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: GST who wrote (110747)	8/9/2003 5:50:55 PM
From: Brumar89	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

There is nothing to indicate that our troops were essential at this time to protecting Saudi Arabia. Saddam's military was in shambles. His military was in shambles in 1994 when Saddam threatened to invade Kuwait a second time. Even the UN thought so and passed a resolution telling Iraq to back down: casi.org.uk Kuwait and SA are so weak even an Iraqi army in shambles could defeat them. But it was a US force buildup which stopped Iraqi movement toward Kuwait: 6 Oct Iraq threatens to cease cooperation with UNSCOM and the IAEA, moves troops towards Kuwaiti border 7 Oct US buildup of forces in region begins 8 Oct UNSC presidential statement expresses grave concern over Iraqi actions toward UNSCOM and Kuwait 15 Oct UNSC adopts RES 949 condemning Iraq's large-scale deployment of military units toward Kuwaiti border usinfo.state.gov We wanted troops there because we want power in the region.. Every US administration since FDR (“The defense of Saudi Arabia is vital to the defense of the United States.” FDR 1943) has considered the Persian Gulf a vital security interest of the US (in fact "vital interest of the United States" were the very words Carter used when enunciating the "Carter doctrine" in his 1980 SOTU speech). So are you saying the US has no real concerns in the Persian Gulf and every American President since FDR has been some kind of imperialist including FDR and Carter?

To: GST who wrote (110747)	8/10/2003 12:46:52 AM
From: Nadine Carroll	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

The presence of our troops destabilizes the region. As opposed to the "stability" Saddam would have created by conquering first Kuwait, then Saudi Arabia? I'll grant you, Al Qaeda probably would not have been a problem in that case. We would have had much worse problems, like Saddam's hand on 70% of the Mideast oil spigot. Come on GST, you cannot compare policy decisions against some fairy-tale perfect scenario; you have to calculate what would have been likely to happen. Iraq's army, even in shambles, could take over Saudi Arabia in a couple of days. Saudi Arabia's army is a joke. And Saddam's army was not in shambles in 1990.