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: TimF who wrote (195844)	8/7/2006 7:49:44 PM
From: neolib	Read Replies (1) of 281500

Well, clearly it is just our two WAGs. You have very different views of what constitutes property than I do however. My property title gives me mineral rights to what is under the surface. Here in many regions of the west you can buy property where such rights have been sold already, in which case your property might find itself a mine dump down the road, with nothing you can say about it (or a lake of dirty water in the case of natural gas wells). I find it highly unlikely that any country would not consider a sizeable oil field jointly shared under a common border not to belong to both sides. If one side refuses to accept some form of shared use, I would expect harsher means to follow, assuming the wronged party had the necessary might to accomplish such harsher measures. Which of course the USA does. But more to the point, you seem ignorant of the fact that Saddam actually sounded the USA out on the idea of an invasion over this issue, and was told that the USA viewed the issue as a problem between Kuwait and Iraq, and not something the USA would take sides on. Our ambassador to Iraq took a little flak over that IIRC.

Report TOU Violation

Share This Post

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next