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.

Pastimes : Clown-Free Zone... sorry, no clowns allowed -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: marginmike who wrote (219250)	2/6/2003 1:17:37 PM
From: JRI	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 436258

If you talking about oil argument, no link....I am actually trying to find more information... What part do you disagree with? I think the war, after effects will be 100b easily....I'm pretty certain that Iraqui oil is only 2-3% of US total (and that may be oil imports, not total usage)....etc. For a lot less than 100b, we likely could cut a deal with Venezuela (which has a lot more proven reserves than Iraq) to secure supply/more supply for decades, or even a country like Nigeria....so why, on purely economic terms, why would one invade Iraq when a better (economic) option exists. If its not clear, I'm definently on the side that sees Bush administration acting solely on their belief of the security threat, and economic benefit has played 0 consideration here (note: I am talking Iraq in isolation- perhaps there is a broader argument to say we are wanting to control Iraq as message to Saudi Arabia, etc. not to mess with us/oil supply. That may have more validity, and I'd have to think about it). But Iraq in isolation, I don't think so..