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 : PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: GROUND ZERO™ who wrote (756658)	12/31/2006 7:55:20 PM
From: JDN	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 769670

I dont even agree that all Iraqi's are incapable of Democracy. The Kurds seem very capable. There are MANY cities in Iraq that are doing just fine. We just hear of the bad ones, mainly in Baghdad and surrounding area. jdn

To: GROUND ZERO™ who wrote (756658)	1/1/2007 4:46:10 PM
From: DuckTapeSunroof	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 769670

"the 19 conditions of the U.N. 1991 Peace Accord Agreement is the primary reason for our going into that country and removing him from power." Perhaps. Still... I don't see any similar great desire to move against Israel <G>, and they currently hold the record for # of 'UN Resolutions' to be in breach of.... (So, personally, I don't think that a sudden inexplicable desire on our part to 'enforce UN resolutions' was the primary motivation for our war in Iraq --- especially considering that so 2/3 of the country had been under no-fly zones and debilitating economic sanctions had Saddam well and truly hemmed in, and his military [& certainly WMD potential] decaying. No, I think it's far more likely that the 'UN resolution' thing was employed AFTER-THE-FACT as a justification for decisions already made....) "... That wasn't personal, that was business we had to do. All we did was to enforce the U.N. Agreement," And yet, somehow, the UN never asked the U.S. to do that. :-) Hey, face it... after 9-11 we would have had GREAT DIFFICULTIES attacking (or benefiting from an attack on) the guilty parties: Pakistan has nuclear weapons and is very densely populated... while we need Saudi Arabia's OIL far too much (not to mention Mecca....) Iraq, on the other-hand, was viewed by the neo-cons as LOW-HANGING FRUIT. EASY to PLUCK! And strategically located with the largest un-tapped oil reserves (after Saudi Arabia) in the entire Middle East... with very low costs per barrel! (And, it certainly WAS EASY to defeat militarily... although the second part of the neo-con 'plan' --- using Iraqi bases as a launch pad to destabilize Iran... has FOUNDERED rather disasterously on certain realities of the Iraqi condition and people. Namely: once we de-Bathified and de-Sunnified the government, that put the Shiite majority into power after centuries of being downtrodden. And, while they may have a lust for vengeance upon the Sunni... they have no such desire to attack their co-religionist Shiites in Iran. :-)