This topic has been brought up before, but didn’t get too far because there was a bit too much perceived glee in the OP’s praise for Saddam Hussein.
The refusal to sell oil for one month, after which review of the policy would be done,was a turn many were not expecting. The terms of the refusal are a complete pullout of Israeli forces back to 1970 boundaries (I’m sorry, I’m pulling that year from memory and I can’t really say I remember the year. At any rate, boundaries that existed before Israel’s land grab - but let us not get sidetracked).
Some peopel praised it as a great way to encourage a stop to the violence. Others have said it was a cowardly thing to do.
“Oil isn’t a weapon like a cannon or tank. It’s a resource essential for national economies,” al-Faisal said. “Saudi Arabia will continue supporting the uprising of the Palestinian people and oil will provide the resources for that.”
…said the prince, arguing the policy’s counterproductive nature.
I wondered if the arguments against the policy - saying it’s immoral, that it denies Iraq the ability to look after its impoverished people - were in fact an argument declaring it immoral only because it is oil that we depend on most. Something like, “Oh, that’s so devastating, we’ll call it evil.”
What is the moral argument against the policy, other than denying Iraq the means to feed its own?
I’m hoping I’ll get answers a little more intellectualy inspired than “Because Saddam is an asshole and his plays suck.”