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: Bilow who wrote (100736)	6/8/2003 6:17:37 PM
From: Jacob Snyder	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 281500

<Probably the major problem is that Indian troops would piss off the Iraqis more than US ones, if their actions in Kashmir are any guide.> India, run by militant Hindu nationalists, who abet pogroms against Muslims, and raze mosques. And have been waging war against Muslims for decades, in Kashmir. Why did anybody think it would be a good idea, having their soldiers patrol the streets of Baghdad? If we wanted to make this work, what we need is soldiers from Muslim nations. Best of all would be soldiers who also spoke Arabic. All those Arab and Muslim nations who say they are on our side, in the WarOnTerror, why can't we get any of them to send troops to Iraq? Nations like Saudi Arabia and Morrocco and Indonesia, who Al Queda has recently bombed. Why won't they help us? The reason is, 99% of their population would be against it, they think our war was just a colonialist war to grab oil and further Israel's interests, they think this had nothing to do with Al Queda. They see a disaster in the making, and they want no part of it. It ought to give us pause, it ought to be a big "red flag", that we can't get any Muslim nations to send troops.