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.

Technology Stocks : Amazon.com, Inc. (AMZN) -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: re3 who wrote (156664)	4/28/2003 12:37:08 PM
From: Oeconomicus	Respond to of 164684

What's different? Well, for starters, Saddam obviously had a much tighter grip on Iraq than the Shah had on Iran - otherwise opposition could have organized against him like it did against the Shah (unless you are suggesting the Iraqis really liked Saddam and had no desire to overthrow him, in which case I'm wasting my time talking to you;-). Second, we, along with our allies, propped up the Shah when his people obviously opposed him and wanted him gone. Other than long-ago mistaken "the enemy of our enemy is our friend" policies, we have not supported Saddam (though some of our supposed allies sure have). Anyway, the circumstances of Saddam and the Shah's reign and overthrow are significantly different and Iran's internally-driven revolution doesn't remotely resemble either how Saddam was removed or even the nature of internal opposition to him. As for Iran, have you not heard that the people of Iran have been clamoring for greater freedom, more democratic government and less theocratic authoritarianism for at least the last decade and that they've made considerable headway? The theocratic dictatorship of a handful of clerics is on the way out in Iran (it's half-way gone already) - there is no reason to think the Iraqis want to recreate it in their country.

To: re3 who wrote (156664)	4/28/2003 1:01:49 PM
From: Oeconomicus	Respond to of 164684

Interesting twist: At the latest meeting of Iraq's potential leaders of the future, clear divisions emerged over Washington's role in the interim period ahead of planned elections. Many former exiles said Iraqis should rule their country alone and the United States should have only a limited role. Other Iraqis who had not left said they wanted more U.S. supervision because they did not trust those who returned after Saddam's fall. "There are differences over the role of the Americans. We here prefer the Americans to rule us in the interim period," said Suheil al-Suheil, a Baghdad lawyer. "We are not ready to handle this yet. Saddam's orphans are still alive." story.news.yahoo.com