SI
SI
discoversearch

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 : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: Elroy who wrote (252807)9/27/2005 4:42:13 PM
From: Taro  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 1570746
 
Elroy,

this is the most unique idea I have seen or heard about a long time. Don't want to lick your oshiri but you came up with something here: Maybe that was the grand (US) plan at the time and in some way it had to be aborted??

Because that Kuwait thing just doesn't make sense anywhere, not in retrospective and it never did either.
John is right that Saddam may well have been lured into believing he could move into Kuwait freely and then things just suddenly changed...

Taro



To: Elroy who wrote (252807)9/27/2005 6:32:42 PM
From: i-node  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 1570746
 
It's kind of hard to mesh GB's "promotion of freedom and democracy" ideas with the fact that we kicked Saddam out of Kuwait and reinstalled an unelected, undemocratic royal family (who are also dictators in their own right).

There are vast differences between the situation with Kuwait vs. Iraq -- not the least of which is the fact that bringing democracy to Iraq will almost certainly trend the entire region toward democratization (as we've begun to see already), while democracy in Kuwait would likely not have had any such effect.

More importantly, in the ensuing years it became clear that we could not leave Saddam in power as he had just become a chronic problem. He had to go. What he is replaced with is secondary, so long as it has democratic underpinnings.