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.

Strategies & Market Trends : Strictly: Drilling II -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: abuelita who wrote (27243)	2/2/2003 11:24:29 AM
From: E. Charters	Respond to of 36161

We must insist that elected MP's do not owe large amounts of money or secret promises to industrial concerns. That they are not meat-puppets of some interest. That they are totally independent. That they are not lawyers (Seriously. it was once the law in England until recently that no lawyer could sit in the commons. This was to prevent the King's trainees from subverting parliament. The Plantagenets invented the science of lawyering to successfully subvert, by passed law, the Magna Carta's guarantees.) That they did not cheat on their academic exams, that they can pass certain tests of academic competency in some discipline.. or have demonstrated the same in their own accord in business. That they are not members of secret societies with no published agenda and rules that can be affirmed in open society. Politics must not become at least the last refuge of a certain class of scoundrels. We must be able to elect men of evident talent and character without the sad corrupt practices of the like of the Republican dirty tricks squad besmirching them. Election of officials has become a motherhood campaign of lowest common denominator issues-campaigning with no free speech of the candidate demonstrating competence, ability or awareness. This is dangerous. Sur le sujet de world situations. It is true that the USA has made many foreign policy incursions into weak countries to merely rubber stamp the domination of US colonial business. This makes the US hated. They overturned Iraq's government in the past for oil. Some think this is the excuse these days too, as the US desperately needs it. Canada of course has enough to fill this need, but it seems a moot point. Would they invade Canada too? Their huge and unreasonable demands on our softwood industry are cruel indeed. It is clearly not free trade, but American dictated cost structures. Would they do this to Canadian oil too? Is this merely a weapon to get a hold of favourable terms for oil and water? At the point of a diplomatic 54% trade-gun? There is that spectre. It is likely in the States favour, that Iraq with the money it can get from oil would seek the same hegemony in the ME that the US would seek if it were in the same position. The same weapons, the same excuses to attack neighbours. (Kuwait was at least slant drilling into Iraq fields with Canadian technology of horizontal drilling.) Every time I come up with the equation that SH and Iraq are dangerous, I come up against the very same fairness edict that after all we have all those weapons too, and we are just a different side of the coin. Is he dangerous? I admit ruthless. He does use poison gas. Well 1 million soldiers died in his war with Iran, which was as much Irans fault as Iraqs. And we admit that fundamentally the Iranians are further along with their nuclear program, and much more polarised against the US. It is a thorny issue indeed. I am not advocating we bury ourselves in soul searching when a possible enemy plans our eventual demise. But we had better find clear issues to advance our actions. I look back and find difficulty justifying our actions in Arabia, Iraq, Nicaragua, Brazil, Argentina, Chile, Honduras, et al. EC<:-}