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: JohnM who wrote (48561)	10/1/2002 3:33:47 PM
From: Ilaine	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

The wmd arguments follow on that one. He gets nuclear, it increase his prospects of gaining more control over oil markets. Saddam aspires to the position of OPEC czar? Who knew? Seriously, though, if Pollack argues that, it's the first I've heard of it. I took a look at the book and lightly skimmed it, and did not see any arguments or evidence I had not encountered yet, so I decided to not take the time.

To: JohnM who wrote (48561)	10/1/2002 3:38:26 PM
From: spiral3	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 281500

It's all about oil policy I mentioned this in my very first post on this board I mentioned this to Nadine the other day I mentioned this to you yesterday why does it take you so long to catch on I guess because it’s all about perception oil is for conspiracy theorists not for guys like you they can’t just explain this problem to the world because they are perceived as having no principles wonder why the defficiency comes from a paradox thats come about from a new combination one that they cannot reconcile

To: JohnM who wrote (48561)	10/1/2002 3:53:49 PM
From: aladin	Respond to of 281500

JohnM, Your correct in Pollocks argument (or at least we agree in that interpretation :-). To explain - it is about WMD and Oil. Its not Iraq's own oil thats a concern, but how he could use WMD to exert influence, if not control, over the Iranian, Kuwaiti, Emirite and Saudi fields. He thinks that Saddam would not hesitate to use a nuclear weapon to this end. Now the real worst case scenario for the democrats and the UN would be an Iraqi nuclear test just before the election in November. The UN would have been used to delay our attack until he could negate it :-) John

To: JohnM who wrote (48561)	10/1/2002 4:04:46 PM
From: carranza2	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

I, definitely, no longer think this. It's all about oil policy I've been saying this ever since the issue came up, though your articulation is far too simplistic. It's about the power Saddam gets to hold us hostage economically through potential control over oil fields should he get nukes. The other WMDs don't matter as he unlikely to use them and/or they are difficult to use effectively in any attempt to control oil fields. He's history if he ever uses them on Israel, so he won't. It's about nukes and the power they give him over oil. Period. Full stop. I thought everyone knew that. It's as clear as a bell to me. I hope you don't subscribe to the notion that we came to the aid of the Kuwaitis because of some breezy notion that has nothing to do with oil and the proximity of Saddam's troops to Saudi Arabia. If you do, it's time to wipe your glasses and take a step off the ivory tower. Forget morals, the Kurds, right or wrong, etc., or any other justification designed to gather support for an invasion. It's pure 100% realpolitik. Any beneficial effect on the war against terrorism is lagniappe. The only question that is of any interest to me is the extent to which we play the nation building game after Saddam is gone. I think, on balance, that our long term interests require us to make a substantial effort, even if it fails.