Quote:
Originally posted by wonton
The case of Saddam is unique since he is also sitting on top of the second largest oil reserves on the planet and his country is strategically located in the middle east as a perfect staging ground for future invasions.
|
Do you really think it's about controlling oil? You do realize that financial burden of this war will far outweigh any financial benefit that we could get even if we totally controlled Iraq's oil fields. We would not go to war simply for oil. As I said there are NUMEROUS reasons to go to war with Iraq.
Quote:
The argument put forth by such media as the Altantic Monthly (and others) that there are humanitarian reasons for invading Iraq also does not wash. There are far more repressive regimes out there in the world that treat their people far worse than Saddam treats Iraqis. From Nigeria to the Congo to Cambodia to Libya - the list is enormous.
|
Yes, there are other repressive regimes out there, and many of them we should have acted as well. What happened in Congo was reprehenisble, and the fact that the world did nothing is astonishing. It's probably one of the most horrific examples. However, not intervening there or anywhere else is not a good argument for not doing the right thing now. If you could choose between 3 hitlers or 4, which would you choose?
Fact is, we can't commit troops everywhere and there are numerous factors involved in the decision to commit troops. In this case there are more reasons for (and less reasons against) going to Iraq than anywhere else.