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: D. Long who wrote (50412)	10/9/2002 4:35:38 AM
From: maceng2	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 281500

LOL! How many DECADES have to pass before that condition is considered met in full? The UN in it's current form is ineffective. I think most agree on that. Getting the world in general behind the USA/UK position is important though. Worthwhile jumping though some extra hoops to get their imho.

To: D. Long who wrote (50412)	10/9/2002 4:54:04 AM
From: zonder	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 281500

I propose a litmus test for when a country really needs to go to war: When there are no doubts as to the necessity among its citizens. When else has the citizens of a country protested in the streets against a war intended by their president? Why would they oppose it if they really felt threatened with an imminent, clear and present danger? Iraq has done nothing that can be considered remotely terrorist in the past decade. You know it, I know it, those protesters in the US know it. 9/11 was done by Bin Laden et al, Saudi Arabia nationals. This is all about oil and regional dominance. We see this quite clearly from Europe. Some of the articles I have read over the past few days on this thread also voice these observations. It is OK for countries to advance their own benefits when they can. I see nothing wrong with the US trying to gain a foothold in Middle East along with one of the greatest oil reserves in the world (nothing wrong with Europe seeing this and trying to prevent it, either) but what is too much is this charade of "We are good, they are evil" and "We will liberate the people of Iraq" et cetera ad nauseam. Sorry if this is a little harsh. I am sure there are people out there who believe that the current US administration has no interest in the oil reserves of Iraq, despite the careers in this industry of the president and those around him, his ties in the oil achievements in this industry, and the rather glaring fact that the guy he put in power in Afghanistan (Hamid Karzai) is an ex-consultant to oil company Unocal in the US, who formerly did negotiations with the Taliban for an oil pipeline. lemonde.fr eurasianet.org globalresearch.ca corpwatch.org greenpartyus.org ... and now it seems this very pipeline is to be constructed under Mr Karzai: news.bbc.co.uk In my humble opinion, it does not take an oracle to read the future at this point. US takes over Iraq. They put a guy of Iraqi origin in power, someone who is familiar with the oil markets there, someone friendly to the US. Just like Hamid Karzai, former consultant to Unocal, present leader of Afghanistan, currently protected by US army personnel. All this is OK. It is normal, even. A country will do what is in its best economic and political interests. Just don't expect people to believe it is all to protect the free world against evil. Or something.