I'm over my limit, but I will jsut add this to me self-evident explanation: if the US "helped" it would impose its made-in-Triangle Park or Bremer's office, etc., model over the will of choices of the Iraqsi, and that would be undemocratic. You don't care about this; thsi is an old disagreement between us. But, moreover, on pure Millean grounds, there is no such as a benevolent dicatorship, and any settlement temporarily imposed by the US will be in the interests of the US,a nd more narrowly of large corporations, such athe illegal privatization initiatives already afoot. And will certainly not benefor the Iraquis. I mean, the US is the country taht not invaded Iraq on fraudulent intelligence and a pcck of lies, but installed Chalabi,a convicted fraudster, as the supposed leader. Get real, Luke. Finally, if the US hasa large hand in getting things set up, itw ill offer spurious legitimacy for thsi sort of international piracy. You knew I was going to say thsi, so why did you ask?
--- lweiger at umich.edu wrote:
> Justin wrote:
>
> > It's not wholly a gloomy picture. Mind, I don't
> expect
> > much -- an Eastern European-type bourgeois
> democratic
> > outcome would be a triumph, if the Iraqis could
> put it
> > together themselves.
>
> And why wouldn't it be a triumph if the US helped?
>
> -- Luke
>
>
> ___________________________________
>
http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk
__________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Finance: Get your refund fast by filing online. http://taxes.yahoo.com/filing.html