Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

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 : Al Gore vs George Bush: the moderate's perspective -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: long-gone who wrote (2655)	10/16/2000 1:50:05 PM
From: Hawkmoon	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 10042

Richard, AS is correct and so are you... Yes, the Arab coalition was unwilling to completely remove Hussein from power as he remains an important hedge against Iran's power. But also because it would have required an international effort to occupy and create stability in Iraq. And given that fully 50% plus of Iraq consists of Shiite Arabs, there is serious concern by Saudi Arabia that Iraq can turn into a bastion of Shiism that would directly threaten their position as the guardians of Sunnism and the Moslem Holy sites. And NO ONE wanted US and European troops occupying an Arab nation, no matter how despicable Hussein might be. In addition, there was serious fear that Turkey would have annexed the entire northern portion of Iraq in order to deny safe havens for the Kurdish rebels that torment them. Thus, the decision to contain Hussein, rather than overthrow him and thus absorb full responsibility to the future of that nation. Regards, Ron