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 : Foreign Affairs Discussion Group -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: FaultLine who wrote (8638)	11/2/2001 2:52:48 PM
From: MSI	Respond to of 281500

>"Sometime you have no choice but to say these other folks want to kill you one way or another." True, but there is a way not to go to war over oil - with our energy diversity we can also remove our finger from the M.E. light socket, find other ways to replace that 13% of oil consumption, and let those combatants solve their own problems, which we don't understand ... Post-Taliban, FA involvement in the M.E. now seems promoted by two camps: those thinking it is a pragmatic necessity to protect the US (oil, commerce, the US 'way of life'), and those thinking it necessary to protect others (Israel, SA, etc.) JP Morgan, a famous pragmatist, said "a man does something for two reasons: a good reason, and the real reson" But then there's the third option - don't get involved, just supply food aid and UN support. That doesn't fit most agendas when tax dollars are burning a hole in your pocket, I guess. If we didn't have such a high tax rate on GDP, we wouldn't be paying trillions to millions in the political and military sphere to play these games, imo. Lately, those funds look better used to protect bridges & the rest of the $1/2 Trillion in 'infrastructure hardening'. The Saudis haven't offered to pay for it, and no one else has the money.