[QUOTE="GabuEx"][QUOTE="major_silva"]
Uh, wait, what? The public's "iron sights" were set on Saddam because the Bush administration put them there.
[QUOTE="major_silva"]And there's also the fact that they could have just, um, bought the oil for a fraction of the price of the war."
That is not how the world works.major_silva
Actually, it pretty much is. We were importing more oil from Iraq before we invaded than after we invaded.
You have to think of the reason *why* Saddam Hussein was targeted, and everyone here seems to forget how large a role the concept of Middle Eastern democracy played in the year leading up to the invasion, and the years following. In this respect, Iran was far ahead of its neighbor. I'm not going to address your concept of simply buying the oil, as that would require far more writing than I am willing to perform. If you wish, you may consider that a concession. It doesn't matter to me. What I want to know is what everyone else thinks is the reason for the invasion of Iraq, and Libya.That still doesn't answer the question of why he was targeted. And from the limited response you give, it certainly doesn't imply oil. And even if it did, why would you risk war in such a volatile region in which case it takes years and years of effort to get production back up to speed? As someone well versed in business, I can say that's certainly not a positive NPV.
Furthermore, when was the last time any U.S. government gave any sort of **** about public opinion, or even needed it for something like this?
Log in to comment