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

To: willcousa who wrote (367443)3/6/2003 5:48:21 PM
From: Neocon  Read Replies (2) | Respond to of 769670
 
Yeah, well, it is easy to get confused on the matter. But yes, the possible dissolution of the coalition loomed large in stopping short of Baghdad.........



To: willcousa who wrote (367443)3/6/2003 5:54:41 PM
From: TigerPaw  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 769670
 
Bush 1 stopped short of eliminating Saddam because then there would no longer be a need to keep troops in the Arabia. That was always the primary goal of the war. The Arabs have begun to indicate they wanted those troops to leave, which is why a new threat and new base is sought.

TP



To: willcousa who wrote (367443)3/6/2003 7:58:50 PM
From: Gordon A. Langston  Respond to of 769670
 
The initial demands (before troops shipped) on Iraq were to leave Kuwait and get back to their borders. Schwartzkopf wondered what would have happened if Saddam had merely retreated but kept the disputed oil fields on the Kuwaiti border. The political will of the UN is so weak they would have still been debating this. Lucky we have a more clear cut issue.


HomeMailHotSubjectMarksPeopleMarksKeepersSettings
Terms Of UseContact UsCopyright/IP PolicyPrivacy PolicyAbout UsFAQAdvertise on SI
© 2025 Knight Sac Media.  Data provided by Twelve Data, Alpha Vantage, and CityFALCON News