[extropy-chat] Re: US not right to invade say Iraqis

[John K Clark]

"Samantha Atkins" <sjatkins at mac.com>

> We and the Iraqis would have been better off to have not done Desert
> Storm in 91 and to have never imposed the sanctions.

Well you're half right. A thief is always better off if he is not caught so
yes, the Iraqis would have been better off if they could invade their
neighbors and receive no opposition, not even sanctions. (Could we at least
give Saddam a tongue lashing or is even that too harsh?) The Iraqis would be
better off but the rest of the world would not be.

Without Desert Storm Saddam Hussein today would have his hand on the
throttle of the world economy, he would rule the top 3 oil exporting
countries on Earth, Saudi Arabia, Iraq, and Kuwait and he would own 50% of
the oil on this planet. Saddam would be richer than God and after having
first hand experience with the spineless nature of western democracies I
have no doubt he would open his checkbook and pursue exotic and horrible
weapons with a vengeance.

One of the reasons I didn't vote for John Kerry was his opposition of the
war in 91, which was an even bigger blunder than Bush starting a war in 03.
But in all fairness to Mr. Kerry, at least he thought we should impose
sanctions, but you say even that is to big a punishment just for murdering
thousands and invading your rich neighbors.

   John K Clark