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: GST who wrote (54687)	10/25/2002 6:15:52 PM
From: stockman_scott	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 281500

Oil Security By Dev George Managing Editor Oil and Gas International 10/21/2002 Last week, there was quite a lot of talk about oil security - not just the usual posturing by American politicians, but expressions of varying viewpoints that have been provoked by the present tense situation in the Middle East vis-à-vis Bush and Iraq and Sharon & Palestine - the former obsessing about decapitating Iraq, other reasons notwithstanding, to assure oil supply from the second largest oil reserves in the world after Saudi Arabia, and the latter attempting to depopulate lands claimed as Israeli to let Zionist settlers in and, he thinks, achieve a sort of fortress security. Both have alienated world opinion, caused friends to question their alliances, and precipitated a new era of global terrorism on a tragic scale. They have also both led to this latest search for oil security. Least it be forgotten, secure access to oil supply was the driving force behind Nazi Germany's conquest of Eastern Europe and North Africa and its attempt to occupy the Soviet Union. It was, as well, Imperial Japan's reason for invading the East Indies (Southeast Asia). In fact, Bush Senior, it could be argued, prosecuted the Gulf War a decade ago not to rescue Kuwait, but to be sure Iraq didn't take over the oilfields of Saudi Arabia. Actually, the quest for secure sources of oil has a long and chequered history harking back to the time when the colonial powers carved up the world. Oil security is essential for the foreseeable future simply because there is no practical alternative as a source of energy and industrial input. But, other than the scattering of incidences of attacks on oilfields and infrastructure (Sudan, Colombia, Nigeria) by disgruntled guerillas or angry citizens, the real threat to secure oil for the United States and others that support its Middle East policies is the dual dilemma of Iraq and Israel. In the words of UK Minister for Europe Peter Hain at a conference on energy security, "The first priority must be to take action to ensure security in the oil-rich Middle East by creating the conditions for a Palestinian state and a secure Israel." At almost the same time, Malaysia's Prime Minister Mahathir Mohamad, in Pakistan, was once again calling for the Muslim oil-producing countries of the world to use oil as a weapon to influence world opinion. He supports George Bush's so-called war on terrorism, but is strongly opposed to his plan to attack Iraq and his acquiescence in Ariel Sharon's wanton disregard for international law and his determination to eliminate the Palestinians as an obstacle to Israeli expansion. Mahathir is not alone. Some 115 other world governments, including most US allies and even Kuwait, whom Iraq invaded in 1990, have expressed their opposition to Bush's planned invasion of Iraq and called for allowing UN inspectors to try once more to find and eliminate any threatening Iraqi arsenals. Likewise almost to the exact number, there is opposition to Sharon's excessive belligerence. Should the military might, economic power, and political strength of the United States be put to bear to force a just end to the Israeli-Palestinian confrontation and demand Israel return occupied lands and respect an established Palestinian state, the threat to Israel would cease and oil security would be assured. oilandgasinternational.com

To: GST who wrote (54687)	10/26/2002 1:59:58 AM
From: frankw1900	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

all them evil doers So what are we supposed to call the folk who committed the mass murder 9/11? The murderers of the people in Bali? The folk who gassed the villages in N Iraq? They certainly are "activists". I guess we could call them that. They certainly are "radicals" of a certain sort. They murdered a lot of defenceless people, so I guess we could call them "murderers". Now, what did they do? What is so interesting about Bush calling them "evil doers" is how accurate the term is. It's old fashioned and because of that almost quaint, and easy for people to mock. The broader issue of how one is supposed to talk about someone who has proclaimed that he feels it's OK to kill you and your friends because you're kaffirs anyway, and do whatever they like with your children isn't often discussed. Personally, I like to call the present bunch "islamofacists" and Hussein a "psychopath" but that's kind of abstract or namby pamby compared to "evil doers", don't you think? Demonizing an enemy is a common step in preparation to kill. Personally, GST, I don't have to call them anything, if I get them in my sites. But maybe I'm just an insensitive hate monger who doesn't have to get himself up for it. Or perhaps, I've seen what they've done and what they say they'd like to do and believe them. I no longer trust nor believe what Bush and his Administration say -- not because I don't want to, but because it seems increasingly clear to me that they cannot be trusted to be truthful and forthcoming. So, GST, what the hell has it got to do with Bush's truthfulness? It's all public record what's out there. What Bush's administration wants to do is exactly what they say they'd like to do: In the foreign policy context, kill the terrorist network, bring some democracy to the ME and do down Hussein and his administration. They aren't going to say they're going to put the Saudis' nuts in a vise when they do this. The Saudis know this anyway, so why rub it in? They aren't going to say they're taking a bead on all the other failed regimes in the ME and are going to make it really easy for the Israelis to go up the Hizbollah trail and clean house. Why would they? Things are tricky enough already. They aren't going to say what they might do with the oil if they come to control Iraq (which isn't a sure thing) because they probably don't have the faintest idea. I have an idea they'd like to see the stuff flow out and the Iraqis get rich but whatever they say about it, it's going to get up somebody's nose.... They aren't going to say how it's all going to work out because they don't know. They've a good idea how some of it is going to but they don't know for certain - nobody can. What they are saying, for all who care to listen, is that they're not playing the foreign policy game exactly the way they were before 9/11/01. The way it was being done didn't work out that well for the US, did it? Where's the beef?