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: Mark Konrad who wrote (13426)	2/26/2003 8:02:01 PM
From: bacchus_ii	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 25898

"I know the true motives lie in oil"...what is the source of this "knowledge?" Question: If the motive (for war) is oil, why didn't we take Iraq in '91 or seize Kuwait since we already had 500,000 troops on the ground? Answer: In '91 US would had to share the control of oil with too many. Kuwait is too little.

To: Mark Konrad who wrote (13426)	2/26/2003 8:13:44 PM
From: Steeny	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 25898

Do you honestly think we would be going into Iraq if not for the oil? We saved Kuwait because we feared Husein would next take our good "friends" the Saudis & gain control of 40% of the world's oil. I don't think the US wants to take control of other countires but we have always acted primarily to protect our financial interests, which is why we did not seize Kuwait. The Marshall plan is generally considered the crux of the post WW2 boom in the US economy. We did not lose anything on the Marshall plan. Have you ever studied it? Bottomline, we lent the Europeans money to pay American companies & farmers to rebuild & feed Europe. It was a massive success for both sides. I agree we may turn on the Iraqi oil taps to pay for this war. If that is true, why hasn't Bush said so? Because he knows the world will accuse him of going in for the oil. It might become an unacceptable solution if the Arab world views it as theft. However, I still think that some deal between us & the new Iraqi leadership will help pay for the war. GWB is the first President in my memory to have such total disdain for our allies. Do you think GHWB, Reagan, Ford, Nixon, or Ike would have handled the leadup to war without first gaining the support of our allies? Ike is probably one of my favorite Presidents by the way. I agree the UN is not a good tool for war. It was not meant to be. It was supposed to allow the freeflow of ideas between nations. The US got rich becuase of the trade we have done with our allies. We need them.

To: Mark Konrad who wrote (13426)	2/26/2003 8:29:23 PM
From: PartyTime	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 25898

>>>It's about respect for human life, particularly American human life, which is the first and foremost job of our federal government.<<< So you're in favor of OBL recruiting more terrorists, huh? That, along with a wider hatred for America, is all that this war will bring. And, yes, contrary to your assertion some powerful forces will control that oil: a) control it to keep it off the market; or control it to keep it on the market. Again, this is all based on speculation. We're gonna kill people only--and I stress the term only--'cause we think they might do something to us. Yeah, that's a nice way to get along. I think all we're learning from this is that Bush would be the first one to draw in a good ole' fashion Western gunfight.