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 (17526)	3/8/2003 11:26:32 AM
From: Sojourner Smith	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 25898

I disagree on several points. first A. oil: 1. any gain from oil would be offset by the cost of the war for years. And there is a high chance some well may permanently destroyed by Saddam. (If the wells are blown up they can be virtually impossible to recover.) 2. oil can easily replaced by grain or sugar or fuel cells, would cost consumers more but worth it IMO. (Brazil for for instance uses sugar cane.) 3. the US governments (under Clinton too) knew what oil means to many "developing nations". It is what keeps those with oil out of World Bank debt. It is in the US interest to keep oil as a fuel still needed so Saudis and Middle East "friends" something they can sell. B. Next point: The reason why we are going to war: 1. is the US wants the create another moderate state like Turkey in the region so that Israel will have a more moderate climate to reach an agreement with Israel. 2. If Iraq is able to, they will attempt to attack Israel. Saddams goal was PanArab Stalinist state. 3. Saddam and Iran are supporting terrorists in Gaza and West Bank. Direct funding. 4. The hope is it will start a trend toward more moderate states. --------- Both the Bush camp and the anti-war group are not being honest about their motavations. IMO the anti-war group are concentrating on the red-herring of oil, because they don't want admit they are anti-Jewish. The Bush camp keeps talking about a threat to our homeland or "national interests" when really the don't want to appear Pro-Jewish. The reason: if we appear pro-Jewish then we can't act as an honest broker of peace, and here, being pro-Jewish is not considered politically helpfull. Notice how Hillary Clinton supports Bush on this. Why, because she has lots of Jewish voters. I will make it clear here that I support Israel, but feel that most the settlements should be removed. C. Politically speaking, a wag the dog scenerio IMO is not true, as it was not under Clinton. Both men knew it is important to stand up to homocidal dictators. Unfortunatly most people in the world (including the so-called peace movement) don't care if other people suffer. IMO the UN has failed over and over again to stop genocide. The US is only country who consistantly steps up to the plate to protect the people of the world.

To: PartyTime who wrote (17526)	3/8/2003 12:39:25 PM
From: Machaon	Respond to of 25898

<< However, to the White House insiders, the turn at this dice is worth the risk because not only will it secure world domination over the supply of oil for a long time to come-- >> You think that the crazed, mass murderer, Saddam is not a threat, but you know that America has more to gain by spending $200 billion on a war, only to get control over Iraq oil. Of course, all America has to do, is to lift the oil embargo on Iraq , and the price of oil will plummet, and America could get a thousand times as much oil, for much cheaper. How do you explain why America hasn't taken Kuwaiti oil? Why hasn't America invaded Venezuala, to get it's oil? You think that America is a oil grabbing bully, but, America mostly has a record of defending freedom and democracy, world wide. If you were in charge, it would be very comforting, knowing that someone like you, would safeguard the world's freedom and democracy. (just kidding, of course).