Even it that were not the case, however, we would have still needed to go in.
Even if there are no MWDs, even if there were no inhumanities visited upon the Iraqi people, even if Iraq had no capability to harm America with weapons or terrorists, we would have still had to go in for one reason - oil.
I'm not saying that's the reason we went. I'm saying it was sufficient reason to oust Sadaam without any other contributing factor.
Iraq sits on the second largest oil reserve in the world.
The first largest is in the control of the Saud regime which is showing signs of toppling.
We needed to secure an oil supply independent of Saudi Arabia. They no longer have the power over the Mid-East that they had during Ronald Reagan's administration.
Ronald Reagan turned our economy around in the mid-80's by convincing Saudi Arabia to open the taps and drive the price of oil down to $11. a barrel.
George Bush doesn't have that option. OPEC won't stand for it, and Saudi Arabia isn't strong enough to make them do it.
The only thing in our economic arsenal which will facilitate a turn-around in this country is cheap energy.
We now have control of a source for that energy, and that is the reason France was so adamant about keeping us out of there. They had huge oil concessions in Iraq under the name of Total Fina Elf, since shortened to Total.
This is a win-win for the US in that we will develop the oil fields and produce the oil giving a large share to the Iraqi people to enhance their standard of living and at the same time hitting the oil markets with an abundance of oil outside of what OPEC produces driving the price of oil down to achieve our own economic recovery.
Well, at least you are honest about the reason for attacking Iraq! I do not agree that our need for the oil gives us the right to attack another nation to get it. Put that in more personal terms-would it be OK for you to attack your neighbor and take his (fill in the blank) because you really need it? Of course not!
Yet you are not the first person I have heard make that argument. Somehow, the common morality that represents how we deal with each other as individuals has no applicability when dealing with other nations. I just don't understand that.
Our energy problem can be resolved without killing foreigners. For example, we can put a few caribou at risk in the ANWR. We could get the government out of the way in building more nuclear plants again-we have pretty well frozen new construction of those plants for decades now. I am sure you can think of some more ideas that might actually work without the necessity of killing people.