Now you expected the US to act like the cowboy and go it alone? As I recall, the Americans never 'went in alone ' - not in kuwait,, not in WW", not anywhere, except when they invaded canada, of course. America, being the world's only superpower since the demise of the Soviet bloc, has led the way, but generally depended upon the support of it's allies. It may well do the same in Libya. it may even be more expedient to let the brits and french take on gaddaffi's airforce.
You think all of the countries would have held together if the mission changed from expelling Saddam from Kuwait, to supporting a coup? They didn't seem so inclined later, did they?
I will never understand why Saddam was not deposed when the Kurds rose against him. if we had done , we could have saved all that suffering that we endured in the Second Gulf War. I suspect that a weakened Saddam still had his uses back then though , and the kurds were dispensible.
Credits & Style Info
Talk Politics. A place to discuss politics without egomaniacal mods
![[community profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/community.png){kind=small}
(no subject)
Date: 19/3/11 21:17 (UTC)As I recall, the Americans never 'went in alone ' - not in kuwait,, not in WW", not anywhere, except when they invaded canada, of course. America, being the world's only superpower since the demise of the Soviet bloc, has led the way, but generally depended upon the support of it's allies. It may well do the same in Libya. it may even be more expedient to let the brits and french take on gaddaffi's airforce.
You think all of the countries would have held together if the mission changed from expelling Saddam from Kuwait, to supporting a coup? They didn't seem so inclined later, did they?
I will never understand why Saddam was not deposed when the Kurds rose against him. if we had done , we could have saved all that suffering that we endured in the Second Gulf War. I suspect that a weakened Saddam still had his uses back then though , and the kurds were dispensible.