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: Neocon who wrote (3072)	1/31/2003 1:02:54 PM
From: zonder	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 15987

It may be possible to take reparations (i.e. pay for the invasion) with the oil. (Did you mean "reparations" as payment for costs, or repairing the damages in Iraq? "Paying for the invasion" (i.e. cost of the planes, people, food, tanks, etc) is not exactly the same thing as "paying for reparations". I am not sure of how legal paying for the invasion is, nor how it will be calculated and where it wil stop. In any case, the Administration has categorically said that the oil belonged to the Iraqi nation. So you think their management will be turned over to Iraqi corporations to be formed? There is little reason to field such a large army, or to seek WMDs, unless he has designs on the Arabian peninsula. How about trying to protect the country from outside attacks, such as an invasion? :-) They might feel just a bit threatened with all those planes flying overhead, and occasionally, bombing, you know... inherently dangerous for the Saudis and various emirates. They cannot defend themselves, only the United States can. I wonder why they oppose this invasion, then. But why should we wait until he has an enhanced capacity to use biochemical weapons, or the ability to blackmail them with a nuclear weapon? Because sanctioning "preemptive attacks" is very dangerous for the future of this planet. And that is only the first reason that comes to mind.