Foreign Affairs Discussion Group Message Board

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Foreign Affairs Discussion Group

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next

To: goldworldnet who wrote (153295)	12/3/2004 5:47:41 PM
From: Michael Watkins	Read Replies (2) of 281500

> The Middle East has a lot of oil and there is nothing wrong with wanting to buy it, but we care about what they do with the money. < By all reports Iraq wasn't doing anything with the money that should be objectionable to us. They were no threat to us, yet there we are, gun in their faces. We could have simply bought oil from them -- there was no reason why the US could not have negotiated its way around any issues it had with Iraq, but that would make Saddam a paper winner, and Bush just could not deal with that. So, he chose the gun, instead of the pen. Certainly with the outcome of the war and over a decade of intentional bombing of their basic infrastructure, the US has purposefully put Iraq into a debt which it can not repay now unless it sells oil. To me that is no different than invading for the purpose of stealing. A simple analogy is called for: Is it theft if your car repair shop intentionally breaks your car and then charges you to fix it? That is precisely what we have done in Iraq, but on a scale measured in the hundreds of billions if not more.

Report TOU Violation

Share This Post

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next