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 (3070)	1/31/2003 12:27:36 PM
From: Neocon	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 15987

It may be possible to take reparations (i.e. pay for the invasion) with the oil. That is not the same as taking over the oil fields permanently. In any case, the Administration has categorically said that the oil belonged to the Iraqi nation. Whatever revenue there is, most goes to Saddam's projects. When sanctions were eased for humanitarian purchases, the money was misappropriated. There is little reason to field such a large army, or to seek WMDs, unless he has designs on the Arabian peninsula. Ba'athism is essentially fascist and pan-Arabist, and therefore the ideological orientation of Iraq is inherently dangerous for the Saudis and various emirates. They cannot defend themselves, only the United States can. But why should we wait until he has an enhanced capacity to use biochemical weapons, or the ability to blackmail them with a nuclear weapon?