DON'T START THE WAR Message Board

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : DON'T START THE WAR

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next

To: PartyTime who wrote (21519)	3/16/2003 1:24:30 AM
From: Brumar89	Read Replies (1) of 25898

Yes, Saddam has foregone hundreds of billions of revenues by not complying with the surrender terms. This certainly doesn't make logical sense. As you said, he could have complied and ended all UN oversight thereafter. Refusing to withdraw from Kuwait when he knew his troops would be kicked out anyway also didn't make sense. The regime-change side has pointed out that his repeated selection of unreasonable, dangerous, and even disastrous choices is precisely what makes him too dangerous to rely upon a containment policy forever. If he were to be allowed to develop nukes, could he be counted on to back down in a crisis? No, he'd be likely to take things right up to armageddon. No one can read Saddam's mind. But my guess is he thought all along over the past 12 years he could avoid complying (and thus having to restart his WMD programs from scratch after sanctions were lifted), fool the inspectors, and/or just erode the sanctions away. That's the purpose of the sweetheart oil development deals offered to France, Russia, and China. Those oil deals are worthless until sanctions are lifted. Thus those countries have a financial incentive to find a way to end sanctions - either formally or defacto.

Report TOU Violation

Share This Post

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next