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: epicure who wrote (139454)	7/8/2004 4:54:31 PM
From: carranza2	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 281500

Your argument, basically, has been that that Saddam was dangerous because he was irrational, and unpredictable. I think he was predictable, if one took the time to understand him- which means your argument falls apart. I see, you have special insight into the predictive arts as they relate to irrational and unpredictable dictators. All while our vital security and economic interests are at stake. Wow. This is crazy. Millions of dollars were spent trying to divine Saddam's intentions by all kinds of intelligence agencies, which have been recently proven to have been dead wrong, yet you think Saddam's invasion of Kuwait could have been avoided and he could have been deterred if we simply "understood" him a bit better. I worry about America and Americans. We are thankfully big enough and strong enough to accomodate thinking like yours. God help us should your kind of thinking ever predominate.

To: epicure who wrote (139454)	7/8/2004 6:00:11 PM
From: carranza2	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

What difference does it make to you if Saddam was crazy, undeterrable, understandable, stupid, etc., since by your own admission, he should have been allowed to keep Kuwait? We could have let Saddam invade tiny Kuwait and keep it. True. I don't think that would have been anything like WWII-do you? If you can cast your mind back to the long Iran-Iraq war, you will recall that Iraq was no Germany. Message 20286937 It would have been worse than WWII because Saddam would have been in a position to take over Saudi Arabia. He would have done the same thing to Saudi oil wells that he did to Kuwaiti wells when he was finally forced out, i.e., torched them. I still don't understand why he didn't move on SA when he had the chance. He could have emboldened the radicals in the ME in a serious way, perhaps launched an attack on Israel, if he had been allowed to keep Kuwait. It would have really hit the fan in a huge way. That is why it was also insane to have allowed him to stay in Kuwait, as you suggest was appropriate.