Teejay32
<font color=green>Wanders off too much<br>
- Joined
- Jan 18, 2000
- Messages
- 4,053
simpilotswife said:Well what if there isn't? Or what if one of the reasons that he did something was not disclosed and not something you would have approved of?
well, seeing as how it's you...
I can't think of how this applies to Bush1 not invading Iraq, so maybe there's a suggestion here of oil. And if you're not suggesting that, many others have, so it's an example. My answer is that I don't approve of knocking over a country for its oil business, but I did approve of the side benefit of knocking Hussein himself out of the oil business. There is a difference, and it would necessarily be a by-product of those other reasons. Had GWB proposed the same plan for Venezuela or somewhere we weren't already actively trying to contain, then everyone would have been at the same level of disbelief and having to be "won over" with every possible reason explored. That just wasn't going to happen with Iraq - too much bad history there already, including illicit oil dealing and coveting his neighbors' supplies - so I personally never considered it an ulterior motive on the US side.
I guess the short answer is that the suggested US ulterior motives never surmounted the benefits of removing Hussein, to me.

