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: carranza2 who wrote (139285)	7/8/2004 10:37:41 AM
From: epicure	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

You keep saying he was a bit nuts. I just don't think he was, and so far you haven't provided any evidence that really works- you just keep saying it, since it is your opinion. And he was much farther from getting nuclear weapons that we thought he was- so unless he KNEW we were making a mistake about his capabilities, I don't see how you can blame him for not realizing we had made a big mistake about him. Seems you ought to blame the US first, for making the mistake. "It's crazy to suggest that Saddam could have reasonably concluded that he had a green light to take over Kuwait " It is not crazy to suggest that, but I understand your need to use hyperbole and forgive you in advance. In his government people spoke for him- it isn't crazy for him to assume the same of our government- now that was a lack of understanding, on his part, but not craziness- more like naivete. If you think it is "crazy" to suggest something that seems so obviously a possibility, I can totally see why you think Saddam was crazy. I have to tell you though, I think your craziness meter is way off, and needs some calibration. I wasn't trying to score points about Russia. But are you under any impression that a Russian threat would not have deterred Saddam? If you do not think it would have, why?

To: carranza2 who wrote (139285)	7/8/2004 11:50:14 AM
From: cnyndwllr	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 281500

Carranza2, it seems to me that you keep running head on into yourself in your desire to be right. Your main theme seems to be that Saddam was "crazy" and evil, therefor he would arm himself and act irrationally. But then you state: "What he did not understand and what made him so dangerous was the fact that he had no idea how dangerous he was perceived to be by the West, particularly armed with nukes." So maybe the problem was that he was just naive and ignorant? But of course we could have let him know how "dangerous he was perceived to be," couldn't we? In fact we had that nice little opportunity to let him know when that "Glaspy thing" happened. I've read the transcript of that conversation and if I'd have been sitting on Saddam's end of it, I'd also have been too "naive" to have understood that the U.S. had any "fear" of an Iraqi invasion of Kuwait. It almost seems like the U.S. was setting a trap that they could spring as soon as he stepped over a line he didn't even know existed. Maybe he wasn't so much naive or crazy as he was just plain ole Wiley Coyotee fooled? You also write that: "Containment was undoubtedly falling apart and he was receiving substantial revenues from oil for food which he could use for rearming himself." Just reading that would make me think of a man who was comfortably in power, well organized and ready to begin a massive effort to rebuild his capabilities. But why? Do you think he was too crazy or too stupid to realize that the WORLD had spoken when he tried to invade Kuwait, and that he would never be allowed to invade and occupy ANY other Mideastern country? I think it's clear that the real basis for rearming, if that was his desire, would have been for defensive purposes. Now that, in light of later events, would not have been a "crazy" or naive action, but rather a wise thing for him to have considered. More importantly, however, when it suits you to do so, you're willing to present a far different profile of Saddam's hold on power. Ie.: "Saddam is now reported to have said that he invaded Kuwait because he feared a coup d'etat from his own restless officer corps, and felt the need to keep them busy." So which was he; the efficient, deadly and dangerous man who could restart a weapons program on a dime and then effectively stand off the entire world and conquer Arab oil states, or the crazy, naive and ignorant leader who had to invade another small country in order to avoid being deposed by his own people? And why did our government tell him in clear and direct words that America considered that it had no interest in a regional conflict between Kuwait and Iraq?