Foreign Affairs Discussion Group 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 : Foreign Affairs Discussion Group

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next

To: epicure who wrote (139454)	7/8/2004 6:00:11 PM
From: carranza2	Read Replies (1) of 281500

What difference does it make to you if Saddam was crazy, undeterrable, understandable, stupid, etc., since by your own admission, he should have been allowed to keep Kuwait? We could have let Saddam invade tiny Kuwait and keep it. True. I don't think that would have been anything like WWII-do you? If you can cast your mind back to the long Iran-Iraq war, you will recall that Iraq was no Germany. Message 20286937 It would have been worse than WWII because Saddam would have been in a position to take over Saudi Arabia. He would have done the same thing to Saudi oil wells that he did to Kuwaiti wells when he was finally forced out, i.e., torched them. I still don't understand why he didn't move on SA when he had the chance. He could have emboldened the radicals in the ME in a serious way, perhaps launched an attack on Israel, if he had been allowed to keep Kuwait. It would have really hit the fan in a huge way. That is why it was also insane to have allowed him to stay in Kuwait, as you suggest was appropriate.

Report TOU Violation

Share This Post

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next