cc wrote:

> "Eric Takabayashi" <etakajp@yahoo.co.jp> wrote in message
>
> > So exactly who is going to fix Iraq, if no one is supposed to get
> involved,
> > even the UN and Red Cross turns tail, and the US should not be there in
> the
> > first place?
>
> The Iraki. They are not mental handicapped,

No, but the country is very unstable, would be even if the US were not there,
probably even less peaceful, and they would still lack the jobs, money and
basic utilities.

> well certainly not all of them,

The problem is not the intelligence of the Iraqis. Iraq was one of the stars of
the Middle East. The problem was Saddam Hussein's regime.

> and no more than the Vietnamese.

Yeah, look at Vietnam today, compared to South Korea, Germany, and Japan.
Vietnam did so much better without the US than those other countries who had so
much US control. If we give them ten more years, they will be like Bubble Era
Japan.

Not. Some of Vietnam's best had to escape Vietnam for their lives. Even
Communist China is stronger economically than Vietnam.

> After the Americans leave, they'll rebuild
> too. They don't need Haliburton (sp?).

Rebuild like Afghanistan under the Taliban? Rebuild like Vietnam?

> > As Iraq is NOT capable of looking after itself,
>
> Oh, the good old colonialist motto about inferior countries needing the help
> the superior ones.

No, a simple fact. It's politically unstable.

And it has NOTHING to do with superior or inferior. The US SHOULD have the
muscle to provide stability, and provide the money, while allowing Iraqis to
decide what they want. And if for some reason, they want Saddam Hussein or some
other regime back, let them do so and never complain about suffering under such
again.

The US and some other countries have the power and money to help others, though
they screw up royally in the effort. It's a simple fact.

Perhaps you prefer the world simply standing by and watching while millions in
the world, near 900 million, according to one report I read today, live without
food, mostly due to man made suffering, as in North Korea or regions of Africa,
without offering aid or military intervention.

Is Kim Jong Il doing a better job running his nation, than an Occupation
administration could?

> Who decides what countries are mature enough ?

Iraqis, if they were not the ones harming themselves. Sure the US propped up
Saddam Hussein, but the Iraqis didn't offer any better, and they don't have
better now.

> Bush or Eric ?

Obviously not you, who prefer people of the world suffer while you watch
through lack of intervention.

--
"I want to meet my father and say, your sperm became me."

http://tinyurl.com/wc8y