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.

Strategies & Market Trends : 2026 TeoTwawKi ... 2032 Darkest Interregnum -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: bruiser98 who wrote (115098)	12/28/2015 7:33:59 PM
From: carranza2	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 220312

Not at all. Our support of Israel does not involve boots on ground. It is primarily weapons and tech assistance. And financial. Those commitments don't need to change. And, believe it or not, the Sunni/Shia divide is a much more significant conflict among Muslims than the one with Israel. The Shias will never unite with the Sunnis to go against Israel. Because the US is solidly pro-Sunni, leaving the ME will simply exacerbate Sunni-Shia tension, to Israel's benefit. Realpolitik in my view strongly suggests that if we're energy self-sufficient, keeping our military power in the ME at the present levels means that we would be protecting Iran's and Saudi Arabia's customers with no benefit to us at all. That makes no sense. I'm certain that this realization is one very big reason why Saudi Arabia has driven the price of oil down. The possibility that the US might tell the Saudis and the Emirates to pound sand is frightful to them as they well know how inept and corrupt they are. They anticipate exactly what I suggest and are trying to head us off at the pass. Let their customers protect them. Let them go to expense of keeping their oil supply safe. If we are self-sufficient, we have no reason to deal with them. It's an unholy alliance we need to break.