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


To: Michael Watkins who wrote (147928)10/15/2004 11:08:12 AM
From: Neocon  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 281500
 
I think that she reflects the attitudes and assumptions of the anti- war paleocons, which is her right, of course, but which renders her antagonism to the neocons suspect, insofar as she was strongly biased against them from the start.



To: Michael Watkins who wrote (147928)10/15/2004 2:23:50 PM
From: Keith Feral  Respond to of 281500
 
<We are in Iraq because Bush, Cheney and their neoconservative advisors wanted regional bases outside of Saudi Arabia – a courtesy to our friends in the House of Saud, or possibly an opening for a later assault on their eastern oil fields. We are in Iraq because any post-sanctions trade environment under Saddam Hussein would have shut United States and United Kingdom companies completely out, in favor of Asian, Russian and European companies. Establishmentarians in Washington sought to avoid this terrible tragedy. That Saddam Hussein had long before 9-11 decided to sell his oil for euros instead of dollars was something Bush quickly corrected in May 2003 with a simple executive order.>

This analysis is more or less in line with my thinking. However, I have no moral problems with Bush and Cheney waging a war against Saddam Hussein since he has violated every international law that I can imagine. I do not question the viability of the argument set forth by this administration that Saddam possessed WMD.