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: Patricia Trinchero who wrote (44152)	9/15/2002 2:41:18 PM
From: Nadine Carroll	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

The US and the UK have no sovereign hold over the Middle Eastern countries so a strike on Iraq without UN backing is an act of war from us to them..............we would be the first strike perpetrator. Bullcrap. As Bush just reminded the world, we have twelve years of broken armistice agreements to enforce. I notice you've rather changed the subject from saying it makes no sense to attack Iraq because they might be a threat; now you say we can't attack even if he is one, either because it's illegal or because it might profit the oil companies. Sorry, don't buy it. The number one job of the US government is to prevent the radical Arab regimes from biting us again as they did on 9/11. Saudi Arabia is the core exporter of Islamic extremism, but past and present aggression makes Iraq the natural target.

To: Patricia Trinchero who wrote (44152)	9/15/2002 3:05:12 PM
From: Ilaine	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

a strike on Iraq without UN backing is an act of war from us to them A strike on Iraq is an act of war regardless of whether the UN backs it or not. we would be the first strike perpetrator We are not initiating force, we are finishing the job that Iraq started in 1991, pursuant to multiple UN resolutions, which can be found here: whitehouse.gov There is ample historic precedent. Here's one example: after WWI, Germany (which lost) promised to pay reparations to France (which won). When Germany tried to repudiate its obligations, France invaded the Ruhr Valley and seized German factories and applied sales proceeds towards Germany's reparation debt. This is directly analogous to the situation at hand. Iraq invaded Kuwait. The UN authorized the use of force in order to (1) liberate Kuwait and (2) achieve peace in the region. In order to effectuate (2) (peace in the region) the UN ordered Iraq to get rid of its weapons of mass destruction. Iraq remains defiantly non-compliant with UN resolutions. I know you favor multilateralism and the UN, so I am sure that you support compliance with UN resolutions, even if it requires the use of deadly force.

To: Patricia Trinchero who wrote (44152)	9/15/2002 7:08:21 PM
From: quehubo	Respond to of 281500

Patricia - Lets remember the energy companies are here providing a service to our citizens. They exist to meet our rapacious energy needs. The USA (WE including you since you evidently do not live free of petro products) consumes over 25 % of all oil produced each day. Our sons and daughters have volunteered to serve. Opening Iraq's oil to ensure the globe's needs are met and the funds can fall into a friendly Iraqi government's hands is a task they will be assigned. Oil is a fungible product, all this chatter about who will supply what to whom means very little if chaos breaks out. The oil will go to whoever can pay the going price and to whom ever can ensure shipment. Exxon as an example has not been a very profitable investment over the last 10 years as a service providers to our needs. bigcharts.marketwatch.com