RESPONSE: no Saddam had not "made a gamble". He approached the U.S. Ambassador with complaints of Kuiwaiti 'slant drilling' into Iraqi oil resources. She responded that it was 'a regional issue and would require a regional solution. The U.S. would not interviene.' It looks like the Ambassador mislead Saddam. I have not refreshed my understanding, but I believe that Kuiwait had been part of Iraq until Britain separated it. Much of the Middle East was under European occupation in the first half of the last century.
-------------------------PoisonPete2-------------------------------------
PoisonPete2 you are correct in all those statements except
some debate still remains on who was honest on the matter
of Kuwait's slant drilling, or even the definition of it, or even
the matter of tapping a reservoir that existed trans-borders.
Of course, such a complaint helps Saddam's case, and so it
is also convenient as a crutch for him to stand upon. If anything
it helped Saddam's search for legitimacy. And it happens
to be quite effective in catching your support.
Nevertheless, it would not have been good precedent for
such a man who dreamt of Nebachadnezzer, who studied
Hitler and Stalin's methods, who built over a 200 palaces
instead of infrastructure for his people, each made with a brick
stamped with Saddam on it just like Nebachnezzer did and
who cynically financed incentives for families honoring
suicide bombers, to get away with one more precedent:
invading and keeping Kuwait.
The lesson of Kuwait is Saddam saying he should have
had established nuclear weapons before doing so.
The world would have stood by and let it happen.
And then what?
You got a nice precedent for a man who aspired for much
more.
But we cannot prove the horror we avoided, can we ?
We can only see the problems of NOW
-------------------------PoisonPete2-------------------------------------
PoisonPete2 you are correct in all those statements except
some debate still remains on who was honest on the matter
of Kuwait's slant drilling, or even the definition of it, or even
the matter of tapping a reservoir that existed trans-borders.
Of course, such a complaint helps Saddam's case, and so it
is also convenient as a crutch for him to stand upon. If anything
it helped Saddam's search for legitimacy. And it happens
to be quite effective in catching your support.
Nevertheless, it would not have been good precedent for
such a man who dreamt of Nebachadnezzer, who studied
Hitler and Stalin's methods, who built over a 200 palaces
instead of infrastructure for his people, each made with a brick
stamped with Saddam on it just like Nebachnezzer did and
who cynically financed incentives for families honoring
suicide bombers, to get away with one more precedent:
invading and keeping Kuwait.
The lesson of Kuwait is Saddam saying he should have
had established nuclear weapons before doing so.
The world would have stood by and let it happen.
And then what?
You got a nice precedent for a man who aspired for much
more.
But we cannot prove the horror we avoided, can we ?
We can only see the problems of NOW