From: Lee Corbin (lcorbin@tsoft.com)
Date: Tue Jan 21 2003 - 20:26:31 MST
Ron writes
> wolfkin@freedomspace.net writes:
>
> > I think some Middle Eastern folks might use
> > the term 'army of occupation' to describe what
> > you are referring to as 'influence'.
and had compared the U.S. and other western nations'
influence to Great Britain's "occupation" of colonial
North America.
> The British through their Parliment claimed to rule us and were here
> with their army to enforce their decision whether we liked it or not.
> We claim no sovereignty in those countries and are there only as the
> guest of their government to help deter the likes of Sadaam. On occasion
> when the danger was past we have left per agreement. But, then you knew that
> didn't you? You just hoped I didn't know and that you could muddy the water.
> Sorry ---Ron h
I would like to know what is the received wisdom now
for why the U.S. and its allies didn't finish the job
on Saddam Hussein in 1991.
The most plausible explanation I've heard is that the
U.S. had an agreement with Saudi Arabia and perhaps
other countries to not depose Hussein, only force him
out of Kuwait (and perhaps wreck his army).
Is that true?
Thanks,
Lee
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sun Feb 02 2003 - 21:26:02 MST