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: JohnM who wrote (114402)	9/10/2003 3:08:48 PM
From: Neocon	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

I did not say that we were obligated to invade Iraq because it was a brutal regime, I said that it was not immoral to do so, given that it was a brutal regime. Many other considerations enter in when calculating how to handle a situation. Sure, some of it had to do with oil, not, however, primarily Iraqi oil, but the ambition of Saddam to dominate Middle Eastern oil production through hegemony over the militarily weak regimes on the Arabian Peninsula. Needless to say, control of such wealth would have been a bad thing, in such hands. Some of it had to do with the existential threat of genocide represented by the Iraqi regime, against the Kurds, the Shi'ites, and the Israelis, if Saddam even got a free hand. Some of it had to do with the vicious threats of revenge made against the United States, that we might expect him to act on if even he got a chance. We had all sorts of reasons to want him out. But the legal basis was enforcement of the UN resolutions.........