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 : Mainstream Politics and Economics -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: RMF who wrote (49299)	7/25/2013 3:05:26 AM
From: i-node	1 Recommendation Recommended By Brumar89 Respond to of 85487

>> So, you are saying there would have been LESS support in 1992 for going into Baghdad than there was in 2003 when we went in there TOTALLY ALONE????? We didn't go totally alone. There were more than 40 countries involved. But my reference to "no support" was talking about the United States. We had gone there with the specific task to remove Saddam from Kuwait. That had been done. The decision was made, correctly given the facts as they stood, to leave Saddam in power under the terms of the cease fire agreement. The people on the Left in the US would have raised hell if Bush had gone beyond that by even a small amount (hell, you complained about the "Highway of Death" where we actually took out forces as they were said to have been retreating). Bush made the right decision at the time. But he likely expected that Saddams feet would be held to the fire by his successor. >> inode, you have to present SOME logic for your conclusions and you have been a COMPLETE failure in doing so. I am pretty consistent about providing my rationale. But since it doesn't agree with your own, you seem to be unable to process it.

To: RMF who wrote (49299)	7/31/2013 11:30:06 AM
From: TimF	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 85487

As i-node said - "We didn't go totally alone. There were more than 40 countries involved." Despite that fact the coalition in 2003 had fewer (non-American) members, providing fewer resources. The US effort did have less support in 2003 than in the early nineties. But its reasonably likely that the US would have had less support in the early nineties had the attack continued Stopped a day or several days later and get more of the Republican guard? There could have been enough support for that. Drive on to Badhdad? Not as much. OTOH you do have a point that there may have been less resistance then. There wouldn't have been much conventional resistance left (not that there was effective conventional resistance in 2003), and in the short run there likely wouldn't have been much guerrilla and terrorist efforts either. But over time it might have gotten just as bad as it when the US actually took out Saddam's regime. Its hard to say.