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 (180966)	1/29/2006 11:12:56 PM
From: Hawkmoon	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 281500

If the Iraqis want a democracy, they should lead the fight to obtain it. Hello??!!! What more do you need to see to be convinced?? Iraqis are lining up day after day to join the army and the police, and are prime targets for suicide bombers for their efforts. There are over 150,000 Iraqis in uniformed service in Iraq. And yeah, some of them are more loyal to their tribes than they are to the central government. But overall, they are starting to take charge of providing the security of their country while US forces stay in their encampments, or provide security in areas still not fully secured by local security forces. So what the HELL do you want to see?? Better yet.. Let me ask you another serious question. Would the American rebels against the British empire have succeeded without the help of the French Monarchy at the time?? They wouldn't have stood a friggin' chance!!! But does that mean we should "applaud" the altruism of the French King? Hell no. He wanted to "stick it" to the British King, and thought there was a slim chance that they could later retrieve some of the territory France had lost in the French-Indian wars. France CERTAINLY WAS NOT interested in creating a democracy, nor in firing the revolutionary "pandora's box" that later resulted in their own downfall. And the similar situation is that France maintained their troops in the colonies until they realized they were no longer required, over a year after Yorktown, and left. americanrevolution.org And I believe this is the same thing WE should do, the very minute the Iraqi government ASKS us to leave. This is the agreement we reached with the Iraqi government, and this is what we should abide by. And we CERTAINLY should stay until we're assured that Iran and Syria have ceased to be an effective force in destabilizing Iraq. After all, how can our presence be considered any more illegal than that of THEIR intelligence officers?? Hawk

To: Bilow who wrote (180966)	1/30/2006 12:29:33 AM
From: one_less	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 281500

"...any more than refraining from stealing candy from a baby is "perpetuating bad dental hygiene". If it's not your baby, keep your hands off it." Bad analogy. The more accurate analogy would be refraining from getting involved when you see a defensless child being repeatedly and brutally beaten and raped by a despotic and tyranical power. ... then claiming "they should lead the fight to against it. The Iraqies were helpless to speak up or fight against Saddams despotic tyranny. Have you forgotten the 100% approval vote he got just before the invasion? It is a simple fact that autonomous self rule by the people of Iraq is the only effective defense against the possibility of some other powerful regime simply replacing Saddam's. It is also a simple fact that they were helpless to initiate it or to bring that about on their own, against the power of Saddam's regime and like minded wannabees.