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: Bilow who wrote (180922)	1/29/2006 8:28:46 PM
From: Hawkmoon	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

No, but Saddam kept them under control. Or was he controlling them by permitting them to use Iraq to support overseas and regional terrorism?? The reason I ask is because the FRE and "Return Party" Ba'thist seem VERY COZY with Al Qai'da in Iraq. A large majority of their low to mid level leadership, as of last year, seem to all have had previous experience in the Fidayin Saddam, Iraqi Intelligence Service, Special Republican Guard, and Special Security Organization... But of course, you would find it odd that the hard core members of a supposedly secular Ba'thist regime now have suddenly turned themselves into the very Jihadists they were previously suppressing... Nothing strange about that, right?? The simple fact is that Osama bin Laden wasn't staying in Iraq. The simple fact for 13 years was that certain members of the United Nations were collaborating with Iraq to circumvent compliance with UNSC binding resolutions. And even after they unanimously agreed that Iraq was in material breach of a cease fire and disarmament obligation, France, Russia, and China were willing to compromise THEIR OBLIGATION to uphold international law by placing their own economic relations with Saddam's government ahead of their responsibilities as permanent members of the UNSC. Maybe with the election of Hamas in Palestine your eyes are opened but I doubt it. So let me guess.. You're one of those who prefer perpetuating dictatorships and monarchies because you believe Arabs and other Muslims are incapable of democratic institutions.. Isn't this the SAME POLICY the US is accused of having pursued for the past 40 years since decolonization of the region?? The problem with the Palestinian elections is that there were few credible alternatives to Fatah, so they chose Hamas, IMO. I might be wrong and we'll have to wait and see, but I believe Hamas is going to find that winning an election, and actually being able to rule and govern, are going to be two very separte things. And I believe the Palestinian people, when they see their economic conditions worsen because the Western Nations no longer are willing to subsidize the terrorist government they elected, will find it in themselves to call for a new government, or rise in insurrection. Hamas, on the other hand, is in an awkward position. They know they lack the means to provide security when all 58,000 of the PA's police are Fatah members (and afraid of losing their jobs). They lack the financial means, or expertise, to operate an economy without access to Israeli markets. They may even see sympathy from other Arab governments dry up because few wish to support a Islamo-Fascist ideology. The next couple of months are truly going to be interesting in Palestine. Want me to quote you about what would happen in Iraq if we brought in free elections? They were pretty damn free Carl. Don't know where you've been, but 11 million people dipped their fingers in that inkwell after casting their ballots. And while there may have been local incidences of minor election fraud, they were certified by the UN as having been free and fair. Hawk