I read the link -- and it had nothing to do with 1990 (did you read the link?). Kuwait's undemocratic, dictatorial autocracy may be thanking us now for keeping them in power all these years (which is to be expected)... but that is entirely beside the point. In 1990, Kuwait was entirely irrelevant to American National Interest. It really doesn't matter which undemocratic dictator (the Kuwaiti autocracy or the Iraqi autocracy) sells us Kuwaiti oil; We had no compelling National Interest in Kuwait before it was introduced into the World community (like Iraq, it is a relatively recent post-colonial nation-state), and we have no compelling National Interest in them now. Funny how this nation prospered for 185 years before the nation-state of "Kuwait" was ever invented.
Your principles rely upon a perfect world. Mine are on REALITY. Oil is not being drilled here, as it should be.... Israel, and Iraq are both places we should be. Saddam is an international thread, and should be taken out of power. I agree, with you that we should not just keep bombing them. We need to KILL Saddam. That is the only way we, as Americans can be safe.
Or, we could've just ignored him in the first place. What do you suppose he intended to do with all that Kuwaiti oil? Drink it?
And as to your complaint that "Oil is not being drilled here"... gee, wonder why? Fact is, were it not for US military interventionism in the region, Middle Eastern oil would likely form a much smaller "supply pool" for US oil demand than it does now, as US importers have little desire to rely on suppliers which, without US protection, could disappear at a moments notice. Of course, without this "supply pool", demand would have to be filled here at home, instead. This would set the interests of the American working class (who want cheap gasoline) against the environmentalists, a conservative political dream scenario.
Instead, the interests of the American working class have been satisfied by a militarily-enforced reliance on foreign Oil, cheered on by the unthinking Interventionist war-mongers -- who never consider how they are endangering the blood of American citizens by making unnecessary enemies in every "neighborhood" in the world. Why? 'Cause deep down you care a lot more about cheap foreign oil than the blood of your fellow citizens. That's a fact, jack.
I will agree that there is several places we are that we should not be.
Wow, just brilliant. The heir to Washington you are indeed, Tex.
And stop getting into the personal attacks. Because you aren't even CLOSE to the founders.
Cry me a river, little man. I'm a heck of a lot closer to the Founder's viewpoints -- religiously, philsophically, and politically -- than you have ever been; and you well know it, too. And, unless you start thinking for the first time in your life, than you will ever be, either.
"Foreign Policy should be re-assessed. The Founders never intended an imperial military which engaged in more than 170 multinational military exercises a year, with a military presence in over 100 countries**." While I can mostly agree with that statement, do you really believe it was not in our national interests to stop Saddam from taking control of the oil reserves in the region? Most of the experts say Kuwait was just the first stop.
As I've indicated above, yes it is in the interests of US domestic oil producers to have Middle Eastern oil carry an appropriately high "risk premium" reflecting the natural instability of the region, without the US government spending billions (even tens of billions of dollars) a year to "hide" that Risk-Premium behind the aegis of military adventurism.
So ultimately, yes, I am an advocate of domestic US oil development rather than dependence on foreign oil. And if US oil consumers did not expect the US military to "maintain" the supply of cheap oil from the middle east, they would prefer dependable domestic producers to the (in that scenario) much more risky foreign sources.
The expenditure of billions of dollars a year in US military interventionism hides the true cost, and true risks, of foreign oil, thus diverting that demand from domestic producers. But this military adventurism does have a hidden cost -- it provides lots and lots of anti-American video footage for radicals like Bin Laden to enrage the Arab man on the street who otherwise would care very little about a peaceful Republic some 6,000 miles away.
All that said, Saudi Arabia alone contains considerably more proven Oil reserves than Iraq and Kuwait combined. If (in 1990) you are determined that we must be dependent on foreign oil, conclude a treaty of Defense with Saudi Arabia with an agreement to station 11 nuclear delivery vehicles (under US military control & supervision) on Saudi soil -- 10 tactical launch warheads to eliminate any Iraqi divisions that cross the Iraq/Saudi frontier, and 1 strategic launch warhead targeted on Baghdad. Inform Baghdad of the arrangement, and sit back. Oh, and Saudi Arabia can pay us, say, $1 billion dollars a year, per warhead, by way of a thank-you; and also agree to support US diplomacy in every international forum, lest we withdraw our benevolent protection.
I am against military interventionism on principle, but if you insist upon it, let's lay down three principles:
1.) Make no more enemies than we have to;
2.) Endanger no American blood when Massive Deterrence will do the job instead; and
3.) At least make a profit on the deal.
What do you suppose he intended to do with all that Kuwaiti oil? Drink it?
Um I though you had a brain Uriel. Actually I didn't your poor interpretation of the Bible in the past had already pointed that out. What is better Uriel, a free market with competition or a Monopoly? Do you really think that we would not have suffered had Saddam taken control of all oil in the Middle east? And you are a fool if you don't think that was his intention.
As for your founders statement; it is obvious that you are severely demented and need to seek psychological help.
Of course you are right Uriel, in your own little twisted world. Let me know when REALITY becomes a concept to you.
Wow. That is such a naive question, I don't know how to respond. Other than to point out that pretty much ALL of our military and intelligence people figured Saddam would eventually move on to Saudi Arabia and possibly others if left to his own devices. I'm no geo-political expert, but my own layman's observation of Saddam's m.o. tells me that would be extremely hurtful to US interests.
The world runs on oil; our economy runs on oil; countless jobs depend on reasonable oil prices; our entire standard of living relys on a stable oil environment; oil is power. So we should have let Saddam eventually take over a significant portion of the world's oil reserves and deal with whatever demands he would make...including outrageous prices or no shipments at all? Boy, I'm glad you libertarians are not in authority - scary.