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: KyrosL who wrote (136382)	6/12/2004 2:25:47 PM
From: carranza2	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

Say what? Saddam makes a conventional military move, say into Kuwait, "brandishes" nuclear weapons in the process, and your response is to obliterate him? Did I understand correctly? If so, your nom de plume should be Barry Goldwater. vbg What if you don't get the nukes? What if he makes it into Kuwait before he brandishes nuclear weapons? Incidentally, he called his failure to develop nukes before he moved into Kuwait his biggest mistake of the Gulf War. Think of how different the Gulf War would have been if Saddam had nukes. Then fast forward to, say, 3 or 4 years from now, you will see how the tactical and strategic landscape changes. Do you obliterate Kuwait in the process, too? For Saddam's brandishing of nukes? If you thought we had opposition for having gone into Iraq, think of what would have happened if we obliterate Saddam for simply brandishing nukes. There are enogh holes in this line of thinking to drive trucks through.

To: KyrosL who wrote (136382)	6/12/2004 2:39:36 PM
From: Ilaine	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 281500

As you say, the American ambassador's comments were ambiguous, therefor Saddam has only himself to blame for not pressing for clarification. Intepreting ambiguous statements to suit your purposes is a paradigm example of childishly self-serving activity, and no way to conduct something as serious as war.

To: KyrosL who wrote (136382)	6/12/2004 7:07:21 PM
From: Maurice Winn	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

Ambiguous? No, Glaspie said the USA didn't have an opinion on the border dispute with Kuwait. It was a green light that the USA would leave Saddam to sort it out. Maybe the USA didn't think he'd grab the whole place, but given his background, that's doubtful. I'd say it was a trap and he walked in. The sanctions came on, the price of oil went up, non-OPEC producers made a LOT of money. Saddam didn't. Here's the USA attitude to the price of oil <We have considerable sympathy for your quest for higher oil prices, the immediate cause of your confrontation with Kuwait.> Or, Glaspie and the USA President at the time were total morons. Here's the transcript. whatreallyhappened.com It's all about the oil. Mq