Replies

Even if I grant you the increased cost argument (which I do not) you fail to address my larger and more compelling argument about Saddam taking over the region.

He would have and it would have been very bad for us indeed -- look at the trouble he is causing WITH a modicum of containment. Imagine if his power grew unchecked.

Well- now we can't let him out of the box with all that has happened.

But for the sake of argument let's say that Bush I didn't do anything when Sadaam went into Kuwait. And let's also speculate that Sadaam kept on rolling and took the Saudi penisula as well. So you have Sadaam Hussein controlling most of the Mideast oil reserves. We haven't done a thing to him. He is not going to sell us oil? He knows that we can still squash him at any time. And who gets all the rage of these Wahhabist Muslem extremeists? Hussein- that's who. I think you would also find Syria suddenly not so much concerned with little Isreal and Lebanon but scared as hell of a Greater Iraq. And further- no more Saudi money going to Islamic extremists. Iran as well would be spending a hell of a lot less time messing about with terrorists groups attacking Isreal and more time dealing with this increased Iraqi threat.

Now lets say that with all this new wealth pouring in Sadaam is able to get the bomb. In fact several bombs. ANd? So what? At this point we are buying oil from him and not his enemy. His regime is most likely plauged with guerilla bands and rebellions of muslem fanatics and he has enemies all about him. We are just a neutral disinterested buyer of oil. His problems are his problems. Is he going to support terrorism against the US? What for? Is he going to attack us? Again- what for and also how?

Who knows? Doesn't matter. At the minimum Sadaam has to be contained now.