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 Affairs Discussion Group -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: epicure who wrote (114269)	9/9/2003 5:34:15 PM
From: Neocon	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

There was no external threat demanding that Saddam maintain so large an army, nor did he ever satisfactorily account for the whereabouts of tons of biochemical agents. He did, in fact, already invade Quwait; had used poison gas in a war against Iran; and had used it against the Kurds. We had reason to think he had designs on the Arabian oil fields, and also he continued to express genocidal intent towards Israel. He was certainly threatening enough. The only reason he was not more threatening was that we maintained a large military presence, no- fly zones, and an embargo, and that was not likely to continue indefinitely. Besides, he used moneys gained by the sale of oil, ostensibly to buy food and medicine, for his own selfish purposes, and therefore was responsible for killing hundreds of thousands of Iraqi children. We could not contribute to that indefinitely by keeping up the blockade. Some resolution was required. We have other threats to the country, but none which was opportune to resolve, so we dealt with it first. We were morally justified in deposing Saddam merely because of what he did to his own people. I have not one qualm about it.........