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: Just_Observing who wrote (47725)	9/28/2002 2:16:22 PM
From: aladin	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

JO and others, This one correspondent in one (albeit big) paper speaks for all of Australia? Get real. I could just imagine an Aussie thread basing all of America on Molly Dowd or William Safire. This is a silly argument. John

To: Just_Observing who wrote (47725)	9/28/2002 7:04:17 PM
From: Hawkmoon	Respond to of 281500

That's worth at least three trillion, if not five. $890 million of grain for the Australians versus three thousand billion dollars worth of oil for the US. Whhen Australia's total GDP is only US350 Billion, that's a considerable chunk. But as far as I'm concerned, the numbers are tangental, as is the economic benefits to be derived by the US and other participants in the overthrow of Saddam. The fact is that for 80 years, the Arab world has been unable to get it's collective act together. And ENTIRELY TOO MUCH ATTENTION has been paid to its turmoil and political and economic intrigues. It has spawned Islamic Militancy, Totalitarian dictatorships, as well as a large surplus population that the West is expected to absorb. So while you're "just observing' (no offence meant) those are a few points you might take a glimpse at. As for discrediting Australian media, I believe the article itself was sufficient evidence of that particular source's bias. One only has to look at the title "What the White House really wants", where they purport to know the "real" reason the US wants Saddam Hussein overthrown, and that that reason is just about oil. The US is ALREADY in control over how much oil Iraq pumps and we're the sole purchaser of that oil RIGHT NOW. But for any media source to recklessly claim now, or at the time, that the only reason the US fought Desert Storm was to be in such a position is just intellectually dishonest. And it is just as foolish to make such a claim now. But I will venture to opine that the US want's Iraq pumping oil to its capacity so that the global price of oil declines to a level which properly reflects supply and demand equations. Having Saddam in power artificially raises that price above what it should be, and the global economy is suffering as a result. Hawk