SI
SI
discoversearch

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.
Strategies & Market Trends : 2026 TeoTwawKi ... 2032 Darkest Interregnum -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: Brumar89 who wrote (15918)3/24/2007 10:01:04 PM
From: Maurice Winn  Respond to of 218617
 
TJ is not interested in such minor details <The British presence in Iraq is sanctioned by the UN and Iraq's elected government. > and considers Saddam's gang to be a more legitimate government because Saddam was the government and whoever kills their way to the top is the legitimate government, which seems to imply that the current government is the legitimate government. Not that they are doing a very good job, or even a poor job, of governing.

I doubt that they are even enforcing seat beat laws and don't seem to have banned fireworks as they have done in New Zealand's great democracy of freedom and fun. NZ could send them our Resource Management Act, royalty free, to enhance their governance.

Iraqis do seem to have the right to bear arms, which the NRA thinks is an excellent idea, and I imagine the USA is battling to ensure that Iraqi citizens retain that right.

Mqurice



To: Brumar89 who wrote (15918)3/24/2007 10:06:33 PM
From: TobagoJack  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 218617
 
the british presence in iraq is slightly more sanctioned than the one time iraqi presence in kuwait

until it is no longer sanction

and by the action on the ground, and british turning tail, the sanctioned is coming to an end