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: tsigprofit who wrote (13394)	2/26/2003 5:47:41 PM
From: PartyTime	Respond to of 25898

This is a pretty simple situation here. As much as Rev. Al Sharpton would like to become the national voice of Black Americans; as much as Nelson Mandela became a voice for all of Africa; as much as Fidel Castro has been a voice throughout Latin and South Ameirca; in essence, so would Saddam Hussein like to become known as the contemporary voice for pan-Arabia. Ironically, Saddam's only competition for this is Osama bin Ladin. I'm surprised Bush is even putting his nose in this contest. And a very deep irony here is that if Bush takes Saddam out of the picture, OBL wins by default. Who are Muslims going to look to as a pan-Arabic leader, the one willing to stand out and take a brave and defient stand, with Saddam gone? With the above established, neither Sharpton, Mandela or Castro have oil connections. More and more, as this debate has unfoled I'm becoming completely convinced that this war is for oil only, nothing else. A close second reason is the theory that taking Saddam out of the picture would help Israel. Bush certainly is not promulgating this war in the interests of Turkey, Iran, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia or Jordan, et. al.; Bush certainly isn't promulgating this war on behalf of both Eastern and Western Europe; and Bush certainly isn't promulgating this war on behalf of Asia, Africa, and Latin and South America. I think what it comes down to is Bush winning a war on Iraq adds a sense of legitimacy to his questional election to the presidency. His oil cabal pals make out, he avenges the embarrassement his father experienced and probably figures he's got 50/50 odds of coming out of this, from a historians perspective, as the great liberator of the MiddleEast, the true democracy-building president. Personally, I think his odds of achieving this are far less, maybe a one in 10 possibility, that he will be a one-term president and that he will leave office in virtual disgrace.