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.
Nope. Oil prices would've spiked, and absent a policy of military interventionism, we'd have to drill Alaska instead.
The Unions are already at odds with the enviro-nuts today over Alaskan oil. How much stronger do you suppose working class demand for oil would have been, in 1990, without a US policy of empire-building promoting dependence on foreign oil in the Middle East?
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.
Well, hum-golly, I never thought of that (/sarcasm).
All the more reason to drill Alaska. Last I checked, Alaskan's weren't in the habit of throwing a dirty little regional war every few years.
Ultimately, you folks are perfectly willing to sacrifice your neighbor's blood for cheap Middle Eastern oil -- oil which could be drilled at home in the US instead -- and claim this callous indifference to your neighbor's lives to be "patriotism".
That's exactly what I've been saying of you.
And, guess what -- September 11, 2001, the Interventionists empire-building policies paid their dividends.
Rather than blaming libertarians (who are perfectly willing to exact vengeance now that the Interventionists have yet again enraged an enemy half-way around the globe and gotten their fellow-citizens killed as a result), you may as well acknowledge the facts -- the Founders argued against a policy of US military adventurism. They had their reasons. And you still don't understand why they thought the way they did.
But some of us do. To callously endanger your fellow-citizens over your own desire to manage the world's affairs, is treasonous in the bloody results it obtains.
Oh, and Tex...
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.
Your little potshot is just silly. Since you want to make a point of this, let's be honest: We are not on the same mental playing field, and you know it. There is probably not a single field of intellectual endeavor in which you are not completely outclassed. You know it as well as I do. Don't even pretend that you can kid yourself on this.
That isn't a boast; just an observation of fact.