Originally posted by Max:
Originally posted by Gun Nut:
Explain that rationale!?[...]
To me, this only about oil insofar as how oil can be used as a weapon. North Korea actually has nuclear weapons (thank you Jimmy Carter), but it doesn't have oil. That's why the country is nearly in collapse, and people are starving over there. On the other hand, Iraq has oil. That means Saddam has a resource to enrich himself, acquire weapons for himself, support terrorists, and intimidate all of his oil-producing neighbors into submission.
<font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">To me, you have pretty much just answered your own question. If there wasn't oil in the region, we just wouldn't be having this discussion right now.
Originally posted by Max:
Why anybody thinks that we should sit on our hands and watch this entirely predictable scenario unfold before our eyes is beyond my comprehension.
[...]
So we were wrong to give Saddam the impression that we wouldn't do anything if he moved to obliterate Kuwait from the map. So why is that an argument not to do what is right afterwards?
<font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">Again, whose job is it to protect the Iranians, Saudis, and Kuwaitis from the Iraqis? Who nominated us the World's Policeman? Why do we have to spend our tax money taken from our labor, and blood from our citizens to protect totalitarian, facsist and generally untrustworthy political regimes that would no sooner turn around and stab us in the back?
In the same token, if we are so worried about the suffering that could happen because of Saddam Hussein, why have we continued to embargo his country? This only impacts his people, who have no control over this dictator. For such compassionate intentions, the United States and the United Nations have starved and caused pain to thousands of Iraqi citizens. We have a torture record as good as Saddam himself.
In more gentlemanly days, before the UN and Governments Gone Wild, if real men had real disagreements that could not be solved, they would resort to a duel.
Saddam himself suggested to President Bush that this whole predicament should be settled this way and he was a willing participant. No one else need to suffer but the loser himself.
A real patriot would have taken him up on the offer and rid us of this jerk. But no, we are such an honorable society, we will instead send hundreds of thousands of our citizens to be shot at, gassed, possibly nuked, and maybe killed so we can secure our own little middle-east oil supply. This is not to even mention what the side spill of combat will do to the surrounding innocent civilians who get caught up in it all.
If you want to get rid of this goof, then by all means, volunteer to go over there on your dime and put a bullet in his brain. But don't steal from the fruits of my labor, then tell me I have to contribute to this nonsense because our government feels like pushing its weight around.
Finally I pose this question to you all. Pretty much, the same case that is being made against Iraq can be made against the US or any other country. How will you all feel
when (not if) the UN decides to invade our country and take our soverignty from us because we just made it a legitimate reason?
I mean, after all, we don't always abide by UN resolutions. I can name countless. We are bound to those resolutions as a founding member that sits on the Security Council with veto power. We have weapons of mass destruction and have used them. Aside from Nukes, we have every bio and chem weapon known to man. Even the Antrax scare last year was from our own stock! We have invaded other countries and taken their territories.
What makes you think we are immune or any different from the things Iraq is being charged with right now?!
Like I have said previously, this all seems very hypocritical considering this country was founded on liberty and consent...
