Welcome to European Tribune. It's gone a bit quiet around here these days, but it's still going.
Display:
... or elsewhere is only a secondary issue in determining whether there is an intervention.

If Saddam was the State Department's "man" in that part of the world, George HW Bush was Saudi Arabia's "man in DC", and whether the go ahead was given by State, not understanding the "special relationship" of the Bushes and the House of Saud, the go ahead was given by the White House, not understanding the House of Saud's position on the question, or the effort was to give a go ahead for a protection racket extortion threat, not understanding that for Saddam, that meant going and taking it if the Kuwaiti's did not make the extortion payment ...

... the House of Saud did not like the precedent of Saddam invading and looting an oil rich nation, and with their man in DC as President of the United States, a more recalcitrant Congress would likely have represented a delay rather than a prevention of the counter-invasion.


I've been accused of being a Marxist, yet while Harpo's my favourite, it's Groucho I'm always quoting. Odd, that.

by BruceMcF (agila61 at netscape dot net) on Tue May 31st, 2011 at 08:52:32 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Others have rated this comment as follows:

JakeS 4

Display: