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: Elroy who wrote (190809)	7/3/2006 5:44:09 PM
From: neolib	Respond to of 281500

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? Suppose Israel & Jordan shared a common oil field, and Jordan was pumping down the Israeli side and refused to negotiate a solution acceptable to Israel, do you think Israel would refrain from invading Jordan? Or substitute Texas & Mexico if you like. Saddam did have a rather good point in 1990, as our Ambassador to Iraq tacitly acknowledged when he queried her as to what our reactions might be.