From: Lee Corbin (lcorbin@tsoft.com)
Date: Sun Feb 02 2003 - 14:03:53 MST
Andrew writes
> [WS or Kai writes]
>
> >Yes I doubt it, as far as Iraq and Saddam are concerned. He
> >currently has nothing to win a war with. Every open aggression
> >would immediately bring up the coalition of 90/91 again. It's
> >therefore much wiser for him to play dead and innocent as he does.
> >If there's one thing he's an expert in, it is to keep his position,
> >even if an international arm invades his country.
> >(I'd still like to know why the last US-invasion was stopped so
> >soon. Can anybody enlighten me on this?)
>
> I think this was because it wasn't a US invasion, or at least no a US only
> invasion. The UN mandate we had said that we could liberate Kuwait, but
> didn't say anything about invading Iraq.
This is also what I've heard: there had been a specific agreement
with many countries *not* to depose Saddam nor to conquer Iraq.
So when the Iraqi army was in full retreat, the U.S. and its allies
reluctantly had to decide between breaking their word, or suspending
the conquest.
Anyone know better?
Lee
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sun Feb 02 2003 - 21:26:09 MST