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: Sun Tzu who wrote (163448)	6/2/2005 4:33:44 PM
From: Nadine Carroll	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 281500

THAT is the whole point. You can't force freedom to people under gunpoint; you can only leave them free to make their own choices. As it stands the Kurds were left free (from Saddam and from others) to make their own choices. And despite their various ethnic conflicts, they learned to cooperate, build schools, hold elections, and police themselves. And they did not need a ton of experts to handhold them for a generation to make it happen. So why is it that this could not have been done for say southern Iraq? That's exactly what we did do. There was no Shia army to use; it had been massacred. So any arrangement that could be remotely described as "leaving the Iraqis free" required an invasion. You couldn't leave Saddam Hussein in power and expect people to be "left free". What an asinine statement. There is no evidence that Saddam's sons had half the talents of their father. There is no reason to believe they would have been able to control the military and the higher ranks. Sorry, Iraq observers don't agree. Uday was a psycopath, but Qusay was the smart one, and he headed the Special Republican Guards. There is certainly zero evidence that any opposing force existed in Iraq who could have toppled either Uday or Qusay. None. Like I said, the USSR fell after Stalin too, it just took 45 years. The US refusal to accept any alternatives, to unconditional surrender, including the removal and Hitler and Nazis, unnecessarily cost countless lives and possibly most of the Jews Got a link for your dubious history? How a negotiated settlement is supposed to have saved any Jews just defies all logic. Hitler wasn't commiting the Holocaust as a war effort, you know. In fact, the army often complained bitterly that he was diverting resources and turning populations hostile and generally making their lives more difficult.