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 (130398)	4/29/2004 8:31:55 AM
From: Harvey Allen	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

"What the Americans and the Iraqi Governing Council can't understand is that this is a revolution," said Sheik Anwar Hamed, a Shi'ite from Sadr City, but who is not a follower of Muqtada, in an interview. "Everyone is involved. Those who can't fight will give money. Those who can't give money will give medicine. Those who can't give medicine will give food. Those who can't give food will give blood," he explained, adding that this is not just about Muqtada now. The resistance, he says, has no chain of command, has no organizational structure, and has no recruitment process because everyone can join just by fighting back. "We are on a war footing now," conceded a senior military official in Baghdad. Indeed, the US is now confronting the most serious challenge yet to the occupation. This, says the Los Angeles Times, could well be the second war on Iraq - the only way to hang on for a day longer, in order to stay as long as is necessary. The first war, against Saddam, was a war of choice, an easy one because the former dictator had no popular support. Now, it is a war of necessity, and it could prove to be more difficult because, this time, it is a war against the Iraqi people. For Iraqis, it also seems like this could well be the war of liberation which the United States had always promised them. atimes.com

To: Bilow who wrote (130398)	4/29/2004 10:07:15 AM
From: Hawkmoon	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 281500

Your "guess" avoids the simple fact that the show of force put on by the "ideological terrorists" is far more effective than the show of force that the United States can put on, at least in terms of its effect on the "non-ideological" people. Of course it is.. when we permit these groups to continue intimidating the average Iraqi into non-cooperation. Listen Carl... we're playing by rules the bad guys feel no need to follow. Let me relay a story an associate was telling me. He's from the mid-east originally and was accompanying the military during the invasion of Iraq assisting in translation. They had captured and were interrogating this Iraqi prisoner who they KNEW was involved in guerilla activities. The guy wouldn't tell the Americans anything because he understood that we had rules against abusing prisoners.. So this guy goes in and flat out tells him.. "Look.. you can see I'm not an American. We have ALL the evidence we need to prove your activities.. Now if you don't talk, I'll beat the crap out of you..." The guy started talking... Because he knew the guy was serious and not held to the same standards of conduct the Americans were.. So part of my solution is that it's all well and good that the Americans and Brits play "good guy".. But we'd better be more than willing to turn it over to Arabs, when necessary, to create the kind of order and security that some of these people will respect (or at least fear). And those that have no desire to moderate their violent agendas? They must be eliminated or detained and segregated until their attitudes change.. What this is going to take is empowering moderate Arabs to have the courage to wage both a battle of ideals, as well as the physical struggle, with their own militant factions. Hawk