--- Nick Arnett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I can only see it as strategic to Iraq if their > purpose was to pull the > West into the region in order to touch off a larger > conflict. If it was > to actually try to expand their borders, they were > nuts, a possibility > that cannot be discounted! > > Nick
Why would they be that? If Michael Dukakis had been President of the United States in 1990 - hardly an unlikely outcome - Saddam Hussein would be ruling Kuwait, along with Iraq, right now. The overwhelming majority of Democratic Senators voted against the war. The Democratic Party had majorities in both the Senate and House of the Congress. Why was it unreasonable to think that we would do nothing to reverse the invasion? It was in no way clear at the time that we were going to do something about the invasion, and had we not, Iraq would be the most powerful (non-Israel) country in the Middle East right now, would have nuclear weapons (the UN reported that Iraq was ~1 year from getting nuclear weapons in 1991), and would be a major world power. Given what Saddam Hussein knew, forget about insane, it wasn't even dumb. If invading Kuwait had worked, he would have been the greatest hero in the Arab world since Nasser. ===== Gautam Mukunda [EMAIL PROTECTED] "Freedom is not free" http://www.mukunda.blogspot.com __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Take Yahoo! Mail with you! Get it on your mobile phone. http://mobile.yahoo.com/maildemo _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
