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: Nadine Carroll who wrote (120700)	11/30/2003 8:40:15 AM
From: GST	Respond to of 281500

No Nadine, the US wanted to keep control over the whole process from day one which is why other countries via the UN agreed en masse to have as little as possible to do with the invasion and occupation. The UN would not, for example, agree to organize the process to make sure that Chalabi is installed as head of state. If left to the Iraqis, Chalabi has no chance. That is why the Shiites want actual elections -- they would most likely form the majority of the government. The UN would also not permit the US to build permanent military bases from which the US can make new threats to other countries in the region. Finally, the UN would be harder to persuade to channel contracts to the "right people", and could negate contracts imposed by the US occupation.