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: Hawkmoon who wrote (171171)	9/22/2005 10:43:52 PM
From: neolib	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 281500

I agree that most people assumed it was more work than just deposing Saddam. The unfortunate problem is that the effort to depose him was the only well thought out part. But certainly many of the thinkers behind the war clearly thought a shining example of democracy could emerge, and I suspect they thought it probable, else they have some explaining to do. Regarding Saddam in a decade, I suspect his natural demise would have seen great turmoil in Iraq as well. He is getting along in years and health issues. Given the fact that he executed high ranking officials within his government, and swatted Shiite & Kurd when allowed by the USA, why do you think he would have trouble with "powerful" tribal leaders? And they don't like it. Not one bit.. They don't like having Foreign Fighters in their country any more than they like US forces here. But given a preference, I can almost guarantee you that they prefer the US and coalition forces over being occupied by Zarqawi and his QJBR (Al Qai'da in Iraq) foreign fighters. That is the difficult part for me and most Americans to gage. The US military has routinely described the insurgents as largely foreign fighters, yet there are periodic admissions that that is not so. There is no firm data that I can trust giving a clear picture. It's a bit hard to believe that foreigners can take over Iraq in the relatively small numbers compared to the arms available to Iraqi's. It does not add up. The only way that Iraq can be taken over by the Jihadists is if the Iraqis themselves contribute very strongly to the cause. I saw the same thing in Rhodesia. Many blacks liked the white government since it provided peace and prosperity relative to the neighboring black countries. But they also rankled under the racial sting of minority rule. People universally don't like external values forced on them. That is the number one problem for the west in Iraq.

To: Hawkmoon who wrote (171171)	9/23/2005 2:38:51 PM
From: Don Hurst	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 281500

>>"IMO, it would have been no longer than 5-10 years before Saddam found himself fighting a similiar insurgency led by Islamic militants."<< I'll be damned...All we had to do was wait! >>"And they don't like it. Not one bit.. They don't like having Foreign Fighters in their country any more than they like US forces here. But given a preference, I can almost guarantee you that they prefer the US and coalition forces over being occupied by Zarqawi and his QJBR (Al Qai'da in Iraq) foreign fighters."<< Amazing...94% of the "Foreign Fighters" are Iraqi. Last time I checked 100% of the Brits and US forces in Iraq were "Foreign Fighters". BTW, are you fluent in Arabic? You seem to think you have some insight into the "soul" of the Iraqis. Based on your past posts you have been wrong about everything in Iraq.