Why attack Iraq before we attack Saudi Arabia and Pakistan

[laFiera]

because if we dont attack iraq and take the oil business from iraq, how u think were gonna pay our billions of dollars in debt???
better yer, how is this country gonna stand on its feet economically?
I dont think pakistan has any oil, and saudi arabia is our supposed ally, but we need our own oil
geee, aint it beatiful that bush and cheney both got oil industry experience??


interesting commentary here for the blind ones about usa being a world power

OK, so you don't care about the trade deficit. Maybe you buy the argument, most recently made by Undersecretary of the Treasury John Taylor, that it's a sign of America's economic strength, of our longstanding ability to grow faster than our trading partners. Maybe you're impressed by the growth of the U.S. economy and its manufacturing sector during the 1990s, when both boomed even as trade deficits skyrocketed. And maybe you think that the dollar's role as anchor of the world economy will let us run ever higher deficits forever.

But here's another measure of America's trade performance that should make even you worry - the rising import penetration rates, and consequently the declining domestic market shares, of most American industries throughout the boom.

 

[SuperTool]

The WOT will not be won until Saudi Arabia is dealt with. It continues to spread Wahabbism throughout the world. It pays for mosques that spread the hatred. You can jump around this issue all you want, but it's not going to go away. Saudis need to be taught that if they use the oil money to support terrorism, they will lose their oil. And that applies to all these other regimes in the area. All these monarchs need to know that if they tolerate support of terrorism in their lands, they will lose their throne. We need to make the kings in those countries fear the US more than they fear their own extremists. If we are going to strike a deal with the devil and support despotism over democracy in the middle east, we better get our end of the bargain.

 

[Martin]

Originally posted by: element®

Tell me, do you think the US should have the right to attack any country that tries the develop WMD, or just Iraq?

In the case that they would use it to attack us or our allies yes. You could make the argument that killing is wrong and no one should ever be the aggressor in a war. That pre-emptive striking is the start of war and is a beligerent action. But then I would argue that it is not when the intention is to save lives and not take them.

For example if a gunman had a gun to your family's head during a robbery, you would be justified in taking his life to save that of yours and your family's. Even tho you are the first and only (in the case of killing him instantly) one to fire a shot.

edited only the spelling, and not the content

Your example is flawed. In the that case, the gunman would already be a valid target because he has already invaded your home. The US' new policty is more akin to someone patrolling the neighbourhood and killing anyone they deem to be a threat. Do you want to live in such a place?

 

[Nitemare]

We already have a military base in Saudi Arabia and India is going to take over Pakistan...