SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : Foreign Affairs Discussion Group
 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext  
To: Hawkmoon who wrote (130836)5/1/2004 1:14:55 PM
From: epicure  Read Replies (1) of 281500
 
"And the bottom line is that if had not overthrown Saddam, eventually the Islamicists would have. And then they would be in control over all of that oil.."

I think the chances are pretty high that this may happen anyway. Civil war, or Islamicist theocracy- the chances of both were too high to justify playing dice with the region because it *might* be in our best interest to do so. I think a good outcome is a long shot, and getting longer- and that was one of my main reasons for being against the war. The other, of course, is that I would like to see stronger international law, and a more reactive world community when it comes to violations of the borders of sovereign nations, and allowing "preemptive invasions" for the purpose of "regime change" is not conducive to the international order I would like to see. (Using pretexts for invasion is also not conducive to order,imo)
Report TOU ViolationShare This Post
 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext  

HomeMailHotSubjectMarksPeopleMarksKeepersSettings
Terms Of UseContact UsCopyright/IP PolicyPrivacy PolicyAbout UsFAQAdvertise on SI
© 2025 Knight Sac Media.  Data provided by Twelve Data, Alpha Vantage, and CityFALCON News