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: GST who wrote (125621)	3/4/2004 9:30:35 PM
From: Nadine Carroll	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

Give up all economic and political control to the UN now and to Iraqis by the end of the year -- understanding that civil and regional war are definite possibilities if we do. So giving it to the UN is best, even though it makes the chance of a disastrous civil war go UP? Interesting set of priorities you are showing there. The welfare of the Iraqis does not seem to rank very high on your list, either.

To: GST who wrote (125621)	3/5/2004 2:52:42 PM
From: Hawkmoon	Respond to of 281500

5) Hold elections in Iraq by the end of the year -- do not allow voting from outside Iraq (only people residing in Iraq should vote). No duh GST!!! I thought that was the plan, if possible to do so... We all want elections in Iraq, IMO.. But do you advocate holding an election even if the security situation creates intimidation and a lack of viable candidates? And is your end of the year requirement hard and fast, with no flexibility? Overall, I don't see any difference between your view and the Bush admistration on this issue. 6) Give up all economic and political control to the UN now and to Iraqis by the end of the year -- understanding that civil and regional war are definite possibilities if we do. So you're willing to increase the risk of civil war, with the resultant massive casualties and destruction that would result, by trying to obtain some facade of "legitimacy" via an organization that ran away from Iraq the moment its headquarters were bombed? And won't the largest majority of troops have to be American, paid for by the US taxpayer, yet under the control us an organization legendary for its ineptitude and corruption in all matter related to Iraq? What credibility has the UN ever shown for being able to enforce stability and security in a country, without having to rely upon US forces to provide "muscle"? 7) Maintain a military presence so long as it is permitted by Iraq itself -- if the new Government says "leave" we must leave. If we are not asked to leave, we should plan to stay for five years and then we should leave. We should not have a permanent base in Iraq. I don't have a problem with this statement.. And I believe this does not differ from current Bush administration policy.. Of course, the Iraqi government has a major "carrot" being offered to in the form of reconstruction funds and technical expertise. The probable outcome from all of this? Many more deaths, some form of civil war, continued regional instability and an increase in terrorism. So.. your alternatives are those which would perpetuate the death and destruction, as well as providing fertile ground for terrorism?? And you think the American people should agree with such a policy? As for Iraqi children flying kites? Just read below: edition.cnn.com Hawk