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


To: The Philosopher who wrote (5835)2/14/2001 4:16:42 PM
From: Lane3  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 82486
 
. But in the case of Libya, we brought the problems on ourselves by our
intervention in the Middle East.


You won't get an argument out of me. I was one of the six or seven Americans who didn't approve of that war.

Karen

P.S. I think men should be able to get the financial equivalent of an abortion, but I don't see an easy way to implement it.



To: The Philosopher who wrote (5835)2/14/2001 8:34:39 PM
From: Dayuhan  Respond to of 82486
 
if we had let Iraq go ahead and absorb Kuwait, we could have bought oil just as cheaply from Iraq. It wasn't our self defense interests that made us intervene there. It was our imposition of our moral code. Iraq would pose no threat to us if we posed no threat to them

I don't think this is the case. The absorption of Kuwait would not, in itself, have placed Iraq in a position to threaten our economic security. It would, however, have placed Iraq in a position where they could take one more step and absorb the Saudi oil fields. If this had happened - and I think that it probably would have, if Iraq had been allowed to absorb Kuwait with no reaction - would have given Saddam Hussein control of enough of the world's available oil supply to allow him to dictate oil prices and availability. This possibility was deemed unacceptable to the US. It was a war of economic expedience; I don't think morality had anything to do with it.