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 (134045)	5/23/2004 10:18:43 AM
From: Sarmad Y. Hermiz	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 281500

>> "Only, they weren't confident the country would get behind such a riverboat gamble. So they lied about what they were doing. They didn't trust the people -- which might be an epitaph we should return to." << What I think is most tragic about this invasion of Iraq, is that 1- it should have been based only on the violations of human rights of the Saddam gang. There were unsc resolutions authorizing force for that purpose. and 2- it should have been done by Iraqi's with assistance from the US. And if there were not enough Iraqi's who wanted to risk toppling Saddam, then it is obvious, it shouldn't be started. The reason the US could never get support from Iraqi nationalists is that the US was obviously telling flagrant lies about wmd's which did not exist. So its purpose was very suspect. How can a patriotic person in Iraq support a foreign invasion whose purpose is to destroy its defensive capability ? And how can this supporter of the invasion not be considered a traitor ? If it was really true that the Shiia in the south were that anxious to establish democracy, then the mere presence of a large US army in Kuwait, just over the border, could help them in starting a foothold, and expanding it north. Until they reached Baghdad. Similarly, there was a large anti Saddam region in the north - the Kurdish areas. Which could have crept south by slowly adding cities like Kirkuk, sulaymania, Irbil, Mosul. Until it reached Bagdad. If the anti-Saddam forces could show that life improved with their leadership and assistance from the US, they would acquire support. Again, that plan would work only if a large number of Iraqi's would risk their life in freeing the country from Saddam. But if that core of Iraqi's was missing, then nothing the US could do would work. Yes, there would be a war between pro-Saddam and anti-Saddam Iraqi's. But that would be better than a war between pro-US and anti-US Iraqi's. A nationalist citizen in Iraq could be anti-Saddam, and still be very much a patriot. How the hell can an Iraqi person be a collaberator with the US and still be a patriot ? Now it is obvious the only mission the US soldiers have in remaining in Iraq is to protect THEMSELVES from attack. Their number one goal is to finish their time and go home in one piece. All the other solgans have been dumped in the garbage. Sarmad