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: RMF who wrote (199007)	8/24/2006 2:19:02 AM
From: Hawkmoon	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

Hawk, the "viable opposition groups" haven't done too well in Iraq and Iraq was one of the most secular countries in the Middle East. Secular? Is that why Saddam put "All Akhbar" on the Iraqi flag after his defeat in Desert Storm? Is that why he was building the largest mosque in the Muslim world? In 1999 Saddam Hussein began construction of what was intended to be the largest mosque ever -- on a 100 acre site, as big as two football fields, 20 stories high, with 64 domes. globalsecurity.org The REALITY is that, after Desert Storm, Saddam was finding himself more and more dependent upon fostering religious support to maintain his base of power. The IIS was being "Islamicized" along the lines of what occurred with Pakistan's ISI. The IIS was developing increasing ties to Al Qai'da during the '90's. A large percentage of Al Qai'da in Iraq cell leaders we've captured, or killed, have had previous ties to Saddam's Iraqi Intelligence Service. Several were former bodyguards of Saddam and his family. Doesn't sound very "secular" to me... But I will concur that the Islamists were not yet powerful to rival Saddam's position. However, with his ouster, and the resulting vacuum of power, they saw their chance to press their Islamist agenda, primarily out of the Anbar province. You say you don't want to see another "Hamas situation". Well Hamas was DEMOCRATICALLY elected. And so was Adolf Hitler. So what's your point? IMO, NO POLITICAL PARTY should be permitted to run for election unless they swear loyalty to the democratic process, and the constitutional power that process is derived from. I consider Germany to be quite democratic, but they don't permit Nazis to stand for election, now do they? And if this is ultimately going to be the result in Iraq, then I'll be willing to wash my hands of the situation and lay the responsibility for the consequences on the backs of the Iraqi government, and its people. Hawk