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 : American Presidential Politics and foreign affairs -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: RMF who wrote (35111)	4/26/2009 10:41:01 AM
From: TimF	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 71588

Do you really think that Al Queada could have gotten a foothold there if we hadn't given them several million Sunnis as recruits? 1 - Possibly, if Baathist control started to break down eventually (and if it didn't then you have possibly decades more of Baathist abuse and murder). 2 - You asking a question that's not very relevant to you point. If we assume Al Aqaeda in Iraq wouldn't exist without the invasion, that doesn't mean "we created Al Qaeda in Iraq". Lots of things wouldn't have existed without lots of other things that didn't create them. If X wouldn't have existed without Y, that doesn't imply that Y created X. can we agree that Hezbollah and Hamas have become MUCH BIGGER players SINCE we went into Iraq? Hezbollah - No. Hamas - Well it did become a bigger player. "MUCH BIGGER"? Maybe that goes a bit too far, but significantly bigger. But that's mostly because corruption and other problems with Fatah, which resulted in Hamas winning elections, combined with Israel pulling out of Gaza which allowed Hamas an area to control and a base from which to attack Israel. Iraq was a secondary factor at best.