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 (228177)	4/22/2007 5:22:46 PM
From: Nadine Carroll	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

I think it was wise to keep the status quo Keeping the status quo ante is never a real option, because everything changes. The status post-1991 was dependent on the US military sitting on Saddam's doorstep, enforcing the sanctions and the no-fly zones, while Saddam waged a war of propaganda, bribery, and covert attacks. Everybody else in the UNSC made money, the US paid the price. What was Osama bin Laden's first big complaint? US troops polluting the soil of Saudi Arabia, right? Why were they there? To prop up Saudi Arabia and Kuwait. So the US suffered 9/11 and sanctions were collapsing. After they collapsed, Saddam would have gotten nukes (he certainly wanted them badly enough, and AQ Khan would have supplied them even if his own programs didn't) and rearmed. So a triumphant re-armed Saddam, the great survivor, how attractive do you find that option?