Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

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 : High Tolerance Plasticity -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Think4Yourself who wrote (7868)	9/14/2001 11:44:38 AM
From: que seria	Respond to of 23153

JQP: Yep. We don't belong there, shouldn't be there, and have broken our promise in keeping a base in Saudi Arabia. But now: All the better to bomb from. Then let's leave. We've already done too much retreating from threats. The irony of our interventions is their counter-productiveness in achieving the goal (at least, long term) of oil access via regional stability through friendly rulers. Oil is fungible; I see little reason to believe the Arabs would or could have severely limited US access to it over any extended period if we did no more than give Israel money and sell arms. Now we face terrorism and the likely fall of Saudi and other oil reserves into the hands of those who are ideologically opposed to trade with us. E&P companies with primarily non-Arab assets ought to be at a premium when markets reopen.

To: Think4Yourself who wrote (7868)	9/14/2001 8:57:17 PM
From: Razorbak	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 23153

we should have kept our promise and shut down the base. We still should. Why the hell is that base still open? Because our political and military leaders, who receive daily intelligence briefings on the volatile status of affairs in the Middle East, have determined that it is in our vital strategic interests to do so. Just out of curiosity, have you ever actually travelled to the Middle East?

To: Think4Yourself who wrote (7868)	9/15/2001 2:02:08 AM
From: Raymond Duray	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 23153

Hi JQP, Regarding the Dharan(sp?) fort that we've established on the Saudi Peninsula, I find the response you've gotten from others on the thread to be mirthful assertions of bully boy bluster. For a look at what we are really faced with, it would behoove the rambos among us (I would have used the term rambunctious, but felt it was too effete for the clowns) to examine the history of Britain's Afghan War of 1839-42 in Cabool, er, Kabul and environs. Upon entering that nation in 1839, 12,000 British cavalry, infantrymen and Hindi associates, along with an equally large throng of camp followers, proudly entered Kabul to take charge after sufficient bribes were paid to the Ghilzai sharpshooters controlling the passes. By January, 1842 one British doctor was able to extricate himself from the country and tell of the debacle that had ensued. 12,000....1, you do the math. Oh, the camp followers? 2,000 ended up as beggars on the streets of Kabul. Before they were sold into slavery. Does GWB have any clue what he's proposing to get us into? Frankly, until tonight, I hardly had a clue. But I have a big advantage over our present President. I actually pay attention to history. Heaven help us if we even begin to think "foreign adventure". You can be well assured no Bushes will ever come anywhere near the front lines. Just too risky. -Ray