basskisser wrote:

thunder wrote in message ...
On Mon, 29 Dec 2003 09:44:07 -0500, John H wrote:

Doug, should we have allowed Saddam's invasion of Kuwait with the idea
that commerce would resolve any problems arising therefrom?

If democracy results, *this* war could make a difference, but the Gulf War
is a big question. Kuwait is no closer to democracy now, than it was.
Both Iraq and Kuwait are OPEC countries, so oil production may not have
changed. Instead of controlling 113 billion barrels of proven oil
reserves, Saddam would control 210 billion barrels. Remember that until
Saddam invaded Kuwait, he had our tacit support. Also remembering that
infidel soldiers in the land of Mecca is what set bin Laden off, 9/11 may
not have happened.

At the time, I supported the Gulf War, but perhaps, in hindsight, it
wasn't our best course of action.

I agree with most of your observations, except the one that if
democracy results from this war, that there will be a difference. We
must remember, the Iraqis are not white, baptist, god-fearing
republicans. They have their own set of beliefs, and what they think
makes a successful society.


Western-style democracy? In a Middle Eastern Moslem state?

Puh-lease.

Most Moslems believe democracy is the rule of humans in opposition to
Islam, which they believe is the rule of God.

Iran? Democratic? Iraq? Democratic? Afghanistan? Democratic?

Naive.

And the Kuwaitis? Totally non-democratic. We didn't aid Kuwait to
restore or establish democracy there. It was strictly to prop up our oil
interest in that Gulf State. At that, it was more honest than the
current war, which is being conducted to prop up a failed president.








--
Email sent to is never read.