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: kumar who wrote (64388)	1/5/2003 12:11:55 AM
From: LindyBill	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 281500

Tom Friedman's Sunday NYT Column. It's OK to admit Oil is part of our reason for doing things, we just have to be unselfish about it. Sounds familiar. January 5, 2003 A War for Oil? By THOMAS L. FRIEDMAN Our family spent winter vacation in Colorado, and one day I saw the most unusual site: two women marching around the Aspen Mountain ski lift, waving signs protesting against war in Iraq. One sign said: "Just War or Just Oil?" As I watched this two-woman demonstration, I couldn't help notice the auto traffic whizzing by them: one gas-guzzling S.U.V. or Jeep after another, with even a Humvee or two tossed in for good measure. The whole scene made me wonder whether those two women weren't ? indeed ? asking the right question: Is the war that the Bush team is preparing to launch in Iraq really a war for oil? My short answer is yes. Any war we launch in Iraq will certainly be ? in part ? about oil. To deny that is laughable. But whether it is seen to be only about oil will depend on how we behave before an invasion and what we try to build once we're there. I say this possible Iraq war is partly about oil because it is impossible to explain the Bush team's behavior otherwise. Why are they going after Saddam Hussein with the 82nd Airborne and North Korea with diplomatic kid gloves ? when North Korea already has nuclear weapons, the missiles to deliver them, a record of selling dangerous weapons to anyone with cash, 100,000 U.S. troops in its missile range and a leader who is even more cruel to his own people than Saddam? One reason, of course, is that it is easier to go after Saddam. But the other reason is oil ? even if the president doesn't want to admit it. (Mr. Bush's recent attempt to hype the Iraqi threat by saying that an Iraqi attack on America ? which is most unlikely ? "would cripple our economy" was embarrassing. It made the president look as if he was groping for an excuse to go to war, absent a smoking gun.) Let's cut the nonsense. The primary reason the Bush team is more focused on Saddam is because if he were to acquire weapons of mass destruction, it might give him the leverage he has long sought ? not to attack us, but to extend his influence over the world's largest source of oil, the Persian Gulf. But wait a minute. There is nothing illegitimate or immoral about the U.S. being concerned that an evil, megalomaniacal dictator might acquire excessive influence over the natural resource that powers the world's industrial base. "Would those women protesting in Aspen prefer that Saddam Hussein control the oil instead ? is that morally better?" asks Michael Mandelbaum, the Johns Hopkins foreign policy expert and author of "The Ideas That Conquered the World." "Up to now, Saddam has used his oil wealth not to benefit his people, but to wage war against all his neighbors, build lavish palaces and acquire weapons of mass destruction." This is a good point, but the Bush team would have a stronger case for fighting a war partly for oil if it made clear by its behavior that it was acting for the benefit of the planet, not simply to fuel American excesses. I have no problem with a war for oil ? if we accompany it with a real program for energy conservation. But when we tell the world that we couldn't care less about climate change, that we feel entitled to drive whatever big cars we feel like, that we feel entitled to consume however much oil we like, the message we send is that a war for oil in the gulf is not a war to protect the world's right to economic survival ? but our right to indulge. Now that will be seen as immoral. And should we end up occupying Iraq, and the first thing we do is hand out drilling concessions to U.S. oil companies alone, that perception would only be intensified. And that leads to my second point. If we occupy Iraq and simply install a more pro-U.S. autocrat to run the Iraqi gas station (as we have in other Arab oil states), then this war partly for oil would also be immoral. If, on the other hand, the Bush team, and the American people, prove willing to stay in Iraq and pay the full price, in money and manpower, needed to help Iraqis build a more progressive, democratizing Arab state ? one that would use its oil income for the benefit of all its people and serve as a model for its neighbors ? then a war partly over oil would be quite legitimate. It would be a critical step toward building a better Middle East. So, I have no problem with a war for oil ? provided that it is to fuel the first progressive Arab regime, and not just our S.U.V.'s, and provided we behave in a way that makes clear to the world we are protecting everyone's access to oil at reasonable prices ? not simply our right to binge on it.

To: kumar who wrote (64388)	1/5/2003 4:33:03 AM
From: david	Respond to of 281500

The opposition are millions of Venezuelans, and we air our discomfort with the Revolutionary process in the most Democratic way,, walking the streets and the workers on Strike and the business on LockOut,, when 1.000.000 manifestants are faced with a few hundred thugs sent by the Government we prefer to stop and walk back instead of accepting the provocation and swallow those paid government Circulos. the streets by volume belong to the opposition but by provocation even at a 1000 to 1 we give it up to the violent Circulos. Personally I don't believe Carlos Ortega will be the Lech Walesa of Venezuela, the situation in Venezuela is different, it is not only the head of the syndicates leading the opposition, it is him, the head of the federation of business chambers of Commerce, the Federation of Chambers of industry, The Oil sector, Public workers, the Judicial System workers is coming in to, The mercantile navy, the air pilots, ex buddies of Chavez, politicians from all the sectors ( Left, Right, center, and even ex members of Chavez party) you name it. Right now there are no candidates, the politicians are not heading the movement, when the time comes there will be a few, might be some new guy , one that is very respected but is not on a candidate pat, is the CEo of the oil company, another one is the Governor of the main State in Venezuela ( State of Miranda,,) Enrique Mendoza, an excellent executive with no party alignment,, I hardly think it would be one from the syndicates or from the Chamber of Commerce, Business or Industry. I believe it might be someone with no party alignment and a good executive ( that would be the ideal in order to have a consensus candidate) Thanks kumar