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: Nadine Carroll who wrote (190804)	7/3/2006 5:28:56 PM
From: Elroy	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 281500

Yeah, that was the State Dept's general idea before 9/11. Since then, even State has figured out that the troubles of the Middle East are exportable. Stop making stuff up - the State Department never advocated relocating all Israelis to Jersey and giving them US citizenship. That's my idea! State Department doesn't think out of the box like me.... Would you have recommended in 1990 that the US not interfere when Saddam took Kuwait? His tanks were rolling up to the Saudi border. He could have taken SA in two days, and probably would have. Would you have recommended to let him do it? Well I do think a good question is whether the ME is better off with these mini-kingdoms created by the UN or not. Why should 600,000 Kuwaitis get 8% of the world's oil reserves while poverty is rampant in some of Kuwait's neighbor countries which have populations of 20-70 million people? Wouldn't Kuwait's oil reserves be better off spread among the larger population rather than wasted by the spoiled lazy inheritors of wealth that have done close to nothing to earn their riches, and haven't even shared it equally among their own population? The better question is should Brunei exist? It has 200,000 citizens, and massive oil wealth, while Malaysia, which completely surrounds Brunei has I don't know how many millions. Common sense say Brunei should be part of Malaysia, and Brunei's wealth should be shared amongst the large Malaysian population, not by some rich pampered playboy king. As for whether the US should have stopped Saddam, I'd say perhaps not, but who knows. I've always thought a better move might have been to let Saddam take Kuwait and then, as you point out, let him move in and take Saudi Arabia. US could THEN have moved in a kicked him out, but rather than restore the despot monarchies which rule these countries, attempt to install some form of democratically elected government. In other words, when you finally kick Saddam out of Saudi Arabia in 1993, don't let the royal family come back as anything other than figureheads as they are in Britain. Just an idea.