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: Keith Feral who wrote (168546)	8/9/2005 8:35:03 PM
From: epicure	Respond to of 281500

Iraq was a fractured state to begin with- which was one reason why Saddam was so ruthless in controlling his country. Now someone else will have to be ruthless, or the whole thing is going to fall apart. Unfortunately the next period of ruthlessness will be directly traceable to the US. But for our interference Saddam could be sitting there keeping it together, and that wasn't our fault. What happens next will be. People only "need" to be protected from religious intolerance, if their state agrees that such protection is worthwhile. Many countries are religious states- by your reasoning none of these countries have a "right" to be that way if they are intolerant. Who made you the arbiter of rights for all countries? "I don't think it would be wise to encourage any more upheaval in the ME" You're joking right? By invading we did it. By encouraging "reform" we're doing it. And we're not going to like the kind of "reform" that is likely to come about. The Kurds were constantly staging revolutions. That's why Saddam really didn't control Kurdish territory.