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

To: Elroy who wrote (300044)	8/15/2006 6:14:19 PM
From: TimF	Respond to of 1571784

But I'll bet if you measure no removal of Iraq from Kuwait and the net benefits to Iraqi+Kuwaiti citizens, versus what happened (removal of Saddam from Kuwait) and the net benefits to Iraqi+Kuwaiti citizens, no removal would have had a more positive net affect on the combined populations of Iraq and Kuwait. I'm not quite sure that that's true either. No removal might have emboldened and strengthened Saddam to a point where eventually there would have been an even more destructive war to deal with him. It also would have probably meant that he would have achieved nuclear weapons at some point. Getting them might have deterred the larger later war, or it might have caused it to be even more destructive if it happened. I will concede that its possible that "no removal" would have been better for the combination of Kuwaiti and Iraqi citizens, but its far from certain. In any case I don't consider that to be an important issue. The relevant issues are how "removal" vs. "non-removal", effected Kuwait, the US, and the world. The fact that its possible that letting the invasion stand might have benefited Iraqis is not a reason to let the invasion stand.