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 : Foreign Affairs Discussion Group -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: gamesmistress who wrote (43586)	9/12/2002 10:57:58 PM
From: frankw1900	Respond to of 281500

Sure they COULD, eventually, but people get impatient if things haven't changed in less than one year, never mind 350. Assuming Saddam is toppled, Iraq won't be allowed to incubate its version of democracy in its own hothouse (pardon my mixed metaphors); it'll be subject to all kinds of external influences. The Westphalian treaty had immediate results. It would not have been successful diplomacy if it did not. The negotiations took some months. I'd expect Iraqi negotiations to take some months - three months, 18 months, as long as it takes. As long as the country is reasonably administered, there won't be serious complaints. There would be complaints probably but as long as progress was made they'd be seen as unreasonable or expressions of enemies of the process. Subject to outside influences - what's your point? Their neighbours have legitimate and illegitimate interests. It's up to the Iraqis to sort that out, isn't it? If the US is the instigator they'll have an interest but that's not necessarily a bad thing. If the US is there with bells on, outside influence will be limited. Nurturing democracy in Iraq after Saddam should be the business of the UN; anyone want to bet on how well they'd do? If the US goes in there, then it has some reponsibility for what happens. The US has proclaimed to the world it's in favour of democracy and, as of today, particularly in the Middle East. It must be seen attempting delivery. And it must be seen as against the one man, one vote, one time stuff. The UN isn't totally a loss at this. It has done some work in Cambodia, which is a difficult environment, and had some success. Also, I believe, in Mozambique. Not all parts of the UN are equally good or bad. But given the UN record in ME, I'm not sure it would necessarily be successful.