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: cnyndwllr who wrote (184560)	4/4/2006 1:48:39 PM
From: michael97123	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

The steamroller is that of a minority of iraqis but if iraqis cant stand in the way and fight back, i dont see why we should either. For me they have days/weeks and not months/years to do this. The PM contreversy is the key one for me. BTW, you are very cavalier about "developing the wisdom, courage and patience to absorb painful, non-state delivered blows..." You consider 9/11 to be the above? Are you really convinced that non-state delivered terror attacks are anything different than state delivered and that in order to deter such attacks we should be able to deliver a crushing blow? I think you are the one confusing apples and oranges here.

To: cnyndwllr who wrote (184560)	4/4/2006 4:46:36 PM
From: Maurice Winn	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

<We need to get out of Iraq and use diplomacy to salvage something, anything, from the debacle we've created with our occupation.> How about putting Saddam back in charge, after all, he is still the legitimate president? The UN resolution allowing "other means" of enforcing WMD inspections didn't say he isn't allowed to be president. That should settle the crowds down. Say, "We accept that Iraqis don't want us here - we have not been garlanded with flowers and joy. So, we are putting Saddam back in his palace and funding his restructuring of the military and police services to re-establish stability. Come to think of it, Iran is a threat with their nuclear bomb ambitions and Saddam has agreed to help us investigate the facilities in Iran. Saddam has learned the error of his ways and has agree to stop funding terrorism in Israel and elsewhere." Uday and Qusay can't get their old jobs back. So that's good. Uday was especially nasty. There weren't any WMDs and that was what the invasion was about, and the UN resolutions [so they say]. So, let's let bygones be bygones. USA and Saddam would make an excellent tag team in the area. Iraq's oil could get pumping. Iran would be checked. He could have a couple of palaces back and the UN could have a constitutional conference in a couple of others to reform into a NUN. Iraq was the cradle of civilisation and it could be again. I'm sure Saddam would like to host the NUN. He could be a big cheese. The USA would end the mess in Iraq. It was fairly stable before the invasion and with USA support for Saddam and some constitutional changes for Kurdistan and Shite representation in parliament, I'm sure things could be hunky dory all around. <Fighting for the freedom to live the way we want is admirable. Fighting to force other people to live the way we think they should want to live is folly? arrogance? ignorance? irony? ( )...you choose.> I think that would come under the heading, megalomania. Mqurice PS: I don't really think giving Saddam his old job back would be the best solution. I'd say an outright annexation to the NUN might be reasonable. The oil could fund Iraq's reconstruction and NUN development. Kuwait could be annexed too [after all, they were defeated by Saddam and the oil should be shared among more people than a few rich Kuwaitis]. The UN won both Iraq and Kuwait and good old right of conquest seems to be the order of the day in the region.