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 : Foreign Policy Discussion Thread -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: zonder who wrote (2440)	1/20/2003 12:55:11 PM
From: Hawkmoon	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 15987

One country invades another with no provocation and US defends them. I have no doubt this was more due to the fact that Kuwait has oil than the principles of sovereignty, but it does not matter, I supported the use of force to defend an invaded country. So you did not support the binding UN resolutions forcing Saddam to dismantle his WMD programs?? Because from my perspective, the first Gulf War has never ended. It's still merely a cease fire, not a peace treaty, which means should he not comply with that binding resolution, we have AN OBLIGATION to make him comply. Otherwise, why did the UN pass it in the first place?? Are you suggesting the UN overstepped it's authority in calling for Saddam to dismantle his WMD program?? I am only pointing out that the methods employed by Bush administration against him are (1) dangerous for world order (especially on legitimization of preemptive attacks) (2) counter-productive (if the aim is indeed safety and peace for the world, rather than the oil) It's far more dangerous if we permit Saddam to enter the nuclear club. Saddam can hold the entire oil reserves of the region hostage, forcing local governments to fall in line behind him or face overthrow. Saddam with a nuclear weapon means we have to give him grudging respect, just like we did with his idol, Stalin. We have to give him "respect" because we no longer have sufficient leverage to force him to comply with international norms of behavior. We have to kow-tow to him.. The oil is such a false issue. It's being pumped right now.. It will be pumped in the future. The only issue at hand is whether Saddam's regime, and his oil company partners reap the benefit, or whether the next government and US companies benefit. I figure since the Russians and French have been on the wrong side of this issue, supporting Saddam's tyranny, then they deserve to lose their concessions. Why should they be rewarded for supporting Saddam and making the region less secure?? They obviously will not be kicked off of their existing concessions, but the argue that they should holds significant water. For without their support, his oil industry couldn't survive. I definitely believe US companies will be better stewards of Iraq's oil resources, providing greater benefit to the Iraqi people than is currently the case. Because they will be under an international microscope in this regard.