From: Adam <""4thwormcastfromthemolehill\"{at}the field.near
the bridge">

Mark wrote:
> Well, maybe it won't work out in the long run. Cutting and running now well
> help ensure that outcome in a shorter term.
>

Shrug. I'm not sure it will make that much difference as the main problem
is simply one of a continuing power vacuum caused in part by the main
levers of power being held by an outside political grouping (in the US).

It's what makes me laugh in a dark fashion when I hear the US (& to a
degree UK) pols decrying "outside interference" in Iraq.

e.g. an Iraq which can defend it's sovereignty is one which can defend it
against all inc the US & do you really want that?




Adam


> "Adam" <""4thwormcastfromthemolehill\"{at}the
field.near the bridge"> wrote in
> message news:45ca0349{at}w3.nls.net...
>> Mark wrote:
>>> "John Cuccia"  wrote in message
>>> news:hkqjs2tur9vmkjoougeopsgf16ubkfm0sn{at}4ax.com...
>>>> On Mon, 5 Feb 2007 17:36:54 -0500, "Mark"
 wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> "John Cuccia" 
wrote :Are you willing yet to
>>>>> describe
>>>>> what you feel
>>>>>> would be a desirable outcome of our invasion of
Iraq?  You've said for
>>>>>> years that things "have to" work out
there, without once defining
>>>>>> what that means.
>>>>> The basics are already in place.
>>>> The basics for what?  That's what I'd like to know, and that's what
>>>> you haven't been able to answer.
>>> The basics for a democratic government:
>> We left Iraq in the 50'es as a democratic constitutional monarchy,
>> Zimbabwe, Burma, Pakistan, Fiji etc as  democratic republics etc.
>>
>> In fact let's not look at how many African countries were left as
>> democracies & then......
>>
>> What we have managed to do is to train an Iraqi mil with a keen interest
>> in power & internal security which is not usually a positive factor.
>>
>> Adam
>
>

--- BBBS/NT v4.01 Flag-5