SI
SI
discoversearch

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 ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext  
To: cnyndwllr who wrote (188090)6/2/2006 4:00:12 PM
From: Nadine Carroll  Read Replies (1) of 281500
 
We'd have been better off letting events take their own slower, internal course in Iraq

Not to spoil your 'grass is always greener' scenario there, but the highest probability for Iraq was Saddam getting rid of sanctions entirely (thanks to his buddies the Russians and French and all the bribes he was paying them), an end to containment, an end to the no-fly zones (which were done unilaterally w/o UN approval, btw), and Saddam generally left free to behave as he wished.

According to his track record, that meant invading something. Once the no-fly zones were removed, the only question was which direction, Shia or Kurd? Probably Kurd, they were the bigger threat. And all his scientists would have been digging up their rose gardens for the stuff they buried under instructions.

So another 50,000 or so would probably have died in the ensuing suppression of Kurdistan. But Americans wouldn't have killed them, so that would have been okay I guess.
Report TOU ViolationShare This Post
 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext  

HomeMailHotSubjectMarksPeopleMarksKeepersSettings
Terms Of UseContact UsCopyright/IP PolicyPrivacy PolicyAbout UsFAQAdvertise on SI
© 2025 Knight Sac Media.  Data provided by Twelve Data, Alpha Vantage, and CityFALCON News