ritu wrote:


Well, Al Qaeda has been exhorting its members to reach Iraq and attack
the US forces for months now. The borders are porous enough, so it is
only a question of how obedient the cadres are.
If the US had found a few barrels of anthrax or some signs of an active
nuclear program or anything that might be even vaguely defined as a
'smoking gun', the world's reaction might have been different, more
troops might have been forthcoming and with tighter border control, less
of the international jihadis would have been able to slip into Iraq.

Furthermore, because the invasion is seen as unjustified, more people are likely inclined to take up arms against what they percieve as an occupying force.



It is worth noting that only democracy in the world where
both the Head of
Government and the Head of the Opposition are women is......
Bangladesh.

I am curious as to your explanation as to why Bangladesh is
more suited to
democracy than Iraq.

Perhaps because Bangladesh has been practicing for democracy since the Act of 1919, because by the time East Pakistan was formed in 1947, people had organised themselves into political parties, had selected their leaders, were used to voting? Perhaps because the establishment of the state of Bangladesh was a result of people wanting their democratic rights back and wanting to be rid of Yahya Khan's repression? Mukti Bahini was a Bangaladeshi/East Pakistani organisation, Bangladesh already had a democratic tradition and there was no problem in terms of people needing time to form parties and chose leaders.

And perhaps, with a population that is nearly 90% Sunni Muslum, Bangaladesh is a much more homogonous so


The problem in Iraq is not that the Iraqis are unsuited to democracy [I
don't think any people are unsuited for democracy] but simply that the
normal democratic processes had been suspended for decades. It ciety*is*
going to take time to get them back in motion again and instability
during the transitional period will not hurry up the process.

And again, why do you imagine that the average Iraqi is as
concerned about
the role of Halliburton in Iraq as you are?    That's almost
mind-bogglingly bizzare.

Not really all that bizarre. I would wager that Doug has been following the situation in Iraq and has been paying attention to the fact that not only the IGC but also the Iraqi businessmen and other Iraqis are busy criticising Halliburton's role in the reconstruction of Iraq.

I would think it beyond bizzare that a country would _not_ be interested in who is rebuilding their infrastructure. Cultural condescension even <G>. There's plenty of news coverage about Halliburton outside of the U.S. (http://english.aljazeera.net/english/DialogBox/BreakingNews.aspx).


--
Doug
_______________________________________________
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Reply via email to