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 : Idea Of The Day -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: BubbaFred who wrote (43610)	2/16/2003 3:10:01 AM
From: IQBAL LATIF	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 50167

Demonstrators claim that change should come within, that I doubt, I wish some of these Jesses and Tony Benn are allowed to live in Iraq. It is one thing to see the nice face of Saddam greeting Mr. Jesses Jackson or Tony Benn it is quite the other face that torments and kills its opponents without any recourse. Inward change in Iraq in presence of ‘mukhabarat’ that listens to every Iraqi every day is impossible, so does the threat that Iraqi bathist regimes offers to the instability of the region, Iran Iraq war and Kuwait invasion is the tip of the iceberg, the instability it brings to the region through denial of basic rights is the biggest hurdle. Iraq is most educated amongst the Middle Eastern fiefdoms. A progressive Iraq would be a great buffer between Iran and Saudi where a possibly tolerant version of Islam could be unveiled and practiced, in short term it will also help heal the wounds by cutting into the core of the rejectionists states who have always harped about Palestinian rights without doing much to alleviate the cause. The global demonstration against change of regime just signals how important it has become and how high the stakes are. I have not even an iota of doubt that Saddam reign will be allowed to flourish. The composition of left leaning, anti-globlalists as enemies of war reminds me of the anti war protests during Vietnam war, Vietnam was more of war of ideology Iraq is a war of freedom for its own people from the shackles of a tyrannical regime. Leaving Saddam is in the middle of the present highly volatile region does not help a solution that needs to be in place to avoid future clash of much intense nature. Most of these demonstrators have the freedom of expression and freedom of dissent unfortunately none of the Iraqis they are worried about have this luxury. Even their leadership with exception of Saddam is hurled into huge busses taken to 5 places blindfolded before they are ushered in front of the great leader. These kind of tyrannical regimes where dissent is forbidden are spots about to blow. I a world that has no borders we don’t need vacuums and evil regimes need to be tackled, if USSR was termed evil by Reagan we can with a benefit of hindsight can well realize that a post Stalinist- Brezhnev era Russia is an asset to global peace. Sometime someone needs to confront the evil; it is about economy, potential of our society and prevention of future crisis. AS I have clearly indicated it is first step in incorporating democratic change in the Arab lands. Afghanistan was never colonialized never learned anything remained medieval all the way through and had no capacity to join the new progressive world, rather it became the nest of terrorist. Arab lands devoid of popular dissent are grounds of massive abuse of human rights, I think a popular regime that represents the entire segment of the Iraqi populace will help unleash resident potential of the Iraqis to progress and develop. Of course nation building and new order for the Arab lands lies at the heart of this massive push post 9/11 world. New Iraq with capacities to enlarge oil production will become a ‘balance producer’ within OPEC, that is not acceptable to many a pundits within OPEC. Democratization of Iraq would lead to some kind of demands where Saudi dissenters would demand equal say in the running of the Saudi government that in it self would mean a sea change of attitude within Islam and Middle East. Naturally the local regimes prefer an ostracized Iraq because its potential remains untapped and Saudis and others have become unchallenged leader of middle eastern fiefdoms, with Iraq in play Saudi leadership would have to share politicalization and sponsorship of Islam. The possibility of healthy discussions the future course of peace in Middle East would see also a definite change, Saddam represents with Syria core of rejectionists, a docile and a people friendly regime in Iraq may help the populace by going long on delivery short on global slogans and vain battles with neighbors. An Iraq that is part of the global systems instead of being a ostracize member of the global community will help build bridges between Iranians and Saudis, moreover the Sunni centric and Shia centric regimes of Saudi and Iran would have to be careful of a new assault from a new Iraq that of human freedom, a free Iraq would unleash forces that would reverse of lot of revolutionary themes within the region. The crux of Islamic political Islam originates from Tehran and Saudi but its cannon fodder is found in Afghan and Pakistani hinterland, the buffer zone of Iraq would help pacify the intensity of the message of hatred that non-governmental organizations within Saudi and Iran perpetrate. An Iraq where resources are no more squandered on large palaces and foolish wars will definitely help the entire region progress. All said and done someone will blink in this whole crisis, the writ of US is at stake here, don’t think that such a high stake game would end into a whimper because the globlalists thinks so, to establish the writ of a major power these hurdles need to be overlooked, I am sure that we will see a solution that may bring the change, I am sure that war is only a goal to remove Saddam if he is out, war is not a tool to punish Iraqis it is the very Iraqis who are going to be the biggest benefactor of present political brinkmanship in the region.