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 -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: stockman_scott who wrote (43761)9/13/2002 3:49:29 PM
From: Nadine Carroll  Respond to of 281500
 
Totally contradictory dissection of Bush's speech. First, the author excuses Saddam's invasion of Kuwait, then blasts Bush 41 for not supporting the Kurds and the Shia. Well, were the coalition forces too rough on Saddam, or too easy? Should he have been let alone to take Kuwait, as there was no evidence of an immanent invasion of Saudi Arabia? Or should we have moved in to liberate the Kurds and the Shia? Or is the only common thread of the argument to be against whatever action America takes in the Middle East?

I'm hearing Lilek's "loud and ineffectual wail" coming from a "great soggy box".

Thanks for posting links, btw.



To: stockman_scott who wrote (43761)9/13/2002 3:54:15 PM
From: maceng2  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 281500
 
I read that link. Some weird stuff there, why is Bush senior to blame for everything that Saddam did???

It's pretty obvious to anyone with a functioning brain, no matter who was in power in the USA, Saddam and co. would have done everything to make them look like fools. Democrats or Republicans. The ME is a vipers nest.

So the political forces in opposition in the USA need to second guess the "Saddam" A/H problem and play a better game.

imho -g-