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 : Stockman Scott's Political Debate Porch -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: American Spirit who wrote (11069)	1/5/2003 5:25:22 PM
From: stockman_scott	Respond to of 89467

A War for Oil? By THOMAS L. FRIEDMAN Columnist The New York Times January 5th, 2003 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. nytimes.com

To: American Spirit who wrote (11069)	1/7/2003 5:14:23 PM
From: Jim Willie CB	Read Replies (4) \| Respond to of 89467

Payroll tax cut now to simulate the economy that buys perhaps 6 months of consumer spending Repeal of Bush estate tax cuts to pay for it estate taxes take money from successful people and give it to inefficent and lazy and inept people Honest accounting by government, no cooked books dream on Will tell people no free lunch. Take your pick, big tax cuts or fewer services. New honesty that way. free lunches will escalate, tax hikes are widening now at state level, and will soon rise again federally when dollar crisis hits, honesty is thing of past, dream on Immediate small business incentives to create jobs. jobs to produce what? exactly what has not been overproduced... economics is not your strong suit Incentives to jumpstart stalled technology sector. incentives to produce what? exactly what has not been overproduced... economics is not your strong suit Building infrastructures for homeland security and energy. well along with security, now just need workers who are not asleep next to their million dollar equipment... by energy, do you mean repeal of obstructionist environmental laws? Aggressive closing of tax loopholes and tax havens. every tax reform has created more loopholes and havens... you are deluded by your ideals amidst a world of corruption by Ruling Elite Tougher corporate reforms. like CEO/CFO balance sheet signature law... now there is a landmark piece of legislation that turned the corporate world around... legislating ethics is an absurdity Energy efficiency incentives these will be sacraficed like lambs at barbeque hour, when jobs are shed by the tens of thousands STICK WITH THE DAY JOB YOUR PABLUM IS STRAIGHT OUT OF FAILED KEYNESIAN 101 IF YOU CANNOT EXPLAIN WHY YOUR MEASURES FAILED IN JAPAN... SHUT THE HELL UP what do you do with the colossal debts in corporations, households, and federal? how do you react to the 4.5x multiplier in creation of new money for producing a single unit of GDP? when do you bring down the USDollar by 30% so as to create a balanced international trade framework? do you talk about real money, or continue to assume that present money will begin miraculously to work properly? will you force appropriate and obligated pension funding, even if means stock profits disappear altogether? how to you mollify Arabs who are departing our financial markets, esp Trez debt support? get a grip with yourself you are far too impressed with yourself the biggest difference between us is that I KNOW I AM A JACKASS, AND YOU HAVE YET TO LEARN THAT FACT / jim