Perhaps you still don't get it. We don't need permission or approval from anyone to defend ourselves. And yes you are absolutely correct. We are defending ourselves against Iraq because the oil that is the engine of the world's growth and our national security is concentrated in Saddam's backyard. We may not like it but that's the fact as of this moment and we don't need to be blackmailed at some future date when he may have nukes the way N Korea is attempting to do now. Additionally, as I'm sure you know, disarmament was one of the terms of surrender to which Saddam agreed in 1991. Perhaps you recall your history when Hitler re-militarized the Rhineland against treaty agreements. The Euros were all wetting their knickers wondering what to do. But of course you guys had N. Chamberlain to smooth things over. I think the US played some small part in pulling your potted ham from the fire that time also. BTW, what were Britain's strategic interests in the Falklands??
That was an important war. England needed another place with shitty weather, lots of sheep, and a stage for Prince Charles to show himself as a born to lead kind of guy. (eveyone had that figured out already.....it was just "insurance").
It was true hundreds of years ago, and true thousands of years ago, and true today: To the victor go the spoils..... The losers of all the wars in which America has won have benefited socially, politically, and economically in the long run. My guess, is that if the Iraqui people could vote freely and had all available information from the past 200 years of so called American Imperialism, they would vote for war, just so the could count on Uncle Sam to rebuild their country and upgrade their standard of living after losing. Name one other country in the history of the world who treated their vanquished enemy as well as we have treated ours.
Quote from white17: Perhaps you still don't get it. We don't need permission or approval from anyone to defend ourselves. And yes you are absolutely correct. We are defending ourselves against Iraq because the oil that is the engine of the world's growth and our national security is concentrated in Saddam's backyard. We may not like it but that's the fact as of this moment and we don't need to be blackmailed at some future date when he may have nukes the way N Korea is attempting to do now. thanks a lot for the concise explanation of the legal (and moral) grounds for this amply justified pre-emptive war: UN charter provisions for self-defense, liberation of the Iraqi people, freedom, peace, democracy and ... oil. got it ... at last regards wild
************************************************* We are defending ourselves against Iraq because the oil that is the engine of the world's growth and our national security is concentrated in Saddam's backyard. ************************************************* Are you saying that you believe our national security is dependent on Saddam's oil? Isn't Saddam a small voice and a small piece of OPEC? I've been hoping that this is NOT one of the reasons. I think you're saying that the globe is so dependent on oil economically that it is really the entire planet's and noone has the right to interrupt natural market forces? I suppose you're right, but that gets scary real quick as a justification for armed engagement.
Btw, I assume you guys all read that they found empty chemical warheads in Iraq. Saddam's time is running out: http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story2&cid=540&e=1&u=/ap/20030117/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iraq
quote from ShoeshineBoy Btw, I assume you guys all read that they found empty chemical warheads in Iraq. Saddam's time is running out: http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tm...n_re_mi_ea/iraq The warheads, which fit Katyusha multiple rocket launchers, have a range of just over four miles. The first reaction from Washington was to calm speculation that the find would provide the trigger for war, and to deny that the warheads were "a smoking gun". "A smoking gun would be if you found a big stockpile with chemicals," an official said. ... more at http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,876601,00.html regards wild
Yes Saddams oil is a small part of the whole as is his voice in OPEC. Yes my point was the whole world depends on oil and we, the world, cannot have Saddam or his ilk with nukes holding the world hostage over oil. His neighbors are no match for him militarily and are rightly afraid of what he might do. These people who say that we are just after the oil for ourselves and thats the only reason we may invade fail to answer the question of: Why, when we were in Kuwait, and put out all the oil fires and helped rebuild the ifrastructure didn't we just grab the wells and stay? Because that wasn't our motivation and everyone knows it. Don't misunderstand me. I hope war does not happen even though I believe it is justified.
Wild; I guess your bold type is meant to say that a four mile range is no danger to the US, or any of Saddams neighbors, but it is a big deal to ground troops.