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.

Pastimes : THE SLIGHTLY MODERATED BOXING RING -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Lane3 who wrote (3266)	3/17/2002 6:34:18 PM
From: Lazarus_Long	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 21057

I am not yet convinced that we need to do anything. NOr am I. I can see that the gov't would be interested in keeping Saddam from developing particularly nuclear weapons, though If we do, however, I would favor 1) assassination or 2) UN inspectors backed up with US special forces and air power. Nuts with the UN inspectors. We're talking about doing something, not holding a debating club meeting. If that's the answer, then do nothing. Actually, I think N's theory is a pretty good idea, particularly the part about setting up our military in that lovely location where they aren't quite as finicky about infidels. I also think that a guaranteed oil supply is a good idea. It's distasteful to get it that way, but less distasteful, perhaps, than continuing to support the Saudis. Yeah. I'd rather not ship money to the Saudi religious fundamentalists so they can ship us back terrorists. From a simple perspective of self interest, it makes a lot of sense to me. I don't think Iraq would put up much of a fight, although there would be casualties. Maybe. But the Administration does not operate off of self interest but good and evil. And then, too there would be the difficulty of doing something so conspicuously oil industry friendly in the aftermath of Enron... First you tell me Bush doesn't pay attention to his supporters. Then you tell me he does. ????? And I think a war on Iraq could be launched without the gov't ever mentioning oil. There are other reasons.

To: Lane3 who wrote (3266)	3/18/2002 7:19:39 AM
From: thames_sider	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 21057

Most of the rest of the world, which the US needs as markets and as suppliers, would scream to high heaven if the US started setting up it's own new empire. Half of them would be thinking "Am I next?"... The general term from invasion, occupation and installation of your own picked leaders, supported by military force, is colonisation. If you do it to exploit raw materials, that's a particularly classic example. Hey, maybe you could import the inhabitants to carry out really nasty jobs in the US that no one else wants; no need to pay them, and if they're not given the vote either then there's no problem. See where I'm going here? I don't think this is maintained in the US as a good thing, whether done by the Brits, Russia or the Nazis. It surely isn't well regarded elsewhere in the world, especially officially. It is not right to invade, suppress and exploit another land for your own good. And the ends do not justify the means. Ignore the wishes of a majority of the inhabitants and it's pure imperialist colonisation. And no, it doesn't matter if you believe that it's better for the natives. Ask India if it thought it was better off under the Raj? How about the natives of Zimbabwe, when it was a part of Rhodesia? I think even the more RWET members here are agreed on that - well, they castigate evil Britain for it, and we know they're not hypocrites. Or is it OK if you only do it to Arabs, and not whites (e.g., NI)?? Colonisation is WRONG. End of story. Whether this and the obvious escalations would rule it out for the current administration... who knows. I can't believe I'm even seeing it here.