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: Eashoa' M'sheekha who wrote (48068)	9/29/2002 7:23:48 PM
From: JohnM	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 281500

Should not the countries who are going to be threatened by this dilemma of Saddam trying to take control of the oil be more concerned than what they display? I mean, If I were running Saudi Arabia, Libya, Kuwait or Iran etc, I would want Saddam taken out of the picture if these were my concerns. Does the “ Fish Guy “ address this? Yep, I recommend the book. He has a fascinating chapter on what he calls "Regional Perspectives." He offers a thumbnail sketch but, nonetheless, very complicated country by country analysis of public versus private statements, of sometimes conflicting economic interests, all of which nets out to a very confusing picture of what the leadership in each country wishes, what they are likely to do in different eventualities, etc. But the confusion is helpful since life is often like that. Simplicity makes it appear that details are force fed into an argument machine. You will need to remember, of course, that Pollock argues for the necessity of invasion, so long as it's coupled to long term commitment to build a secular based democratic society. I've not yet absorbed enough of it to evaluate parts of the argument or links between various parts such as invade but build.