Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Knowing what we know now and the expansion of Radical Wahhabist based Islam out of Saudi Arabia, should have we intervened? Saddam may have been easier to deal with in hindsight?
People on the Left and Right seem to agree that Wahhabism is at the root of Radical Islam. Is this really the case?
Saudi Arabia was right in Saddam's line of sight (and indeed, I think a border skirmish or two was fought on their territory). We weren't taking any chances.
Kuwait was incidental. We wanted to insure that the flow of oil was uninterrupted.
Kuwait was the official reason for staging operations in Saudi. The Bushes set Saddam up. Once we "liberated" Kuwait, we just had to stay in Saudi. We have a tendency to stay in places we have fought.
No, we should not have stayed in Saudi. That was a HUGE mistake
Saudi Arabia was right in Saddam's line of sight (and indeed, I think a border skirmish or two was fought on their territory). We weren't taking any chances.
The Saudis sided with Iraq in in the Iran/Iraq war. Only after they invasion of Kuwait did they become hostile towards Baghdad.
Of course, oil and our agreements to defend our allies were why we were there. The us having troops on the ground in Saudi Arabia was one of the main reasons Osama bin Laden sent his minions to attack us.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.