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: h0db who wrote (121504)	12/14/2003 2:10:20 PM
From: Hawkmoon	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

Like much of the political geography of Africa, it's borders have little to do with terrain or ethnicity. The question is whether a multi-ethnic society is desirable for the purpose of preventing any particular ethnicity from seizing control over Iraq.. And what signal is being sent to other nationalist groups around the world, and even to our own country if we choose to divide Iraq, or any country, along ethnic lines. Sure, it might be "convenient" from the perspective of diminishing ethnic tensions. But isn't that no different than erecting political "walls" little different to the physical ones that Israel is erecting? Being an American, I'm not a big fan of carving up the world along ethnic lines.. I'm far more inclined to create the political, legal, and economic systems that encourage and reward people for tolerance and cooperation with one another. Hawk

To: h0db who wrote (121504)	12/14/2003 2:11:08 PM
From: Eashoa' M'sheekha	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

" I'm glad to see Saddam pulled from his rat hole. ".. As are most,however,is America in contradiction of the Geneva Convention on Prisoners Of War by parading him on every American news channel ? unhchr.ch This question will be asked once the jubilation dies down. I ask it here now. KC

To: h0db who wrote (121504)	12/14/2003 9:09:57 PM
From: Bilow	Read Replies (4) \| Respond to of 281500

Hi h0db; Re: " Saddam is never coming back, ..." Well if we executed him this would be true, but note that the death penalty has just been outlawed in Iraq. It is traditional to exile or kill ex dictators for a reason. Keeping them alive in their home country is dangerous. Re: "... and the Sunni resistance will likely decline." Not a chance. The majority of the Sunni resistance was not fighting for Saddam. In a heartbeat, they change their chant from "hearts and souls to you, Saddam", to "hearts and souls to you, Iraq", or whatever. It was the fond hope of the Germans that the death of Roosevelt would end the US participation in WW2. The problem was that the war was wildly popular in the US. Similarly, in Iraq, the resistance is wildly popular, far more popular than Saddam ever was. If anything, convincing the Iraqi people that Saddam is no longer a threat reduces the attraction of coalition forces to them. As long as Saddam was a realistic threat, there were plenty of Iraqis who wanted the coalition forces to remain in Iraq. With Saddam retired, those Iraqis will look at the current situation and wonder whether they can run their own affairs better (for them) than the US does. Since US efforts have been famously poor, their answers to this question will mostly be that they want a chance to run their own country. As Bush refuses to hand power over to the Iraqis, more and more of them will not just passively assist the resistance (by not turning in the guerillas), but turn to actively assisting the resistance. The whole hoopla is based on the assumption that the Iraqi people are forced to choose between Bush or Saddam. To some extent, this is true, but the absence of Saddam only makes Bush look that much worse. What they will want now (and have repeatedly stated in polling) will be some third alternative, neither Bush (in the form of US teenagers with guns) nor Saddam. -- Carl