Mike, by "we" I meant the West but I believe it would benefit more of
the world than just the West to be less dependent on the leaders of
the oil rich states. I didn't say it was a good enough reason to
invade -- I don't believe it's the reason for the invasion. And you
say "to invade and destroy" - the intention is to invade and rebuild.
But on the question of who the oil belongs to: Saddam Hussein
nationalized it, by which I understand it's supposed to belong to the
Iraqi people, but they have never seen the benefit of it, although
Saddam and his family have, even with the sanctions. A democratic
Iraqi government might de-nationalize it, and then the profits might
benefit the Iraqi people. Whether they denationalize it or not, the
Iraqi people have a right to some benefit -- they're living in what
could be a wealthy country, yet there's a huge amount of poverty, and
always has been under Saddam, which is absurd.
Sarah
At 10:05 AM +0100 02/18/2003, mike pritchard wrote:
>>Wouldn't it be a good thing if Iraqi oil meant we were less dependent on
Saudia Arabia and OPEC?<<
Good thing for who?. . . And even if it WERE a good thing, this is
not reason enough to invade and destroy a country in order to get
'our' hands on the oil that clearly belongs to another sovereign
state,
