Foreign Affairs Discussion Group 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 : Foreign Affairs Discussion Group

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next

To: redfish who wrote (128220)	4/2/2004 1:44:12 PM
From: Hawkmoon	Read Replies (1) of 281500

First, that was not the case in Iraq. It had one of the most secular governments in the region, and the means and willingness to keep it secular. That's just BS. Is may HAVE BEEN one of the most secular governments, but it was apparent that Saddam grip on power was being usurped by the Islamists (Salafist and Shiite)within the country.. Do not forget that both groups are vying for control over Iraq's tremendous oil wealth.. And we know it's not for the purpose of expanding human rights or democracy throughout the region. It's certainly one of the reasons the Saudis were unwilling to actively support the overthrow of Saddam. He was one of their primary barriers to Shiite militancy. And as I stated before, these militants didn't just pop up, espousing their Jihadist and Salafist ideology, overnight.. But apart from that, it's clear that Saddam's regime was corrupt and brutal, holding power only through its ability to coerce obeyance by the population (recall that 300,000 Shiites died in the past 13 years alone). The fact that we effectively permitted him to remain in power was seen by your average muslim as tacit approval by the US for his brutal repression and exploitation of Iraq's resources. Tell me that wasn't a recipe for eventual (and lasting) resentment and hostility. At least we're being seen as advocating a progressive change in the region that does not favor any particular faction (and woe upon us should we foolishly take sides). Did we invade apartheid South Africa? No.. but we sure were one of the primary forces behind ending that social structure. If you recall, the US imposed economic sanctions on SA (which the Europeans, as usual, conveniently circumvented for their own interests). Hawk

Report TOU Violation

Share This Post

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next