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 (18819)	3/11/2003 3:06:51 PM
From: Hawkmoon	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 25898

Hawk, you're on a one-way street. How 'bout a bit of self-nation analysis, eh? That's a fair question... 1.) If it was just "about oil" the US would have been acting in a unilateral manner towards removing Hugo Chavez, since a large percentage of US oil comes from Venezuela. They US has made a great effort to reduce it's exposure to mid-east oil. And I hope we utterly wean ourselves from it. 2.) The greatest US intest in Iraqi oil is to create the conditions where UN sanctions can be lifted and Iraq brought to full production levels within several years. This is ABSOLUTELY NECESSARY in order to create GLOBAL ECONOMIC GROWTH (not just the US).. The world is FAR MORE dependent, on a percentage of GDP expended for oil, than the US. They are still developing and cheap, plentiful energy is a requisite for their growth. Far more than the more technological west. 3.) The US has offered various "deals" with France and Russia, related to how the US would be willing to support continued participation in Iraqi oil explorations. But that begs the question of what authority the US would have in cutting such deals in the first place.. Deals that would commit any new Iraqi government to honoring them (and thus thrusting blame upon the US and making us a easy target).. Thus, both France and Russia seem willing to deal with the "devil they know" than hope for a better deal with a post-Saddam government (since they would hardly be viewed favorably given how they're being seen as Saddam's salvation and patrons).. Does America have an interest in war testing new military technology as a means of proving military supremecy? That's a double edged sword. The more we reveal, the more any opponent is able to develop counter-measures. Sometimes it's better not to use military technology. It's certainly not a rational for ousting Saddam, except to a few defense manufacturers and military program managers. Does America have interests with Israel, two countries over? What does that have to do with the price of tea in China?? Israel is a democracy and has NEVER threatened to use nuclear weapons (or destroy) any other state, except in self-defence.. The US defends ANY legitimate democracy, not just Israel. And the day that we fail to do so is the day we lose our own "raison d'etre". Why is China willing to protect a madman? Damn good question.. Ask them why their surrogate, Kim Jong Il, is being permitted to nuclearize the Korean Peninsula?? Hawk