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 : Foreign Affairs Discussion Group -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: frankw1900 who wrote (18810)	2/14/2002 8:35:21 AM
From: SirRealist	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

In asking about national boundaries, was there ever any credence to the Iraqi claim that Kuwait had built oil wells slanted, so they were actually expanding their production capacity by extracting Iraqi oil?

To: frankw1900 who wrote (18810)	2/14/2002 10:15:21 AM
From: JohnM	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

On the Kuwait issue, Frank, it was my impression that one of the stories making the rounds during that period was that Sadam went there because of some mixed signals with the Bush I folk. Our alliances with Iraq during its war with Iran led to Sadam thinking he had a wink to regain some Kuwait territory, if not the entire country, which he understood to be a part of Iraq's historical boundaries. I have no idea just how credible this argument is. As for the Saudi portion, it was also my impression that the big argument the Bush I folk made to get Senate passage of a declaration was the Sadam would not stop in Kuwait but would head for the Saudi oil fields. As for just how willing the US is to go to war to protect national boundaries of other countries, my history fails me there. My impression is that we took a pass unless it involved something that could be termed a fairly serious national interest. With some notable exceptions. I think the Balkans fighting in the 90s might be an exception but have not read things with that in mind. Finally, the world is heavily populated with border disputes which flair into conflict on some irregular cycle. I don't think the US sees itself as the arbitrator of those, again, unless some larger national interest is at stake. John