as you present it, one would take #2. Still, you have chosen to set it up using the best and worst scenarios and left out the possibilities of grey. Is the choice that simple, or that decisively black and white? Petraeus was shot before he gave any news at all. A lot of far left never even bothered with the possibility of good news. There is a Kevin Drum article this morning talking about why our leaving might not precipitate civil war and a million dead. And of course, there is the possibility that Iraq proves incapable of taking up the reins of self-government, or that Iran inserts itself even sooner and more dramatically. When you begin to throw in all the possibilities, I am not sure those two alternatives hold up as quite so simplistic a choice. People have breaking points and tolerance levels, and one of the realities of this war is that the enormity of the resentment and anger at the perceived misrepresentations(greeted with flowers, WMDs, all the usual worn out arguments), the inept post-war, and the realization that we could be tied up for a very long time, have weakened that support a great deal, so even if you choose the second scenario, you have to deal with the realities that accompany it-- it just may be asking more than the country is willing to give in setting so high a cost. Since so many thought we shouldn't have gone in to begin with, or that it would be fast and easy, it is hard for them to accept that now we have to stay 15 years for what is still an uncertain outcome, regardless of your best case presentation, which is not a given. Can the country sustain what Bush proposes- even if it is at this point the better alternative? It's proving to be hard to get antiwar types to let go of the anger and perceptions and deal with the present, and similarly the prowar people are still wasting a lot of energy insulting the left, rather than admitting that they seem to have gotten lot of things right about this. Also, I still believe there is a strong centrist group that understands we can't just walk away suddenly, and lumping them in with the Kos crowd is a mistake, as is MoveOn's assumption that antiwar people would find their views (and their way of expressing them) palatable. These are people capable of rational discussion and mutual solution seeking, but it is impossible if everything is black-white. These are just the thoughts that run through my grey, though not very liberal, mind, which prevent me from finding your choice nearly as simple as you seem to find it. But perhaps it is a desired outcome starting point from which you work backwards to the possibilities and how to deal with them?