On Sat, Oct 26, 2002 at 08:43:04PM -0700, Deborah Harrell wrote: > By the criteria you propose, wouldn't the US also have to act against > Saudi Arabia, whose nationals have (I think) funded more terrorism, in > both Isreal and the US, than Saddam?
You always seem to have a roundabout excuse for doing nothing rather than addressing the issue. Okay, I'll play along this time. Please cite where a member of the Saudi government (basically, the royal family) has openly offered a reward for terrorist acts, or something similar. Besides, as usual, your digression doesn't really make a good argument, since I DO think the US should push for regime change in Saudi Arabia after Iraq is handled. However, I know of no lawful reason to use force in Saudi Arabia, so it would need to be diplomatic pressure. And that is going to be much easier after Iraq is handled, especially if Iraq becomes a reliable trading partner for oil. > If 'the West' reduced its dependence on Middle Eastern oil > (conservation, innovation) and tied financial dealings to improvement > in human rights, would that promote peaceful, lasting change? It would help. Is it realistic to expect that to solve the regions problems in less than 50 years? Of course not, that is just dreamy idealism. > Going in with guns blazing might be more emotionally satisfying, but > I don't see how the US alone can afford to do that against _all_ the > 'evildoers.' Even if we are the biggest a**kicker in the world. To use Nick's favorite phrase, that is a straw man. I haven't heard anyone but you suggesting going after every bad guy. What is your point? -- "Erik Reuter" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> http://www.erikreuter.net/ _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
