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 : Stockman Scott's Political Debate Porch -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: lurqer who wrote (36393)	1/26/2004 11:46:33 PM
From: sylvester80	Respond to of 89467

Thanks lurqer. They report tomorrow before open so let's hope that this new market for them makes them give a raised guidance going forward. Crossing fingers :)

To: lurqer who wrote (36393)	1/26/2004 11:57:58 PM
From: lurqer	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 89467

For over a year now, I've been following the Indian perspective on Iraq. First, Iraq is a lot closer to them. Secondly, because of Kashmir, they have strong opinions about Muslims. Thirdly, given their history, they are decidedly anti-colonial. Makes for an interesting mix. Here's an example. Selling Iraq a dummy The United States has decided to transfer Iraq’s sovereignty back to it by June 30. This is window-dressing. The US armed forces will continue to remain in the occupied country and Iraq’s economic assets will effectively be controlled by powerful American corporations. But that, at the moment, is not at the heart of the political debate. Iraq’s most influential Shia leader, the moderate Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani, insists that sovereignty be made over to a duly elected government. Apparently, his concern is that the majority Shias must not be denied their due share of power, as happened in the era of Saddam Hussein. But the US has other ideas. Washington prefers to hand power back to an interim government composed of a national assembly derived from caucuses selected by US appointees. This assembly is to draft a constitution under which regular elections are to be held in 2005. Clearly, this rigmarole is meant to ensure that Iraqis supporting the US will remain in harness. In defence of its stand, the US argues that the security situation does not admit of normal elections by June 30. This is quite right. But America does not say why it has chosen the June date. There can be little doubt that the pull-out schedule has been determined by the timing of the US presidential election. Clearly, President George W. Bush desires to go to the country with the certificate of ‘mission accomplished’ as far as Iraq goes, even though the issue of the pacification of Afghanistan and the whereabouts of Osama bin Laden continue to baffle the Americans. In all fairness, the date for US withdrawal should be pushed back if necessary to allow for genuine preparations for as normal a democratic election as is possible in the circumstances. hindustantimes.com lurqer