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 : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Alighieri who wrote (163833)	3/11/2003 10:43:08 AM
From: hmaly	Respond to of 1573927

Al RE..Isn't clear to you that this is not true in the case of military action? No, in fact the words serious consequences would definitely include war. What kind of consequences, more serious than war, are there? Friedman theorizes that it is because countries like SA and Egypt, who are quite repressive regimes also, are propped up by the US for reasons of convenience and they a cauldron if Islamic fundamentalism (unlike Iraq which is a secular nation, where there actually is freedom of religion). Then why is Friedman calling for the overthrow of Saddam? Yes the repressive regimes in Sa and Egypt are a problem, but Iraq is the central key to solving those problems. If Iraq goes democratic, the rest could very well go also. Egypt depends upon US food and aid, and is more amendable. SA has already introduced democratizing laws into its parliament. Give it some times. Saddam has already had 25 yrs, and his sons look ready to take over where Saddam leaves off. Time to end it.