Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

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 : Sharks in the Septic Tank -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: TimF who wrote (4305)	2/1/2001 8:10:27 PM
From: Dayuhan	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 82486

Its part of the reason and it is enough to provide a moral distinction between that war and a war of agression. Surely you jest. The war was fought because a hostile power had occupied a significant oil producer and was threatening a major oil producer. Period. The people of Kuwait figured exactly nowhere, except to provide a justification. I have no objection to this, of course. It was a war fought for national economic interest. Nothing moral about it. Defense of economic interest is not self-defense; loss of Saudi oil would mean economic dislocation, not national destruction. The war was not "moral" in the sense of being fought in self defense, any more than killing someone to keep your job would be "moral". But who cares? When has moral distinction ever been a part of war, or politics, its very slightly more civil equivalent? It was at least a war that was winnable, had a clear and achievable objective, and served the national interest, which made it a much better idea than Vietnam.