Just a quick note, I intend to create a new GD thread and port my exchange with DesertGeezer there. I’ve just been putting it off because it’s so much work…I hate, hate, hate that we can’t do nested quotes anymore. Did I mention I hate it?
Yes, as long as every other available option has been dismissed.
Yes, as long as there is a U.N. resolution authorizing force to be used in the enforcement of previous U.N. resolutions regarding Iraq.
No, if we have to go it alone.
I vote no.
While I believe that Iraq most likely does have WMD, I have yet to see a convincing argument for war.
Containment, while not ideal, appears to be the best available option.
Additionally, I cannot see how this war will produce a successfull outcome, in the long term.
The prospects of Iraq collapsing into civil war, either before or after US/UN occupation, appear to be high.
Furthermore, a pre-emptive strike in Iraq (especially if lacking UN support) will set a bad precedent for other countries in situations of potential conflict (i.e India and Pakistan).
That said, I do not believe this war is all about oil. That view, often put forward by mebers of the idealogical left, is far too simplistic to describe the current situation.
-Oli
No.
Update: I have created a new thread in GD to continue the debate with DesertGeezer. It is here: http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?s=&threadid=164137
Thank you, Weird_Al. I appreciate your efforts to avoid having this thread moved.