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 : DON'T START THE WAR -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: LPS5 who wrote (5566)	2/5/2003 4:48:51 PM
From: PartyTime	Respond to of 25898

Sorry, LPS, I didn't note your post. I'm now sitting with 245 on the inbox and simply can't handle 'em all--lol! However, toward what you wrote: >>>That the mere existence of remote possibilities justifies inaction?<<< Looked at another we we could ask: Does the mere existence of remote possibilities justifies action? I think the real nitty-gritty is that the Bush Administration, given its unique connection to the oil industry, is fearful of a strongman leader in the Middle East, especially one who'd control over the best of all oil ratios, that is oil already extracted measured against oil that can become extracted. For the oilers, Iraq is indeed the future and I think they feel they need the power to manipulate it both ways; either by keeping it out of the market, or by putting it into the market. I wish it were a "we're coming in to save the people" type proposition. But it's clearly not. Were this the standard, America would have behaved differently with many other natoins. I think the Bush cabal plans to get the US foothold into the area and then begin chipping away at Iran's younger generation. Perhaps there's also a thought that by having American influences so close to Saudi Arabia and other surrounding nations breeding young radials, that it can somehow repel growth of Al Qaeda. I ultimately think Bush wants the Middle East either in a state of confusion or in a state of subservience to America. Regarding today's action, more than what Powell pointed out (and this certainly needs further study, not war action) I think the new position of the French gets the story of the day: that a UN policy of containment should prevail. In my way of thinking--and I believe most populations of the world will believe similarly--containment is the only appropriate present response to what today is happening in Iraq, this coupled with a lifting of sanctions for humanitarian reasons. And what of this question: Has the US ever attempted to get Iraq's help on repulsing Al Qaeda? Has the US even asked for such assistance?