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 : Attack Iraq? -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Lazarus_Long who wrote (99)	9/2/2002 6:15:32 PM
From: GROUND ZERO™	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 8683

Grub 100... GZ

To: Lazarus_Long who wrote (99)	9/2/2002 6:20:25 PM
From: Bill Fischofer	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 8683

In 1991 the Cold War was in its endgame and the overriding priority for Bush Sr. was to do nothing which would provoke a dying Soviet Union into some last-gasp act of desperation which could trigger World War III. Pressing on to Baghdad wasn't deemed worth that risk at the time. I believe the judgement of history will be that this was the right course to take. Remember that shortly after the Gulf War in August 1991 a failed military coup attempted to depose Gorbachev. Things really were touch-and-go for a while. Letting the U.S.S.R. die peacefully was the vital central concern of U.S. national security policy in the late 1980s and early 1990s. Saddam was small potatoes by comparison. Only the brazenness of his Kuwait adventure and the ability to security a global mandate to reverse that action justified the temporary departure from the central goal of seeing the Cold War end as it did. This time circumstances are different. The Cold War has been won and the U.S. and Russia are beginning to find common cause in a growing number of strategic areas. I have little doubt actions will reflect these new realities.