News Changing Views on Iraq War: From Support to Opposition?

[sid_galt]

I previously have supported Bush on the Iraq War.

But if this happens
http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110007112

and Iraq becomes a theocracy as it seems likely, I think I will have to join the anti-war camp. This would mean that we didn't fight for principles of any kind in Iraq but for a theocracy which is nearly as bad as Saddam's Iraq.

Your thoughts?

 

[BobG]

Whether right-wing or left-wing, neocon or socialist, the worst politics you can engage in is doing something very badly. At least until very recently.

Somehow, Americans either came to the conclusion that it was impossible to do anything badly or that performance just didn't matter. The only thing that seems to matter is whether it's a Republican or a Democrat that's doing it.

 

[arildno]

Actually, I will start supporting the US involvement, if the US government has the balls to stamp out this troubling development.
What will Iraq else be in 5 years, if theocracy is introduced? A new Taliban state, like Afghanistan??
We know what sort of fellows that state used to shelter.

 

[TRCSF]

I think it's painfully obvious that we never fought for principles in Iraq from the beginning.

 

[arildno]

Whether right-wing or left-wing, neocon or socialist, the worst politics you can engage in is doing something very badly. At least until very recently.

Somehow, Americans either came to the conclusion that it was impossible to do anything badly or that performance just didn't matter. The only thing that seems to matter is whether it's a Republican or a Democrat that's doing it.

So very true!

 

[gurkhawarhorse]

saddam's iraq was cool.
gurkha-war-horse

 

[sid_galt]

saddam's iraq was cool.
gurkha-war-horse

I trust that was some sort of sarcasm

 

[gurkhawarhorse]

I cannot take this anymore
I'm saying everything I've said before
All these words they make no sense
I find bliss in ignorance
Less I hear the less you'll say
But you'll find that out anyway
Just like before...

Everything you say to me
Takes me one step closer to the edge
And I'm about to break
I need a little room to breathe
Cause I'm one step closer to the edge
And I'm about to break

I find the answers aren't so clear
Wish I could find a way to disappear
All these thoughts they make no sense
I find bliss in ignorance
Nothing seems to go away
Over and over again
Just like before...

Everything you say to me
Takes me one step closer to the edge
And I'm about to break
I need a little room to breathe
Cause I'm one step closer to the edge
And I'm about to break
Everything you say to me
Takes me one step closer to the edge
And I'm about to break
I need a little room to breathe
Cause I'm one step closer to the edge
And I'm about to break
Break break break break break

shut up when I'm talking to you
shut up shut up shut up
shut up when I'm talking to you
shut up shut up shut up shut up
I’m about to break

Everything you say to me
Takes me one step closer to the edge
And I'm about to break
I need a little room to breathe
Cause I'm one step closer to the edge
And I'm about to break
Everything you say to me
Takes me one step closer to the edge
And I'm about to break
I need a little room to breathe
Cause I'm one step closer to the edge
And I'm about to break
break
I need a little room to breathe
Cause I'm one step closer to the edge
And I'm about to break
Break break break break break break

shut up when I'm talking to you
shut up shut up shut up
shut up when I'm talking to you
shut up shut up shut up shut up
I’m about to break

Everything you say to me
Takes me one step closer to the edge
And I'm about to break
I need a little room to breathe
Cause I'm one step closer to the edge
And I'm about to break
Everything you say to me
Takes me one step closer to the edge
And I'm about to break
I need a little room to breathe
Cause I'm one step closer to the edge
And I'm about to break




linlin park
now wat u call this...?

gurkha-war-horse

 

[Smurf]

My thoughts? I never saw it coming!

 

[Smurf]

we didn't fight for principles of any kind in Iraq but

Who would've guessed!?

 

[SOS2008]

Actually, I will start supporting the US involvement, if the US government has the balls to stamp out this troubling development.
What will Iraq else be in 5 years, if theocracy is introduced? A new Taliban state, like Afghanistan??
We know what sort of fellows that state used to shelter.

Speaking of which the U.S. hasn't had much success in Afghanistan either. However, I wouldn't quite jump to the same conclusion about theocracy. In that there have been other countries where religion plays a large role in government, but I don't necessarily conclude it will result in terrorism. Personally I prefer the two to be very separate, more because of women's rights etc. In the end, a countries sovereignty is it's own, and if this is what they choose with their new freedom, is it not their choice?

 

[arildno]

They?
Who they?

 

[SOS2008]

They?
Who they?

Iraq as a country. How do you think things would evolve in Iraq if they had overthrown Saddam on their own? The U.S. went it's course, and we still have problems with unity, the rights of minorities, and so forth. So they will join the ranks of the many other countries who struggle to remain united, peaceful, economically viable, etc. Now the U.S. should work toward an international peace keeping effort (assuming other countries are willing to help now).

 

[The Smoking Man]

Speaking of which the U.S. hasn't had much success in Afghanistan either. However, I wouldn't quite jump to the same conclusion about theocracy. There have been other countries where religion plays a large role in government, however I don't necessarily conclude it will result in terrorism. Personally I prefer the two to be very separate, more because of women's rights etc. In the end, a countries sovereignty is it's own, and if this is what they choose with their new freedom, is it not their choice?

I always find it strange when Americans are reluctant to support a 'theocracy' when they took such a big role in the creation of Israel.

It seems such a 180 on their part.

Are they saying that Israel was a wrong idea too or just Moslem Theocracies?

 

[TRCSF]

I always find it strange when Americans are reluctant to support a 'theocracy' when they took such a big role in the creation of Israel.

It seems such a 180 on their part.

Are they saying that Israel was a wrong idea too or just Moslem Theocracies?

I also think that it's strange that America wants to spread a democracy by force until it becomes clear that the people in said democracy don't want what the Americans want.

 

[SOS2008]

I always find it strange when Americans are reluctant to support a 'theocracy' when they took such a big role in the creation of Israel.

It seems such a 180 on their part.

Are they saying that Israel was a wrong idea too or just Moslem Theocracies?

Or more to the point, the support of a theocracy here in the good old United States? A legitimate question to ask is will they be anti-American?

 

[Entropy]

Somehow, Americans either came to the conclusion that it was impossible to do anything badly or that performance just didn't matter. The only thing that seems to matter is whether it's a Republican or a Democrat that's doing it.

Thats good! I'm writing it down.

 

[Smurf]

One thing you should take into account sid, which you may or may not have, is that just because it's constitution involves a lot about Islam does not mean it will be undemocratic. You saw the number of people who showed up to the polls, they've got more support for democracy than the US does. The only thing that would be seriously changed is the lack of separation of church and state which is very much a western value from the renaissance period which we don't have the right to force onto iraq if they don't want that.

Besides, Saddam was secular. Obviously secularism isn't the most important part so at least they're democratic - and that's something.

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

One thing you should take into account sid, which you may or may not have, is that just because it's constitution involves a lot about Islam does not mean it will be undemocratic. You saw the number of people who showed up to the polls, they've got more support for democracy than the US does. The only thing that would be seriously changed is the lack of separation of church and state which is very much a western value from the renaissance period which we don't have the right to force onto iraq if they don't want that.

Besides, Saddam was secular. Obviously secularism isn't the most important part so at least they're democratic - and that's something.

I agree. If it's what they want then let them have it. I'm still concerned though over the possible loss of womens rights. As far as I have read though there is still quite a bit of opposition to the constitutional model that would take them away.

 

[sid_galt]

One thing you should take into account sid, which you may or may not have, is that just because it's constitution involves a lot about Islam does not mean it will be undemocratic.

Democracy is not an ivory tower ideal. Pure democracy is nothing but tyranny of the majority. That is why Constitutions are written. To put prevent violation of rights of the individual by the government whether the majority or a group of elites want to violate the rights of the minority.

 

[El Hombre Invisible]

In the end, a countries sovereignty is it's own...

... until the US chooses to remove it from them.

f this is what they choose with their new freedom, is it not their choice?

Who are 'they'? The Iraqi people? I assume that includes those loyal to Saddam. They didn't have much of a choice. Iraqi women? I doubt they are using their new freedom to relieve themselves of their new freedom.

I hardly see this as any justification whatsoever under the circumstances.

Now the last of The Big Three has fallen ('danger to American security' - strike, 'has illegal weapons of mass destruction' - strike, 'liberation of and peace for the Iraqi people'...). Who has benefited now?

 

[arildno]

are "they" Sunni's or Shi'ites?

 

[Skyhunter]

I previously have supported Bush on the Iraq War.

But if this happens
http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110007112

and Iraq becomes a theocracy as it seems likely, I think I will have to join the anti-war camp. This would mean that we didn't fight for principles of any kind in Iraq but for a theocracy which is nearly as bad as Saddam's Iraq.

Your thoughts?

I didn't even need glasses to see this one coming.

Saddams Iraq was not as bad as we have been led to believe. He was a ruthless dictator, but the reason he stayed in power was because he was also an effective leader. Iraq before desert storm was a modern, progressive, secular nation. And please, don't call me a Saddam supporter, I am just stating the obvious here.

 

[Smurf]

Democracy is not an ivory tower ideal. Pure democracy is nothing but tyranny of the majority. That is why Constitutions are written. To put prevent violation of rights of the individual by the government whether the majority or a group of elites want to violate the rights of the minority.

I'm confused. You want the country to guarantee human and civil rights, but you support the ousting a dictator that was pushing Iraq towards that goal. You support that because it wasn't a democracy, but now that there is a democracy you don't support it because they're not guaranteeing all the human and civil rights that you thought they would.

What did you expect? A mini-USA would just pop up?

 

[sid_galt]

You support that because it wasn't a democracy, but now that there is a democracy you don't support it because they're not guaranteeing all the human and civil rights that you thought they would.

I don't support democracies like Iraq where vote is used to determine the law or where vote is used to elect people who can write anything into the Constitution.

What did you expect? A mini-USA would just pop up?

No it wouldn't have just popped up. Bush should have from day 1 said that he wouldn't allow an elements of opression again into the system no matter in what form they come whether theocracy, democracy, etc.

 

[sid_galt]

Saddams Iraq was not as bad as we have been led to believe.

It was worse. Can you imagine living in a system where you knew you could be shot anytime on the arbitrary whims of one man?

He was a ruthless dictator, but the reason he stayed in power was because he was also an effective leader. Iraq before desert storm was a modern, progressive, secular nation.

Iraq may have been modern and progressive in technology. Philosophically it was barbaric.

 

[SOS2008]

Democracy is not an ivory tower ideal. Pure democracy is nothing but tyranny of the majority. That is why Constitutions are written. To put prevent violation of rights of the individual by the government whether the majority or a group of elites want to violate the rights of the minority.

Well said, and we are still working on this in the U.S.

Saddams Iraq was not as bad as we have been led to believe. He was a ruthless dictator, but the reason he stayed in power was because he was also an effective leader. Iraq before desert storm was a modern, progressive, secular nation. And please, don't call me a Saddam supporter, I am just stating the obvious here.

Agreed if for no other reason than he was able to keep the country from splitting apart. And though some infrastructure/oil production was not being well maintained (I'd like to know why this is the same case with refineries here in the U.S.), they had water, electricity, and people could go about their lives without fear of insurgent violence.

The Iraqi people voted, the Iraqi representatives are working on the constitution, and hopefully the next election will take place in a reasonable time frame. If all factions aren't included, if groups feel they aren't represented, there will probably be a civil war. Isn't this what anti-war people warned of from the beginning? But as I said above, a civil war would have been very likely if the Iraqi people had overthrown Saddam themselves. Then there probably will be another intervention, but hopefully an international peace-keeping effort.

Ultimately, I'm not as concerned about whether it is an Islamic theocracy, as I am whether they are anti-American. If this happens, the Bushies should be...suggestions?

 

[Skyhunter]

It was worse. Can you imagine living in a system where you knew you could be shot anytime on the arbitrary whims of one man?

I don't believe he had people shot dead on "arbitrary whims."

My point was that with the total decimation of the Iraqi infrastructure during desert storm, the sanctions through the 90's and the with current occupation, that the Iraqi people just might consider the Saddam years as good ones.

I really don't want to argue this, if you believe the Iraqi people are better off today than they were 15 years ago you are mistaken.

And to believe that we are there now for ideological reasons is ridiculous.

If this were the case why did the US support Saddam in the 80's?

Was he not a brutal dictator then as well?

The key members of this administration were involved then as well as now.

Iraq may have been modern and progressive in technology. Philosophically it was barbaric.

I am not sure what point you are making here. Having a good education system in your country to me is a philosophically sound principal, since the roots of philosophy stem from the first university.

 

[Smurf]

My point was that with the total decimation of the Iraqi infrastructure during desert storm, the sanctions through the 90's and the with current occupation, that the Iraqi people just might consider the Saddam years as good ones.

Oh was that what you meant. I was referring to the Early saddam years when the Ba'ath party was still influencing events and was indeed progressing towards a more

don't want to argue this, if you believe the Iraqi people are better off today than they were 15 years ago you are mistaken.

Well progress is progress, but are you sure you're right? I'm not sure if I agree with you, mostly because my time-knowledge is all off and I'm trying to figure out exactly what 15 years ago would've been like.

Was he not a brutal dictator then as well?

I don't know about the 80s, but I wouldn't call him "Brutal" in the 70s. Not sure if the US was supporting him then.

 

[Skyhunter]

Well progress is progress, but are you sure you're right? I'm not sure if I agree with you, mostly because my time-knowledge is all off and I'm trying to figure out exactly what 15 years ago would've been like.

The Iran Iraq war started in 1980.

I don't know about the 80s, but I wouldn't call him "Brutal" in the 70s. Not sure if the US was supporting him then.

Ruthless is probably a better description, and his regime became more and more so as he gained western support by invading Iran.

No, the US did not officially support Iraq before 1982.

Before 1980
Following the 1967 Arab-Israeli War Iraq severed diplomatic relations with the U.S. In late 1979 the State Department (SD) put Iraq on its list of States sponsoring groups categorized by the SD as "terrorist."[1]
1980
The U.S. Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA) asserted in a report that Iraq has been ‘actively acquiring’ Chemical Weapons [CW] capacities since the mid-1970s.[2]
1982
Despite intelligence reports that Iraq still sponsored groups on the SD's terrorist list, and "apparently without consulting Congress", the Reagan Administration removed Iraq from the State terrorism sponsorship list in 1982.[3] The removal made Iraq eligible for U.S. dual-use and military technology.[4]

 

[Informal Logic]

Ultimately, I'm not as concerned about whether it is an Islamic theocracy, as I am whether they are anti-American. If this happens, the Bushies should be...suggestions?

If Iraq becomes anti west/US, the Bushies should be:

1) Publicly ridiculed (tar and feathers maybe?)
2) Exiled
3) Imprisoned
4) Executed

Options 1-3 would allow for continued influence, and option 4 would probably make them into martyrs. So maybe the cutting out of tongues/hands, lobotomies, or insane asylums where they will never be seen or heard from again. Can we start with Jerry Falwell?

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

I really don't want to argue this, if you believe the Iraqi people are better off today than they were 15 years ago you are mistaken.

Funny enough Saddam officially came into power approximately 15 years ago. Only a coincidence I suppose.

Saddams Iraq was not as bad as we have been led to believe. He was a ruthless dictator, but the reason he stayed in power was because he was also an effective leader. Iraq before desert storm was a modern, progressive, secular nation. And please, don't call me a Saddam supporter, I am just stating the obvious here.

Do we need to be reminded of how Saddam made Iraq a unified progressive country? Gassing Kurds, destroying towns, taking away their water, holding guns to their heads while they vote him back in office... yup, what a wonderful world.

 

[Art]

If Iraq becomes anti west/US, the Bushies should be:

1) Publicly ridiculed (tar and feathers maybe?)
2) Exiled
3) Imprisoned
4) Executed

Options 1-3 would allow for continued influence, and option 4 would probably make them into martyrs. So maybe the cutting out of tongues/hands, lobotomies, or insane asylums where they will never be seen or heard from again. Can we start with Jerry Falwell?

I think the punishment should fit the crime so how about forcing them to live in an Islamist theocracy for 20 years or so?

 

[Smurf]

Funny enough Saddam officially came into power approximately 15 years ago. Only a coincidence I suppose.

Saddam formally succeeded in 79, but was already de facto ruler by mid 70s anyways.

Do we need to be reminded of how Saddam made Iraq a unified progressive country? Gassing Kurds, destroying towns, taking away their water, holding guns to their heads while they vote him back in office... yup, what a wonderful world.

Compulsory Free Education, Supporting families of soldiers, free hospitalization for everyone (including women), subsidies to farmers, built roads, promoted non-oil industries (so they didn't have a dependant economy), brought electricity to nearly every city in Iraq. UNESCO didn't give him an award for nothing.

Like it or not, genocide simply didn't happen until the US got involved.

 

[Skyhunter]

Funny enough Saddam officially came into power approximately 15 years ago. Only a coincidence I suppose.

July 16, 1979 he officially took over. However President Bakr was weak (sound like any current president you know?) and Saddam was the real power in the Baath party from 1975.

Do we need to be reminded of how Saddam made Iraq a unified progressive country? Gassing Kurds, destroying towns, taking away their water, holding guns to their heads while they vote him back in office... yup, what a wonderful world.

Like I said I don't want argue this point because he was a ruthless dictator who committed crimes against humanity. He was especially brutal to the Shia and Kurds. What he did to the wetlands in the Tigris Euphrates valley was unconscionable.

My point however is that the Iraqi people have suffered, and are suffering now because of US policies toward Iraq these past 15 years. I never said he was good for Iraq, I was just saying that as the horrors of the past fade, and stories are retold, the Iraqi people may begin to yearn for the old days when they had food, water, and electricity.

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

July 16, 1979 he officially took over. However President Bakr was weak (sound like any current president you know?) and Saddam was the real power in the Baath party from 1975.

Yes, he was cementing his position as the next leader of Iraq.

Like I said I don't want argue this point because he was a ruthless dictator who committed crimes against humanity. He was especially brutal to the Shia and Kurds. What he did to the wetlands in the Tigris Euphrates valley was unconscionable.

Why would you say that Saddam is not as bad as we have heard and then say you don't want to argue it?

My point however is that the Iraqi people have suffered, and are suffering now because of US policies toward Iraq these past 15 years. I never said he was good for Iraq, I was just saying that as the horrors of the past fade, and stories are retold, the Iraqi people may begin to yearn for the old days when they had food, water, and electricity.

Not just US policies. Several countries have exploited and abused Iraq.
Also there are plenty of people in this country that yearn for the old days when blacks and women had no rights. There's even, supposedly, a movement for an all out race war. Does that mean it was the wrong thing to do to give these people their rights? Does that mean that our country is any worse off now just because some people liked it better the way it was?

 

[Skyhunter]

Why would you say that Saddam is not as bad as we have heard and then say you don't want to argue it?

I said it because the media has only given us one side.

I don't want to argue it because it is like arguing for Saddam, and that leaves a bad taste in my mouth.

I admit that I don't really know what anyone here has heard, therefore my statement was inaccurate and I wish to retract it. I apologize to anyone I offended with my thoughtlessness.

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

I said it because the media has only given us one side.

I don't want to argue it because it is like arguing for Saddam, and that leaves a bad taste in my mouth.

I admit that I don't really know what anyone here has heard, therefore my statement was inaccurate and I wish to retract it. I apologize to anyone I offended with my thoughtlessness.

I'm not accusing you of arguing for Saddam. I made a similar argument once stating that we screwed Afghanistan by taking out the Taliban so I understand how you can make your argument while not necessarily supporting Saddam. I may pick apart your argument if I don't agree with it but that doesn't mean I'm not interested in hearing what you have to say.

And no need for apologies, I'm not offended.

 

[AntonioChrist]

Investing in Iraq

I previously have supported Bush on the Iraq War.

But if this happens
http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110007112

and Iraq becomes a theocracy as it seems likely, I think I will have to join the anti-war camp. This would mean that we didn't fight for principles of any kind in Iraq but for a theocracy which is nearly as bad as Saddam's Iraq.

Your thoughts?

Hi, i have a friend with some contacts and money who is under the assumption that taking his pounds and business from England to Iraq is a good idea. To further elaborate the form of investment, my friend would like to establish an investment broker firm to engage in further investment, in an attempt to gain property and use it for developmental purposes.

I, myself, do not know much about the finer points of investment however i do understand some basic concepts and i feel my friend is trying to hard to make an impossible dream of financial fruitation occur. Due to my lack of objective knowledge in Iraq and its trends and economic patterns, is there any resources or economic papers to support my friends prediction that this will be a functional and rewarding business to attain? or perhaps contrary indications? I do not want to disprove him, quite the opposite, but i am aware of money wastage and he may incurr more of it than he deserves.

Regards

A.Christ

 

[Smurf]

Waaay to high a risk. There's no saying what Iraq is going to do in the near future. They have somewhat of socialist past, they might nationalize all industry in a couple weeks. If I were him I'd let iraq set a precedent for it's self before I decide to invest there.

 

[Art]

Hi, i have a friend with some contacts and money who is under the assumption that taking his pounds and business from England to Iraq is a good idea. To further elaborate the form of investment, my friend would like to establish an investment broker firm to engage in further investment, in an attempt to gain property and use it for developmental purposes.

I, myself, do not know much about the finer points of investment however i do understand some basic concepts and i feel my friend is trying to hard to make an impossible dream of financial fruitation occur. Due to my lack of objective knowledge in Iraq and its trends and economic patterns, is there any resources or economic papers to support my friends prediction that this will be a functional and rewarding business to attain? or perhaps contrary indications? I do not want to disprove him, quite the opposite, but i am aware of money wastage and he may incurr more of it than he deserves.

Regards

A.Christ

The economy in the north of the country in the Kurdish controlled areas is currently thriving and the political situation is very stable. Property prices there are rocketing due to sky high demand with major construction projects everywhere. So perhaps your friend is correct in terms of an investment opportunity.

Kurds Seek Economic Lift-Off with New Airport

By: Seb Walker

June 2, 2004

SULAIMANIYA, (Southern Kurdistan) (Reuters) - Hidden behind hills on a highway leading to the Iraqi town of Sulaimaniya, a futuristic glass and steel building is nearing completion against the unlikely backdrop of the rolling Kurdish countryside.

The terminal is the first stage in a nearly $40-million project to build Iraqi Kurdistan’s first commercial airport out of the airfield that in 1988 sent Iraqi planes to drop chemical weapons on the Kurds of Halabja killing more than 4,000 people.

http://home.cogeco.ca/~kurdistan3/3-6-04-kurds-economic-lift-airport.htm

Economic success

Take the town of Suleimaniya. Its skyline is dotted with cranes. Everywhere you look bulldozers are at work.

We can go where we like when we like, which is not possible in Baghdad or elsewhere in Iraq.

"Things are booming. The price of land is ridiculous. It's just going up and up and up," says businessman Bettin Saleh, who has two shops in a new mall.

"People have money, people are spending it, they feel it's safe to spend - and build for the future."

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/4145110.stm

Or there are always the rich niches

Amid blasts, Iraq glass salesmen smile
Wednesday 17 August 2005, 15:12 Makka Time, 12:12 GMT

Salesmen travel around replacing shattered car glass

Amid the destruction wrought by car bombs over the past two years in Iraq, there are some merchants who, by dint of their trade, have done well out of the mayhem, and glaziers fit that profit-from-misfortune group.

 

[AntonioChrist]

retort to 1984 comment

If Iraq becomes anti west/US, the Bushies should be:

1) Publicly ridiculed (tar and feathers maybe?)
2) Exiled
3) Imprisoned
4) Executed

Options 1-3 would allow for continued influence, and option 4 would probably make them into martyrs. So maybe the cutting out of tongues/hands, lobotomies, or insane asylums where they will never be seen or heard from again. Can we start with Jerry Falwell?

I haven't read that particular book, however i have read Orwell, is that statement to justify Bush or is it a satirical rhetoric? Also are those statements supposed to be taken as the truth or as null-truths as it were?

 

[vanesch]

Hi, i have a friend with some contacts and money who is under the assumption that taking his pounds and business from England to Iraq is a good idea.

It depends on the business. If it's selling explosive belts, there might be some business there

 

[AntonioChrist]

To Smurf

Waaay to high a risk. There's no saying what Iraq is going to do in the near future. They have somewhat of socialist past, they might nationalize all industry in a couple weeks. If I were him I'd let iraq set a precedent for it's self before I decide to invest there.

High risk it will be, i fear too high, he is neither a violent man nor terribly business/ cut throat orientated, a computer nerd with money burning through his pocket with muslim friends, not too sure he will be able to deal with the reality of a potentially volatile political and social climate.

Especially when there's millions at stake.

i know for a fact if i was a business man from Iraq, and he was using my money in a high risk venture which went pear shaped i would not have far to look or go to exact a personal Jihad on his arse.

I think i should research more and have a basis for argument before i have an opinion to express.

 

[AntonioChrist]

thanks dude, went to site looks like a good source for info

The economy in the north of the country in the Kurdish controlled areas is currently thriving and the political situation is very stable. Property prices there are rocketing due to sky high demand with major construction projects everywhere. So perhaps your friend is correct in terms of an investment opportunity. http://home.cogeco.ca/~kurdistan3/3-6-04-kurds-economic-lift-airport.htm http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/4145110.stm

Or there are always the rich niches

thanks dude, went to site looks like a good source for info

 

[El Hombre Invisible]

It was worse. Can you imagine living in a system where you knew you could be shot anytime on the arbitrary whims of one man?

Are you talking about Iraq or London?