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 : The Castle -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: tejek who wrote (2866)	3/1/2004 10:55:42 AM
From: TimF	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 7936

And so your theory is that Iran would have taken over Iraq and then moved on to the Gulf states so we had no choice but to support Saddam. Is that correct? No, that was never my theory. I was talking about the thinking of the gulf states and possibly the US administration at the time. Also I don't think they really thought it would happen like that, but rather that Iran might have defeated Iraq, possibly seized some of its territory, dominated the gulf militarily even if it never invaded Kuwait or Saudi, and exerted power through intimidation and also through inspiring Shia's in Iraq and the Gulf states to support Iran (which would be easier if Iran was seen as so successful and powerful). Again I did agree that religion was part of it. That makes no sense.........why wouldn't the US or Britain have intervened? Both were allies of Kuwait at that time. If Iran actually invaded the US and Britain might have intervened, but no one was 100% sure that it would happen that way. Iran could bully without actually invading and risking a powerful military response from the west. Iraq might have later been able to do the same thing if Saddam had made better decisions. Tim