Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices Message Board

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 : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next

To: tejek who wrote (171607)	7/9/2003 2:52:16 PM
From: TimF	Read Replies (1) of 1582934

And btw I think all the possibilities have a pretty equal probability of happening. Now your speculating. Not that there is anything wrong with that, our speculative opinions just differ. However, ruthlessness does not guarantee staying in power. Agreed, but it makes it more likely. If your going to lead a dictatorship like the old USSR or pre invasion Iraq, it helps if you are ruthless. You need the people to either love or fear you and they usually don't love you so when they stop fearing you your grip on power is loose. Meanwhile the Kurds in Iraq have always given Saddam much to worry about......given the quality of Saddam's troops, its conceivable the Kurds could have started a rebellion that led to a civil war in Iraq. In fact, I find it odd that it had not happened by the time we invaded Iraq. I suspect the Kurd's ongoing war in Turkey is the reason. The fight against Turkey is part of the reason, but the main reason is that Saddam controlled a lot more military force then the Kurds. Tanks, artillery, poison gas, helicopters... Also the Kurds had no interest in going beyond freeing themselves from Saddam. They were not going to march on Baghdad or overthrow Saddam. That's not true......the soviet system was brutal right to the end. The gulags existed right to the end. The system fell apart not because they weren't harsh enough but because there was not enough money to run the place. It fell apart for both reasons. Countries that where poorer then the Soviet Union (North Korea being a good example) have maintained totalitarian rule. In China when the rule of the communists was threatened they massacred those who where perceived as a threat. This could have also happened in the USSR. Fortunately it didn't. "But those 10 more years would have been worse then the invasion." For whom? Most obviously for the Iraqi people. Perhaps for others as well although though that calls for speculation that I think would be less solid then that which I have posted so far. Furthermore, I have some real doubts about the ability of establishing a democracy in Iraq. I have some doubt as well but I think it is possible. I think it more likely that the eventually government might be a somewhat flawed democracy then a strong enduring paragon of democracy, but I think at least a flawed democracy is quite possible and I think such a government would be much better then Saddam. Tim

Report TOU Violation

Share This Post

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next