Originally Posted by ERD50
I've heard this repeated so many times, but I've never heard it explained. Please, don't just think it is obvious - think it through. I just don't think it works that way. Can you tell me why you (or anyone else) thinks so?
Assuming you are serious (which a doubt), I will take a shot at answering this question. Generally, most war apologist state we are in Iraq for one of three reasons (or some combination of these reasons) 1) They possessed weapons of mass destruction that might be transferred to agents hostile to the US or directly used against the US 2) Saddam was a bad man and Iraq needed to be rescued from him 3) Iraq supported terrorism.
The reason that almost everyone understanding were are only because Iraq has oil in the fact that all of these situations exist in other countries, but yet we have not invaded any of them. I will give you a list of countries that fall into each of categories:
1) North Korea, Pakistan and various central Asian -stan countries.
2) Pretty much all of Africa and the Middle East (including our stellar allies Pakistan, Saudi Arabia), and assorted nations in South, Central and Southeast Asia, including our largest trading partner, China and standout North Korea.
3) Saudi Arabia, Syria, North Korea, Egypt, Pakistan.
You note that Pakistan is on all three list (no oil) and Saudi Arabia is on two (freely provides oil, no need to invade). If you really think we would have invaded Iraq if it had no oil and was located in central Africa, you are not investigating the issue as closely as perhaps you should. Think North Korea, which has detonated an a-bomb, directly committed terrorist acts (kidnapping, counterfeiting and hijacking us ships) and is ruled by the most vicious, low-down dictator on the planet. Why have we not invaded? Could it be they have no strategic resources?
OTOH, I have no problem with the basic concept. Why should we mess around in affairs that do not concern our strategic interest? Just be a man and admit it, however.