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 : Israel to U.S. : Now Deal with Syria and Iran -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Emile Vidrine who wrote (9517)	12/17/2005 1:53:55 PM
From: sea_urchin	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 22250

Emile > Iraqis support attacks on U.S. & British troops ... a secret military poll commissioned by senior officers has revealed. I always search for the original reference when the poster has not included a link to it. Interestingly, I couldn't get it on google but did find a link on yahoo. iwtnews.com >>Less than 1 percent believed that the forces were responsible for any improvement in security, and 82 per cent say they are "strongly opposed" to the presence of coalition troops.<< And who can blame them? The so-called "security" forces are not in Iraq to bring security to the Iraqis but to enable the theft of the land and the oil, establish US military bases and promote chaos by upsetting the established order. The campaign has not been a complete disaster, however. There is enough chaos, there are US bases and the oil companies have made a fortune. Maybe a benefit (to the Iraqis) will turn out to be the removal of Saddam but I very much doubt that any truly democratically elected Iraqi government will be sympathetic to the US? I won't even mention Israel. And I'm sure the Iraqis won't rest until every American has been pushed off Iraqi soil, bases and all. The irony and the unexpected consequence of their rash act will be that one day the Americans will regret removing Saddam because, notwithstanding what he did to his own people, he was very fond of the US and would have done anything to please America, especially in the days leading up to the invasion.

To: Emile Vidrine who wrote (9517)	12/21/2005 10:20:04 AM
From: sea_urchin	Respond to of 22250

Emile > The Sunday Telegraph disclosed last month that a plan for an early withdrawal of British troops had been shelved because of the failing security situation, sparking claims that Iraq was rapidly becoming "Britain's own Vietnam". news.independent.co.uk >>The election marks the final shipwreck of American and British hopes of establishing a pro-Western secular democracy in a united Iraq. Islamic fundamentalist movements are ever more powerful in both the Sunni and Shia communities. Ghassan Attiyah, an Iraqi commentator, said: "In two and a half years Bush has succeeded in creating two new Talibans in Iraq." The success of the United Iraqi Alliance, the coalition of Shia religious parties, has been far greater than expected according to preliminary results. It won 58 per cent of the vote in Baghdad, while Iyad Allawi, the former prime minister strongly supported by Tony Blair, got only 14 per cent of the vote. In Basra, Iraq's second city, 77 per cent of voters supported the Alliance and only 11 per cent Mr Allawi. The election was portrayed by President George Bush as a sign of success for US policies in Iraq but, in fact, means the triumph of America's enemies inside and outside the country. Iran will be pleased that the Shia religious parties which it has supported, have become the strongest political force. Ironically, Mr Bush is increasingly dependent within Iraq on the co-operation and restraint of the Iranian President, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, who has repeatedly called for the eradication of Israel. It is the allies of the Iranian theocracy who are growing in influence by the day and have triumphed in the election. The US will fear that development greatly as it constantly reminds the world of Iran's nuclear ambitions.<<