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: GST who wrote (202878)	9/13/2006 6:29:56 PM
From: TimF	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

They do indeed have a choice, just not a very good one. Without our support the government might fall or if it doesn't it will lose any hope of controlling large portions of Iraq. Accepting immunity from Iraqi prosecution for American soldiers is a reasonable choice considering that situation. More generally such an acceptance is not evidence of a foreign army being an occupying power. It might be considered evidence of an unequal relationship, but that isn't the same thing. Even if the US did demand and impose something on the government of Iraq that doesn't make it other than the government of Iraq. Frequently more powerful governments make demands that are accepted by weaker governments, esp. if the weaker government relies on the more powerful government for support. We would only be the occupying power in Iraq if either there was no Iraqi government. (Which would include if there was a fake government that didn't make any decisions)