Quote Originally Posted by Marshal Murat
Saddam is always the 'bad guy' in this scenario, but are we the wrong-doers, preventing a nation from securing it's future?
thats a twist I havent heard yet, bravo I thought I had heard it all in the backroom.


When does securing your countries future take precedence over laws and orders, and the accepted status quo?
This question has a lot of ambaquity built in and as such seems a trap. That said what future? the immediate? mid term? Long Term? What laws would be cast aside? Who's status quo?


Is securing your countries future a beneficial step, or 'imperialistic war-mongering' as your country stomps on the little guys?
It depends if your the little guy or the big guy, the answer is self evident.

When is it acceptable to take military action for securing for your needs (present or future)?
[/QUOTE]

Again, "needs" is subjective and concensus on what one country or person needs as opposed to another is like a conversation of what came first the chicken or the egg, with a back drop of a dog chasing its tail.

I understand the point of your post, its a good discussion to have because the future holds a lot of uncertainty as to what nations will require to ensure thier prosperity. But your questions seem far to unspecific. If this were a discussion about the U.S. need for oil security exclusively and whats justified, or china's need for materials that might work but in the broad context of the the global community your going to have a 100 different answers.

Not here in the backroom though, you can rest assured the course this topic will take, so I encourage you to take a position on the questions you asked, with modern example and lets hash it out.