Dragonlich

not really. That definition would place democratic countries like the USA in the "unstable" group...

Conclamo Ludus

If that's the case I'll take an unstable country any old day.

__________________
Lord, have mercy on my wicked soul
I wouldn't mistreat you baby, for my weight in gold.
-Son House, Death Letter Blues

The_Dude

no, we have not had a new govt. a new govt means a new constitution, changes in the braches etc...

like the french, they had 1-5th republic's. all new govt's.

__________________
"Luck is what happens when preparation meets opportunity." - Darrel K Royal

Dragonlich

Not really. I'd say that a new government means change of president, administration, new plans/goals, etc.

But we're moving away from the central point of the threat. Fact of the matter is that even if Iraq was "stable" (whatever that may mean), that "stability" was hardly worth preserving. The temporary instability now (encouraged by former regime members) will go away eventually.

I just wonder what the ordinary Iraqi feels about all of this, and especially if the ordinary Iraqi has any idea what the consequences of his actions are for the future of country... If there is widespread anti-US anger, and the US is eventually kicked out, it is more than likely that either Saddam and/or friends return (if he's not dead), or that Iraq becomes a second Iran. I doubt most Iraqis would agree with either solution. They *cannot* solve their own problems, not without a lot of violence anyway.