Gerald Smith wrote:
How about to defend an ally (Kuwait)? Also, how about to defend our oil
interests? Those are two very important reasons to go into Iraq the
first time, as well as the second time.

Kuwait was not an ally. It was a client state that western oil money set up in the first place. And we have plenty of oil here at home for our legitimate needs.

What would the economy of the USA been like over the past 10 years if
Saddam had control of the oil fields in Kuwait and Saudi Arabia? He
would have jacked the price up, forcing us into $3/gallon a decade ago.
As it is, most of us grouse at paying above $1.50/gal right now. It
would have stifled our economy, and enriched someone known to slaughter
his enemies (foreign and domestic) WITH WMDs, and also spends money on
many terrorist groups.

$3/gallon is better than being dependent on imported oil. The only reason we are dependent on middle east oil is because we have become addicted to the cheap oil.

I think we were well within reason to defend and ally and also our
national security in both efforts.

I guess we just have different priorities. I don't think it is OK to kill people to enjoy a little bit better standard of living when we already have one of the highest standards of living in the world.

The traditional family is under heavy attack. I do not know
that things were worse in the times of Sodom and Gomorrah.
-- President Gordon B. Hinckley, 2004.
All my opinions are tentative pending further data. --JWR

///  ZION LIST CHARTER: Please read it at  ///
///      ///
This email was sent to: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Or send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

TOPICA - Start your own email discussion group. FREE!

Reply via email to