[dd74]

Denis - I have to comment on what you claim to be a policy of if we don't get involved, there will be no American casualties: to be frank, it's quite a polyana (sp?) way of thinking. To echo what Tabs said, the region has to be stabilized. If we weren't getting involved, who knows how many American lives, military not withstanding, would be lost as out war against terrorism escalates. The fact is we're in a no-win situation with the Middle East in general. The general feeling from the Mid-East toward all things American is hatred, and has since the last Gulf War, increased mightily. So if we are to have any global interest in that area, it needs to be stabilized first. Stability and bloodshed are sacrosanct. They go hand-in-hand, as seen any historical conflict. But if we were not to be involved at Saddam was allowed to go unchecked, what might be hard row in stabilizing at this point, could be almost impossible in one or two years from now.

This brings up my second point: the forest and the trees are one in the case of Iraq. What more can be gained from the country than oil. Iraq have three times the amount of oil than the U.S. and if given the opportunity and infrastructure, could completely unseat the Saudis as the principal suppliers of oil. Stability in Iraq's case means oil can be extracted from the country more easily. Already some have been saying the drop per barrel of crude could be about 20 percent if it were taken specifically from Iraq. This yet another reason for the Saudis to be greatly afraid of not necessarily this war, but its outcome.

So, it's really not about the forest or the trees, but what's underneath the forest itself.