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: Karen Lawrence who wrote (67904)	1/23/2003 1:13:04 AM
From: Nadine Carroll	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

Karen, I don't know if you remember the circumstances, but here is the deal: Iraq invaded Kuwait. Bush 41 put together a coalition of NATO and Arab allies with the mission of returning Kuwait to the Kuwaities. "This aggression will not stand", said President Bush. The UNSC passed a resolution authorizing the use of force to to end the occupation of Kuwait. That was the mission. The Arabs were terrified enough to sign on; Saddam's tanks were at the borders of Saudi Arabia, and didn't look like they intended to stop. But if Bush had marched on to Baghdad, he would have lost the coalition. Heck, he didn't even let Israel respond to the Iraqi scuds for fear of losing the coalition. Bush stopped the war too soon because the CNN pictures made it look like we were just piling on (remember the "Highway of Death"?) and didn't aid the Shi'a and Kurdish uprising because he had a) accomplished the original mission, b) was not willing to pay the diplomatic price for doing more, and c) calculated that it was enough, Saddam could not last. Our buddies the Saudis (who were absolutely petrified by the thought of a Shi'a entity on their borders) begged us to stop and assured us that Saddam, absolutely, positively would fall in a few months, tops. I remember the Saudi princes saying so on TV. Well, this turned out to be a big mistake. Not only did Bush have to take the remedial action of setting up no-fly zones when a million Kurds headed for the mountains to escape Saddam's vengeance, he was stuck imposing sanctions and patrolling no-fly zones indefinitely because Saddam didn't fall. So stopping short of causing Saddam's fall was, in hindsight, clearly a mistake. But that does not mean that toppling Saddam directly by invasion was part of the original mission. In retrospect, the clear mistakes were not keeping the war up until more of Saddam's best forces were destroyed and not supporting the Shi'a and Kurdish uprising. Does this make it clearer?

To: Karen Lawrence who wrote (67904)	1/23/2003 3:29:42 AM
From: bela_ghoulashi	Respond to of 281500

Saying Bush the bigger and older failed to take out Saddam is like saying Bush the current and younger has failed to take out Chirac. Yes, it's certainly a fact. But Bush the current and younger has never said he was going to take out Chirac. It's never been part of his policy, regardless of whether it should be or not. People can write articles about it if they like, they can even call it the greatest failure of Bush the younger's presidency so far. You could post those articles here, and I might even agree with them. But that wouldn't change the fact that Bush has never said the first thing about it.