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 : PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: American Spirit who wrote (48350)	10/18/2000 11:30:26 AM
From: jlallen	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 769667

Whatever the reason, it was an obvious mistake in hindsight. It has nothing to do with Dubya however. Try again. JLA

To: American Spirit who wrote (48350)	10/18/2000 11:31:33 AM
From: Bill	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 769667

Even my elementary school children know why Saddam was left in. If you read even the most summary account of that war, you would know too. Good luck.

To: American Spirit who wrote (48350)	10/18/2000 11:45:04 AM
From: Neocon	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 769667

Desert Storm was a coalition operation under a UN mandate primarily made up of NATO allies. In addition, there were contingents from various Arab countries, showing the regional interest in the matter. Finally, without basing privileges in Saudi Arabia and Turkey, we would not have been able to have carried it out. The UN mandate was solely the expulsion of Iraq from Kuwait. In addition, had we marched on Baghdad, the Arab allies in the coalition would have withdrawn, and Saudi Arabia (and possibly Turkey) would have withdrawn basing privileges. Finally, the American people would not have stood for the kind of long term, probably bloody occupation that would have been necessitated by marching on Baghdad. With Turkey and Iran afraid of the creation of a rump Kurdistan, and Saudi Arabia and the Emirates afraid of the Shi'ites in the south allowing their territory to become a staging area for Iranian aspirations to take the holy cities of Mecca and Medina, and the general fear of finally riling the Arab "street" too much, there were few choices. Bush was banking on a palace coup, which almost happened; or the ability of the opposition to take control of the country, after rebellions in the north and south. The rebellions occured, but they went nowhere. Thus, we were left with Saddam Hussein.........

To: American Spirit who wrote (48350)	10/18/2000 10:08:21 PM
From: Joseph F. Hubel	Respond to of 769667

<Does anyone understand why Bush Sr. left Saddam in? I think I know. It's because he wanted to get out while it all looked good and before we took any more casualties. Either that or he made a deal with Iran. His retreat kept some Amerifcans and allied alive but cost the lives of untold Kurds and Iraqis who might have otherwise risen up like they did in Serbia. We should have taken Saddam out. I know Lieberman made a stink about it. While we had everything there why not finish the job? Sounds like Patton in Berlin. And he was right.> ************* You can't be serious. With all your political knowledge, you really don't know. Guess you're not fit to handle this country's foreign policy. Next.... JFH