I am not yet convinced that we need to do anything.
NOr am I. I can see that the gov't would be interested in keeping Saddam from developing particularly nuclear weapons, though
If we do, however, I would favor 1) assassination or 2) UN inspectors backed up with US special forces and air power.
Nuts with the UN inspectors. We're talking about doing something, not holding a debating club meeting.
If that's the answer, then do nothing.
Actually, I think N's theory is a pretty good idea, particularly the part about setting up our military in that lovely location where they aren't quite as finicky about infidels. I also think that a guaranteed oil supply is a good idea. It's distasteful to get it that way, but less distasteful, perhaps, than continuing to support the Saudis.
Yeah. I'd rather not ship money to the Saudi religious fundamentalists so they can ship us back terrorists.
From a simple perspective of self interest, it makes a lot of sense to me. I don't think Iraq would put up much of a fight, although there would be casualties.
Maybe.
But the Administration does not operate off of self interest but good and evil.
And then, too there would be the difficulty of doing something so conspicuously oil industry friendly in the aftermath of Enron...
First you tell me Bush doesn't pay attention to his supporters. Then you tell me he does. ?????
And I think a war on Iraq could be launched without the gov't ever mentioning oil. There are other reasons. |
