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 : Formerly About Applied Materials -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: zonder who wrote (67662)	2/6/2003 12:12:30 PM
From: Sun Tzu	Respond to of 70976

Oops! You are correct of course. I meant 20,000 and mistyped. I am sure lack of Kurdish representation is a price for Turkey's cooperation that US will happily pay. BTW, I read a BBC report yesterday about negotiations between US and Iran via Britain as the go-between whereby Iran will not push for democracy in Iraq if the US agrees not to stay there very long and turn the control over to a UN elected body. Democracy in Iraq would mean a Shia government and that is the second last thing Bush wants (the first being the oil). This looks like a bankruptcy court whereby Iraq's assets are auctioned off to pay off the highest credit bond holders (US and UK) first and the rest later on (Russia, France, etc.) and of course some to Iran and Turkey. As in all such judgements, the shareholders (Iraqi populace) will get next to nothing. ST

To: zonder who wrote (67662)	2/6/2003 12:24:17 PM
From: Fred Levine	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 70976

Z-- I'm sorry, but I see no information from either you or Sun regarding the US exploitaition of Iraqi oil. None. Both make assumptions, e.g., Iraq has oil and the US needs oil. Altho correct, my question is either historically or projectively, do you see a policy of US exploitation? That Karzai worked for an oil company doesn't indicate that we are exploiting Afghani oil. You could make a case that we are securing cheap opium since production has increased with the elimination of the Taliban <bg>. It seems to me that we do agree that Saddam is a bad guy. We don't agree whether he should be indicted. Sun wants a perfect world before indictment. We don't agree that the UN is the logical place for the promulgation of international law, and we don't agree whether the US has either the right or responsibility to act alone to stop Saddam, the bad guy. There is also the very legitimate and difficult question of whether the cure of invasion may be worse than the illness of Saddam. Frankly, I agonize over this. I felt that the sanctions hurt Iraqis, especially children, while Saddam still jerked off in his palaces. We also differ on our impression of the UN. I see them as a collection of self-serving states with no concern for human rights, while you don't. We also basically agree that Bush is a moron who has been distracting public opinion from his domestic catastrophies by deceiving Saddam's importance. We disagree that getting the UN in, even by threat, was a positive action that would not be done without Bush's bombast. To me, I don't want the world to turn a blind eye to future holocausts as it has repeatedly in the past. BWAC places Bush in the same league as Saddam, and, IMO, there are profound and intolerable differences between them. To me, Saddam must be stopped. fred