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: PartyTime who wrote (6018)	2/6/2003 9:05:10 PM
From: Machaon	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 25898

<< Kuwait and Saudi Arabia always comes to America's rescue when it comes to oil. >> Of course they do, they like the money and the stability. But, if you are accusing America of going to war to get oil, it might have been very easy to take Kuwait's, or Saudi's oil, and then we wouldn't have to be subject to their whims. To take Iraq's oil, we would have to go against Russia, China, and every other country in the region. If America was that reckless and aggressive, we would have already attacked Iraq. Anyone who thinks that we are preparing to attack Iraq to steal their oil, is not in touch with reality. << Fact of the matter is the US powers that be--not the ordinary citizens--do not want a strong man in the Middle East unless that strong man behaves as did the Shah of Iran. >> Of course. The Arabs are a very backward, violent people, who are currently not able to understand or support democracies. The world is better off if the Arab people are kept sedated. I would hope for the Arabs to have benevolent dictators, but it's important that they have rulers that aren't going to make war on it's neighbors. << For example, can you answer why the US vetoed the UN resolution condemning Iraq when it invaded Iran? >> That one is easy. Iraq was our ally at that time. Iran was a terrorist threat, and was a real threat to stability in the Middle East. I agreed with our policy, and was sad when the Iraq/Iran war was over. "The enemy of my enemy is my friend". << Meanwhile, it's easier for the Arab monarchies to maintain their power base if they know they can call on the US for assistance. >> What are friends for? << What Saddam has been attempting has been to become an influential strong man of the Middle East, having his power spread far and wide throughout the region. >> Just like Hitler, but Hitler didn't have weapons of mass destruction. << I think anyone who thinks he has an interest in attacking the US is, well, frankly, nuts! >> I think that anyone who thinks that they can understand the unbalanced mind of Saddam, is suffering from delusions. You are saying that, you know that America defeated Saddam, but that you also know that Saddam has no hard feelings. You are saying that, just because Saddam has chemical weapons and biological weapons, that you know that Saddam wouldn't dare to give any of these weapons to terrorist groups. You are saying that Saddam is a legitimate leader and does not have a criminal mind, nor criminal intentions. But, even if he is a criminal, all Saddam wants to do is take over the Middle East. Just give Saddam the Middle East, and then the world will be at peace? You sound like you really know what you are talking about. <g>

To: PartyTime who wrote (6018)	2/6/2003 9:06:40 PM
From: Bob Mohebbi	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 25898

Saudi, Kuwait and the United Arab Emarats are the U.k. stooges and I say no more.