I don't think it is right to kill for a better standard of living, 
either. I saw it as defending an ally, regardless of whether you agree 
on how Kuwait was established, or not. I also saw Saddam as a threat to 
the region, given his WOMD attacks on Iran, his killing of Kurds, his 
desire to be the new Saladin (emperor of the Muslim middle East), and 
the reality that we would not be able to quickly switch over to our own 
oil sources.

High oil prices, whether they come from internal or external sources, 
affect our economy. I'm not for killing people to buoy up that economy, 
but I am for maintaining our allies in order to keep the USA economy 
(and also then, the world economy) running well.  We killed a few 
thousand Iraqi troops. Saddam killed hundreds of thousands of people. We 
understood him to be ruthless, and knew he would use the power of oil 
fields in Kuwait (and his next goal, Saudi Arabia) to force the world 
into hand.

If suddenly, millions of people in the USA and elsewhere were out of 
work, because oil got so costly that the economy collapsed into a major 
recession, would you THEN be interested in managing the problem?

Whether you like it or not, John, we are in a global economy. Whether 
you like it or not, your pipe dream of being totally self-sufficient 
will not occur as long as there is a strong enough group of liberal tree 
huggers to keep us from developing our own sources. And whether you like 
it or not, we have a responsibility to peaceful allies.  Whether you 
like it or not, we have to manage global events or risk having them 
manage us.

For all those seeking to live in a Utopia (whether on the far right or 
left, or in between): it ain't here, yet.  And as much as anyone dreams 
of building it, it isn't going to easily happen even if we save every 
tree or turn all of the grasslands and tundra into one giant oil field.

We can't hide our heads like ostriches. We personally might not see the 
danger if we do, but our backsides are still out in the open. To try and 
bring our economy back to a US-only level would devastate our economy 
for decades. We might as well just give up and call ourselves a third 
world nation, because that's what would be left of us after we shrank 
our economy that much. And to try and get a single oil well built with 
all of the extreme environmental screaming is just a pipe dream. We 
would have to give up our SUVs, our air conditioners, and much of our 
economy, in order to reduce our thirst for oil that much.

I don't see that as sensible. Attacking Iraq a decade ago was sensible. 
It was a clear threat to the region, and therefore, to global economies. 

Gary Smith

John W. Redelfs wrote:
> 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.
> John W. Redelfs                            [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> =============================================
> 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 

Gerald (Gary) Smith
geraldsmith@ juno.com

///  ZION LIST CHARTER: Please read it at  ///
///  http://www.zionsbest.com/charter.html      ///
This email was sent to: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

EASY UNSUBSCRIBE click here: http://topica.com/u/?aaP9AU.bWix1n.YXJjaGl2
Or send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

TOPICA - Start your own email discussion group. FREE!

Reply via email to