Nicole: I do believe there is concern about the continued availability of an oil supply if Saddam gets nuke capability. What would there be to prevent him from marching into Saudi Arabia and taking over the oil fields there? He tried it in Kuwait, and there evidently is no love lost between the Royal family in SA and Saddam.

Those risks to do not exist with the other countries you mentioned.

Think about what would happen if our supply of oil dried up? Were Saddam to successfully invade SA, and Russia were to decide to team up with them, they would collectively have the U. S. by the ying yang so far as oil availability is concerned. We get some oil from Mexico, but not enough to take care of our needs. Some of you will say, then we will get what we deserve because we should have dumped oil years ago, and gone to some kind of alternative fuel. Maybe so, but we didn't.

I realize by opening this subject I am inviting the cynics to charge that the only reason for invading Iraq is to protect our oil supply, and, in turn, line the pockets of Bush's friends. That's a ridiculous argument which has already been suggested in this thread. Protecting our oil supply is NOT the primary reason, but it is part of the equation I believe.

I heard a proposal floated yesterday that seems to be the best plan suggested to date. Bush should go to the U. N. and ask for revision in the requirement for weapons inspections Saddam agreed to at the end of Desert Storm. This time however, there should be no restrictions on the inspectors and they should be able to go where they want to go at any time they choose. A military force composed of U. N. troops would be in Iraq to enforce the resolution. If Saddam did not agree to such an arrangement, the world, perhaps, would see the kind of man we are dealing with, and be more receptive to changing the regime in Iraq.

And McGrath, who said the fact that there is oil in Iraq "proves that they have weapons of mass destruction?" I don't recall reading that.

As far as quoting the "Guardian" is concerned, I repeat that were I to offer quotes from the Washington Times or another right-leaning newspaper as "proof" for what I post, I would be laughed out of the forum.

DougR