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 : Stop the War! -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Art Bechhoefer who wrote (4472)	3/28/2003 11:03:50 AM
From: 49thMIMOMander	Respond to of 21614

For many reasons - outside the UN resolution - would have broken up the coalition - US tanks, helictopers,soldiers could not handle sandstorms nor heat - Iraq had comparative, modern equipment at that time (but were obviously not stupid enough to start a major battle in the middle of the empty desert) - That Saudi-Kuwaiti oil had already been secured to pay for the war, as well as drive prices down to $10 (which was why Bush I was so pissed that he lost the elections and Clinton got it) - plus some other stuff, revolt in south Iraq become a fear for Iranian influence,etc.. - instead USA-UK looked forward and set up their no-fly zones - plus all the other stuff, playing around with oil-for-food,etc..

To: Art Bechhoefer who wrote (4472)	3/28/2003 11:07:03 AM
From: zonder	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 21614

My understanding was that there were two issues: (1) UN pulled the leash (2) Bush Sr agreed because he worried about the humanitarian disaster (and the subsequent PR nightmare) that could follow an attack on Baghdad, a city of 5 mn inhabitants - a show coming soon to a TV screen near you, most probably... I grant you that he knew what he was doing, but it doesn't follow that he wanted a war. Uh, what do you mean? Kuwait was drilling into Iraq's oil. Saddam was pissed & said he would take action and asked what position the US would take in this case. When US ambassador said "We're cool & it's between you two", how is it that they did not want a war???

To: Art Bechhoefer who wrote (4472)	3/28/2003 11:12:04 AM
From: Just_Observing	Respond to of 21614

If misleading Iraq in 1990 into thinking that we had no interest in its dispute with Kuwait was intentional, then why wouldn't Bush have been delighted to finish off Saddam right then and there? Not necessarily. Many reasons can be cited for Bush not wanting to finish off Saddam. Here are just a few: 1. The Arabs would never have joined the coalition against Saddam if the goal was getting rid of him 2. Saddam was useful as a bogeyman. That allowed a reason for US forces to be present in the Gulf. It's no coincidence that oil prices stayed low in the 90s, IMO. And it did not hurt US arms sales in the region. 3. Bush Sr. thought that his own people would overthrow Saddam. To this end, the civilian infrastructure was badly damaged to make life miserable for Iraqi civilians. And a stringent UN embargo was put in place. In just the short interval after the end of the Iran-Iarq and the invasion of Kuwait, Saddam, apparently, survived four coup attempts. So Bush Sr. must have expected Saddam to be overthrown soon enough. Why waste American lives when his own people can do it? 4. Saddam would be a divisive presence for the Arabs while he lasted. That would prevent them from uniting and focusing on the Palestinian question. Saddam played that role quite well.