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 Policy Discussion Thread -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: skinowski who wrote (3018)	1/30/2003 9:35:55 AM
From: E. T.	Respond to of 15987

I agree. Deposing Saddam is good for the region and the people of Iraq. And only the naive, imo, believe Saddam has no chemical and biological weapons, so there's the added benefit of getting his WMDs off the world stage.

To: skinowski who wrote (3018)	1/30/2003 10:27:00 AM
From: zonder	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 15987

No, Zonder. I don't think you have the answer. Saddam – or any other ruler of Iraq – would continue selling us the oil at market prices. With all due respect, Ski, are you under the impression that the issue here is "buying oil at market prices"? Please read back the points I have cited under "Probably OIL". You will note that scarcity of oil at market prices is not one of the reasons. Controlling the Iraqi oil is desirable for several reasons: (1) Politically - Controlling the second largest reserves in the most important commodity on this planet (2) Economically - If they don't meet significant resistance from OPEC and Russia, and IF American oil corporations who will manage the Iraqi oil agree, they could bring down the price of oil. That would be a huge benefit to the US economy in general (3) Individually - US oil corporations who supported Bush to this point would be happy to go ape on the world's second largest oil reserves that also happen to be very shallow and hence low-cost. Incidentally, either yesterday or the day before, there was an article in the Wall Street Journal about who the will own the oil after the invasion. It argued to the effect of "1907 Hague Convention says even under invasion, a country's natural resources such as its forests and petroleum reserves belong to its people. However, if a country can argue the invasion was "right", than they can have a lot of leeway." Sorry I don't remember the exact wording, but clearly, US is a bit interested in getting their hands on Iraq's oil. A pro- American regime in Iraq – along with a continued American military presence in Iraq – would make a great difference in the global balance. You are talking about a puppet government and imperialism. Surely it will profoundly affect global balance, but probably not for the better. All of a sudden, it would become "uncool" and dangerous to be an extremist. Really? To me, it seems it would be extremely cool to be fighting the "invaders of the Muslim faith" and their citizens wherever they are to be found on this planet. All in all, it would be a good thing. Your vision is one of optimism, and I hope from the bottom of my heart that it comes true.